## The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

Author: J. N. Larned

Release date: June 13, 2022 [eBook #68302]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Original publication: United States: C. A. Nichols Co, 1895

Credits: Don Kostuch

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 3, GREECE TO NIBELUNGEN ***

    [Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide
    continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

    1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
       brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
       case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

       To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:
         "^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)

    2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
       placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
       without surrounding empty lines.

    3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
       between subjects.

    5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
       with spaces and newlines.

    6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
       Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
       (as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.

       Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
       immediately follow the main title.

       Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
       any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
       spaces.

       References to other articles in this work are in all upper case
       (as in the original) and indented six spaces. They usually
       begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".

       Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
       and in italics (as in the original). The bibliography in Volume
       1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
       including URLs of available internet versions.

       ----------Subject: Start--------
       ----------Subject: End----------
       indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other
       large block.

       To search for words separated by an unknown number of other
       characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words "first"
       and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:
         "first.{1,100}second"

    End Transcriber's Notes.]

    ----------------------------------

    History For Ready Reference, Volume 3 of 6

    From The Best
    Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

    Their Own Words In A Complete
    System Of History

    For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,
    And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better
    And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language.

    BY J. N. LARNED

    With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies
    And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley

    In Five Volumes

    Volume III—Greece To Nibelungen Lied

    Springfield, Mass.
    The C. A. Nichols Co., Publishers

    MDCCCXCV

    Copyright, 1894.
    By J. N. Larned.

    The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A.
    Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

    List Of Maps.

    Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century,
       and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire,
       To follow page 1708.

    Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the Seventh Century,
       and A. D. 1492, To follow page 1804.

    TWO maps of Italy, A. D. 1815 to 1859, and 1861,
       To follow page 1864.

    Four maps of the Empire of Alexander the Great
       and his successors, To follow page 2061.

    Map of the Mongol Empire, A. D. 1300, On page 2223.

    Logical Outline, In Colors.

    Irish History, To follow page 1754

    Chronological Tables.

    The Seventh Century, On page 2073

    The Eighth Century, On page 2074

    {1565}

       ----------GREECE: Start----------

          [Footnote: An important part of Greek history is treated
          more fully under the heading "ATHENS" (in Volume 1), to
          which the reader is referred.
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65306]

    GREECE:
       The Land.

       Its geographical characteristics, and their influence upon the
       People.

       "The considerable part played by the people of Greece during
       many ages must undoubtedly be ascribed to the geographical
       position of their country. Other tribes having the same
       origin, but inhabiting countries less happily situated—such,
       for instance, as the Pelasgians of Illyria, who are believed
       to be the ancestors of the Albanians—have never risen above a
       state of barbarism, whilst the Hellenes placed themselves at
       the head of civilised nations, and opened fresh paths to their
       enterprise. If Greece had remained for ever what it was during
       the tertiary geological epoch—a vast plain attached to the
       deserts of Libya, and run over by lions and the
       rhinoceros—would it have become the native country of a
       Phidias, an Æschylos, or a Demosthenes? Certainly not. It
       would have shared the fate of Africa, and, far from taking the
       initiative in civilisation, would have waited for an impulse
       to be given to it from beyond. Greece, a sub-peninsula of the
       peninsula of the Balkans, was even more completely protected
       by transverse mountain barriers in the north than was Thracia
       or Macedonia. Greek culture was thus able to develop itself
       without fear of being stifled at its birth by successive
       invasions of barbarians. Mounts Olympus, Pelion, and Ossa,
       towards the north and east of Thessaly, constituted the first
       line of formidable obstacles towards Macedonia. A second
       barrier, the steep range of the Othrys, runs along what is the
       present political boundary of Greece. To the south of the Gulf
       of Lamia a fresh obstacle awaits us, for the range of the Œta
       closes the passage, and there is but the narrow pass of the
       Thermopylæ between it and the sea. Having crossed the
       mountains of the Locri and descended into the basin of Thebæ,
       there still remain to be crossed the Parnes or the spurs of
       the Cithæron before we reach the plains of Attica. The
       'isthmus' beyond these is again defended by transverse
       barriers, outlying ramparts, as it were, of the mountain
       citadel of the Peloponnesus, that acropolis of all Greece.
       Hellas has frequently been compared to a series of chambers,
       the doors of which were strongly bolted; it was difficult to
       get in, but more difficult to get out again, owing to their
       stout defenders. Michelet likens Greece to a trap having three
       compartments. You entered, and found yourself taken first in
       Macedonia, then in Thessaly, then between the Thermopylæ and
       the isthmus. But the difficulties increase beyond the isthmus,
       and Lacedæmonia remained impregnable for a long time. At an
       epoch when the navigation even of a land-locked sea like the
       Ægean was attended with danger, Greece found herself
       sufficiently protected against the invasions of oriental
       nations; but, at the same time, no other country held out such
       inducements to the pacific expeditions of merchants. Gulfs and
       harbours facilitated access to her Ægean coasts, and the
       numerous outlying islands were available as stations or as
       places of refuge. Greece, therefore, was favourably placed for
       entering into commercial intercourse with the more highly
       civilised peoples who dwelt on the opposite coasts of Asia
       Minor. The colonists and voyagers of Eastern Ionia not only
       supplied their Achæan and Pelasgian kinsmen with foreign
       commodities and merchandise, but they also imparted to them
       the myths, the poetry, the sciences, and the arts of their
       native country. Indeed, the geographical configuration of
       Greece points towards the east, whence she has received her
       first enlightenment. Her peninsulas and outlying islands
       extend in that direction; the harbours on her eastern coasts
       are most commodious, and afford the best shelter; and the
       mountain-surrounded plains there offer the best sites for
       populous cities. … The most distinctive feature of Hellas,
       as far as concerns the relief of the ground, consists in the
       large number of small basins, separated one from the other by
       rocks or mountain ramparts. The features of the ground thus
       favoured the division of the Greek people into a multitude of
       independent republics. Every town had its river, its
       amphitheatre of hills or mountains, its acropolis, its fields,
       pastures, and forests, and nearly all of them had, likewise,
       access to the sea. All the elements required by a free
       community were thus to be found within each of these small
       districts, and the neighbourhood of other towns, equally
       favoured, kept alive perpetual emulation, too frequently
       degenerating into strife and battle. The islands of the Ægean
       Sea, likewise, had constituted themselves into miniature
       republics. Local institutions thus developed themselves
       freely, and even the smallest island of the Archipelago has
       its great representatives in history. But whilst there thus
       exists the greatest diversity, owing to the configuration of
       the ground and the multitude of islands, the sea acts as a
       binding element, washes every coast, and penetrates far
       inland. These gulfs and numerous harbours have made the
       maritime inhabitants of Greece a nation of sailors—amphibiæ,
       as Strabo called them. From the most remote times the passion
       for travel has always been strong amongst them. When the
       inhabitants of a town grew too numerous to support themselves
       upon the produce of their land, they swarmed out like bees,
       explored the coasts of the Mediterranean, and, when they had
       found a site which recalled their native home, they built
       themselves a new city. … The Greeks held the same position
       relatively to the world of the ancients which is occupied at
       the present time by the Anglo-Saxons with reference to the
       entire earth. There exists, indeed, a remarkable analogy
       between Greece, with its archipelago, and the British Islands,
       at the other extremity of the continent. Similar geographical
       advantages have brought about similar results, as far as
       commerce is concerned, and between the Ægean and the British
       seas time and space have effected a sort of harmony."

          E. Reclus,
          The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
          volume 1, pages 36-38.

       "The independence of each city was a doctrine stamped deep on
       the Greek political mind by the very nature of the Greek land.
       How truly this is so is hardly fully understood till we see
       that land with our own eyes. The map may do something; but no
       map can bring home to us the true nature of the Greek land
       till we have stood on a Greek hill-top, on the akropolis of
       Athens or the loftier akropolis of Corinth, and have seen how
       thoroughly the land was a land of valleys cut off by hills, of
       islands and peninsulas cut off by arms of sea, from their
       neighbours on either side.
    {1566}
       Or we might more truly say that, while the hills fenced them
       off from their neighbours, the arms of the sea laid them open
       to their neighbours. Their waters might bring either friends
       or enemies; but they brought both from one wholly distinct and
       isolated piece of land to another. Every island, every valley,
       every promontory, became the seat of a separate city; that is,
       according to Greek notions, the seat of an independent power,
       owning indeed many ties of brotherhood to each of the other
       cities which helped to make up the whole Greek nation, but
       each of which claimed the right of war and peace and separate
       diplomatic intercourse, alike with every other Greek city and
       with powers beyond the bounds of the Greek world. Corinth
       could treat with Athens and Athens with Corinth, and Corinth
       and Athens could each equally treat with the King of the
       Macedonians and with the Great King of Persia. … How close
       the Greek states are to one another, and yet how physically
       distinct they are from one another, it needs, for me at least,
       a journey to Greece fully to take in."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Practical Bearings of European History
          (Lectures to American Audiences),
          pages 243-244.

    GREECE: Ancient inhabitants.
       Tribal divisions.

          See PELASGIANS; HELLENES; ACHAIA; ÆOLIANS;
          and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    GREECE: The Heroes and their Age.
       "The period included between the first appearance of the
       Hellenes in Thessaly and the return of the Greeks from Troy,
       is commonly known by the name of the heroic age, or ages. The
       real limits of this period cannot be exactly defined. The date
       of the siege of Troy is only the result of a doubtful
       calculation [ending B. C. 1183, as reckoned by Eratosthenes,
       but fixed at dates ranging from 33 to 63 years later by
       Isocrates, Callimachus and other Greek writers]; and … the
       reader will see that it must be scarcely possible to ascertain
       the precise beginning of the period: but still, so far as its
       traditions admit of anything like a chronological connexion,
       its duration may be estimated at six generations, or about 200
       years [say from some time in the 14th to some time in the 12th
       century before Christ]. … The history of the heroic age is
       the history of the most celebrated persons belonging to this
       class, who, in the language of poetry, are called 'heroes.'
       The term 'hero' is of doubtful origin, though it was clearly a
       title of honour; but, in the poems of Homer, it is applied not
       only to the chiefs, but also to their followers, the freemen
       of lower rank, without, however, being contrasted with any
       other, so as to determine its precise meaning. In later times
       its use was narrowed, and in some degree altered: it was
       restricted to persons, whether of the heroic or of after ages,
       who were believed to be endowed with a superhuman, though not
       a divine, nature, and who were honoured with sacred rites, and
       were imagined to have the power of dispensing good or evil to
       their worshippers; and it was gradually combined with the
       notion of prodigious strength and gigantic stature. Here,
       however, we have only to do with the heroes as men. The
       history of their age is filled with their wars, expeditions,
       and adventures, and this is the great mine from which the
       materials of the Greek poetry were almost entirely drawn."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

       The legendary heroes whose exploits and adventures became the
       favorite subjects of Greek tragedy and song were Perseus,
       Hercules, Theseus, the Argonauts, and the heroes of the Siege
       of Troy.

    GREECE:
       The Migrations of the Hellenic tribes in the Peninsula.

       "If there is any point in the annals of Greece at which we can
       draw the line between the days of myth and legend and the
       beginnings of authentic history, it is at the moment of the
       great migrations. Just as the irruption of the Teutonic tribes
       into the Roman empire in the 5th century after Christ marks
       the commencement of an entirely new era in modern Europe, so
       does the invasion of Southern and Central Greece by the
       Dorians, and the other tribes whom they set in motion, form
       the first landmark in a new period of Hellenic history. Before
       these migrations we are still in an atmosphere which we cannot
       recognize as that of the historical Greece that we know. The
       states have different boundaries, some of the most famous
       cities have not yet been founded, tribes who are destined to
       vanish occupy prominent places in the land, royal houses of a
       foreign stock are established everywhere, the distinction
       between Hellene and Barbarian is yet unknown. We cannot
       realize a Greece where Athens is not yet counted as a great
       city, while Mycenae is a seat of empire; where the Achaian
       element is everywhere predominant, and the Dorian element is
       as yet unknown. When, however, the migrations are ended, we at
       once find ourselves in a land which we recognize as the Greece
       of history. The tribes have settled into the districts which
       are to be their permanent abodes, and have assumed their
       distinctive characters. … The original impetus which set the
       Greek tribes in motion came from the north, and the whole
       movement rolled southward and eastward. It started with the
       invasion of the valley of the Peneus by the Thessalians, a
       warlike but hitherto obscure tribe, who had dwelt about Dodona
       in the uplands of Epirus. They crossed the passes of Pindus,
       and flooded down into the great plain to which they were to
       give their name. The tribes which had previously held it were
       either crushed and enslaved, or pushed forward into Central
       Greece by the wave of invasion. Two of the displaced races
       found new homes for themselves by conquest. The Arnaeans, who
       had dwelt in the southern lowlands along the courses of
       Apidanus and Enipeus, came through Thermopylae, pushed the
       Locriams aside to right and left, and descended into the
       valley of the Cephissus, where they subdued the Minyae of
       Orchomenus [see MINYI], and then, passing south, utterly
       expelled the Cadmeians of Thebes. The plain country which they
       had conquered received a single name. Boeotia became the
       common title of the basins of the Cephissus and the Asopus,
       which had previously been in the hands of distinct races. Two
       generations later the Boeotians endeavoured to cross
       Cithaeron, and add Attica to their conquests; but their king
       Xanthus fell in single combat with Melanthus, who fought in
       behalf of Athens, and his host gave up the enterprise. In
       their new country the Boeotians retained their national unity
       under the form of a league, in which no one city had authority
       over another, though in process of time Thebes grew so much
       greater than her neighbours that she exercised a marked
       preponderance over the other thirteen members of the
       confederation. Orchomenus, whose Minyan inhabitants had been
       subdued but not exterminated by the invaders, remained
       dependent on the league without being
       at first amalgamated with it.
    {1567}
       A second tribe who were expelled by the irruption of the
       Thessalians were the Dorians, a race whose name is hardly
       heard in Homer, and whose early history had been obscure and
       insignificant. They had till now dwelt along the western slope
       of Pindus. Swept on by the invaders, they crossed Mount
       Othrys, and dwelt for a time in the valley of the Spercheius
       and on the shoulders of Oeta. But the land was too narrow for
       them, and, after a generation had passed, the bulk of the
       nation moved southward to seek a wider home, while a small
       fraction only remained in the valleys of Oeta. Legends tell us
       that their first advance was made by the Isthmus of Corinth,
       and was repulsed by the allied states of Peloponnesus, Hyllus
       the Dorian leader having fallen in the fight by the hand of
       Echemus, King of Tegea. But the grandsons of Hyllus resumed
       his enterprise, and met with greater success. Their invasion
       was made, as we are told, in conjunction with their neighbours
       the Aetolians, and took the Aetolian port of Naupactus as its
       base. Pushing across the narrow strait at the mouth of the
       Corinthian Gulf, the allied hordes landed in Peloponnesus, and
       forced their way down the level country on its western coast,
       then the land of the Epeians, but afterwards to be known as
       Elis and Pisatis. This the Aetolians took as their share,
       while the Dorians pressed further south and east, and
       successively conquered Messenia, Laconia, and Argolis,
       destroying the Cauconian kingdom of Pylos and the Achaian
       states of Sparta and Argos. There can be little doubt that the
       legends of the Dorians pressed into a single generation the
       conquests of a long series of years. … It is highly probable
       that Messenia was the first seized of the three regions, and
       Argos the latest … but of the details or dates of the Dorian
       conquests we know absolutely nothing. Of the tribes whom the
       Dorians supplanted, some remained in the land as subjects to
       their newly found masters, while others took ship and fled
       over sea. The stoutest-hearted of the Achaians of Argolis,
       under Tisamenus, a grandson of Agamemnon, retired northward
       when the contest became hopeless, and threw themselves on the
       coast cities of the Corinthian Gulf, where up to this time the
       Ionic tribe of the Aegialeans had dwelt. The Ionians were
       worsted, and fled for refuge to their kindred in Attica, while
       the conquerors created a new Achaia between the Arcadian
       Mountains and the sea, and dwelt in the twelve cities which
       their predecessors had built. The rugged mountains of Arcadia
       were the only part of Peloponnesus which were to escape a
       change of masters resulting from the Dorian invasion. A
       generation after the fall of Argos, new war-bands thirsting
       for land pushed on to the north and west, led by descendants
       of Temenus. The Ionic towns of Sicyon and Phlius, Epidaurus
       and Troezen, all fell before them. Even the inaccessible
       Acropolis which protected the Aeolian settlement of Corinth
       could not preserve it from the hands of the enterprising
       Aletes. Nor was it long before the conquerors pressed on from
       Corinth beyond the isthmus, and attacked Attica. Foiled in
       their endeavour to subdue the land, they at least succeeded in
       tearing from it its western districts, where the town of
       Megara was made the capital of a new Dorian state, and served
       for many generations to curb the power of Athens. From
       Epidaurus a short voyage of fifteen miles took the Dorians to
       Aegina, where they formed a settlement which, first as a
       vassal to Epidaurus, and then as an independent community,
       enjoyed a high degree of commercial prosperity. It is not the
       least curious feature of the Dorian invasion that the leaders
       of the victorious tribe, who, like most other royal houses,
       claimed to descend from the gods and boasted that Heracles was
       their ancestor, should have asserted that they were not
       Dorians by race, but Achaians. Whether the rude northern
       invaders were in truth guided by princes of a different blood
       and higher civilization than themselves, it is impossible to
       say. … In all probability the Dorian invasion was to a
       considerable extent a check in the history of the development
       of Greek civilization, a supplanting of a richer and more
       cultured by a poorer and wilder race. The ruins of the
       prehistoric cities, which were supplanted by new Dorian
       foundations, point to a state of wealth to which the country
       did not again attain for many generations. On the other hand,
       the invasion brought about an increase in vigour and moral
       earnestness. The Dorians throughout their history were the
       sturdiest and most manly of the Greeks. The god to whose
       worship they were especially devoted was Apollo, the purest,
       the noblest, the most Hellenic member of the Olympian family.
       By their peculiar reverence for this noble conception of
       divinity, the Dorians marked themselves out as the most moral
       of the Greeks."

          C. W. C. Oman,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Duncker,
          History of Greece,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          introduction, and book 1, chapters 1-5.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 3-8 (volume 2).

          See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS;
          ACHAIA; ÆOLIANS; THESSALY;
          and BŒOTIA.

    GREECE:
       The Migrations to Asia Minor and the Islands of the Ægean.
       Æolian, Ionian and Dorian colonies.

          See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

    GREECE:
       Mycenæ and its kings.
       The unburied memorials.

       "Thucydides says that before the Dorian conquest, the date of
       which is traditionally fixed at B. C. 1104, Mycenae was the
       only city whence ruled a wealthy race of kings. Archaeology
       produces the bodies of kings ruling at Mycenae about the
       twelfth century and spreads their wealth under our eyes.
       Thucydides says that this wealth was brought in the form of
       gold from Phrygia by the founder of the line, Pelops.
       Archaeology tells us that the gold found at Mycenae may very
       probably have come from the opposite coast of Asia Minor which
       abounded in gold; and further that the patterns impressed on
       the gold work at Mycenae bear a very marked resemblance to the
       decorative patterns found on graves in Phrygia. Thucydides
       tells us that though Mycenae was small, yet its rulers had the
       hegemony over a great part of Greece. Archæology shews us that
       the kings of Mycenae were wealthy and important quite out of
       proportion to the small city which they ruled, and that the
       civilisation which centred at Mycenae spread over south Greece
       and the Aegean, and lasted for some centuries at least. It
       seems to me that the simplest way of meeting the facts of the
       case is to suppose that we have recovered at Mycenae the
       graves of the Pelopid race of monarchs. It will not of course
       do to go too far. … It would be too much to suppose that we
       have recovered the bodies of the Agamemnon who seems in the
       Iliad to be as familiar to us as Caesar or Alexander, or of
       his father Atreus, or of his charioteer and the rest.
    {1568}
       We cannot of course prove the Iliad to be history; and if we
       could, the world would be poorer than before. But we can
       insist upon it that the legends of heroic Greece have more of
       the historic element in them than anyone supposed a few years
       ago. … Assuming then that we may fairly class the Pelopidae
       as Achaean, and may regard the remains at Mycenae as
       characteristic of the Achaean civilisation of Greece, is it
       possible to trace with bolder hand the history of Achaean
       Greece? Certainly we gain assistance in our endeavour to
       realize what the pre-Dorian state of Peloponnesus was like. We
       secure a hold upon history which is thoroughly objective,
       while all the history which before existed was so vague and
       imaginative that the clear mind of Grote refused to rely upon
       it at all. But the precise dates are more than we can venture
       to lay down, in the present condition of our knowledge. …
       The Achaean civilisation was contemporary with the eighteenth
       Egyptian dynasty (B. C. 1700-1400). It lasted during the
       invasions of Egypt from the north (1300-1100). When it ceased
       we cannot say with certainty. There is every historical
       probability that it was brought to a violent end in the Dorian
       invasion. The traditional date of that invasion is B. C. 1104.
       But it is obvious that this date cannot be relied upon."

          P. Gardner,
          New Chapters in Greek History,
          chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Schliemann,
          Mycenæ.

          C. Schuchhardt,
          Schliemann's Excavations,
          chapter 4.

    GREECE:
       Ancient political and geographical divisions.

       "Greece was not a single country. … It was broken up into
       little districts, each with its own government. Any little
       city might be a complete state in itself, and independent of
       its neighbours. It might possess only a few miles of land and
       a few hundred inhabitants, and yet have its own laws, its own
       government, and its own army. … In a space smaller than an
       English county there might be several independent cities,
       sometimes at war, sometimes at peace with one another.
       Therefore when we say that the west coast of Asia Minor was
       part of Greece, we do not mean that this coast-land and
       European Greece were under one law and one government, for
       both were broken up into a number of little independent
       States: but we mean that the people who lived on the west
       coast of Asia Minor were just as much Greeks as the people who
       lived in European Greece. They spoke the same language, and
       had much the same customs, and they called one another
       Hellenes, in contrast to all other nations of the world, whom
       they called barbarians … , that is, 'the unintelligible
       folk,' because they could not understand their tongue."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Greece (History Primers),
          chapter 1.

       "The nature of the country had … a powerful effect on the
       development of Greek politics. The whole land was broken up by
       mountains into a number of valleys more or less isolated;
       there was no central point from which a powerful monarch could
       control it. Hence Greece was, above all other countries, the
       home of independence and freedom. Each valley, and even the
       various hamlets of a valley, felt themselves possessed of a
       separate life, which they were jealous to preserve."

          E. Abbott,
          History of Greece,
          part 1, chapter 1.

          See AKARNANIANS; ACHAIA;
          ÆGINA; ÆTOLIA; ARCADIA; ARGOS; ATHENS;
          ATTICA; BŒOTIA; CORINTH; DORIS AND
          DRYOPIS; ELIS; EPIRUS; EUBŒA; KORKYRA;
          LOCRI; MACEDONIA; MANTINEA; MEGALOPOLIS;
          MEGARA; MESSENE; OLYNTHUS; PHOKIANS;
          PLATÆA; SICYON; SPARTA; THEBES;
          and THESSALY.

    GREECE:
       Political evolution of the leading States.
       Variety in the forms of Government.
       Rise of democracy at Athens.

       "The Hellenes followed no common political aim. …
       Independent and self-centred, they created, in a constant
       struggle of citizen with citizen and state with state, the
       groundwork of those forms of government which have been
       established in the world at large. We see monarchy,
       aristocracy, democracy, rising side by side and one after
       another, the changes being regulated in each community by its
       past experience and its special interests in the immediate
       present. These forms of government did not appear in their
       normal simplicity or in conformity with a distinct ideal, but
       under the modifications necessary to give them vitality. An
       example of this is Lakedæmon. If one of the families of the
       Heracleidæ [the two royal families-see SPARTA: THE
       CONSTITUTION] aimed at a tyranny, whilst another entered into
       relations with the native and subject population, fatal to the
       prerogatives of the conquerors, we can understand that in the
       third case, that, of the Spartan community, the aristocratic
       principle was maintained with the greatest strictness.
       Independently of this, the divisions of the Lakedæmonian
       monarchy between two lines, neither of which was to have
       precedence, was intended to guard against the repetition in
       Sparta of that which had happened in Argos. Above all, the
       members of the Gerusia, in which the two kings had only equal
       rights with the rest, held a position which would have been
       unattainable to the elders of the Homeric age. But even the
       Gerusia was not independent. There existed in addition to it a
       general assembly, which, whilst very aristocratic as regards
       the native and subject population, assumed a democratic aspect
       in contrast with the king and the elders. The internal life of
       the Spartan constitution depended upon the relations between
       the Gerusia and the aristocratic demos. … The Spartan
       aristocracy dominated the Peloponnesus. But the constitution
       contained a democratic clement working through the Ephors, by
       means of which the conduct of affairs might be concentrated in
       a succession of powerful hands. Alongside of this system, the
       purely aristocratic constitutions, which were without such a
       centre, could nowhere hold their ground. The Bacchiadæ in
       Corinth, two hundred in number, with a prytanis at their head,
       and inter-marrying only among themselves, were one of the most
       distinguished of these families. They were deprived of their
       exclusive supremacy by Kypselus, a man of humble birth on his
       father's side, but connected with the Bacchiadæ through his
       mother. … As the Kypselidæ rose in Corinth, the metropolis
       of the colonies towards the west, so in the corresponding
       eastern metropolis, Miletus, Thrasybulus raised himself from
       the dignity of prytanis to that of tyrant; in Ephesus,
       Pythagoras rose to power, and overthrew the Basilidæ; in
       Samos, Polycrates, who was master also of the Kyklades, and of
       whom it is recorded that he confiscated the property of the
       citizens and then made them a present of it again. By
       concentrating the forces of their several communities the
       tyrants obtained the means of surrounding themselves with a
       certain splendor, and above all of liberally encouraging
       poetry and art.
    {1569}
       To these Polycrates opened his citadel, and in it we find
       Anacreon and Ibycus; Kypselus dedicated a famous statue to
       Zeus, at Olympia. The school of art at Sikyon was without a
       rival, and at the court of Periander were gathered the seven
       sages—men in whom a distinguished political position was
       combined with the prudential wisdom derived from the
       experience of life. This is the epoch of the legislator of
       Athens, Solon, who more than the rest has attracted to himself
       the notice of posterity.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

       He is the founder of the Athenian democracy. … His proverb
       'Nothing in excess' indicates his character. He was a man who
       knew exactly what the time has a right to call for, and who
       utilized existing complications to bring about the needful
       changes. It is impossible adequately to express what he was to
       the people of Athens, and what services he rendered them. That
       removal of their pecuniary burdens, the seisachtheia, made
       life for the first time endurable to the humbler classes.

          See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

       Solon cannot be said to have introduced democracy, but, in
       making the share of the upper classes in the government
       dependent upon the good pleasure of the community at large, he
       laid its foundations. The people were invested by him with
       attributes which they afterwards endeavored to extend. …
       Solon himself lived long enough to see the order which he
       established serve as the basis of the tyranny which he wished
       to avoid; it was the Four Hundred themselves who lent a hand
       to the change. The radical cause of failure was that the
       democratic element was too feebly constituted to control or to
       repress the violence of the families. To elevate the democracy
       into a true power in the state other events were necessary,
       which not only rendered possible, but actually brought about,
       its further development. The conflicts of the principal
       families, hushed for a moment, were revived under the eyes of
       Solon himself with redoubled violence. The Alemæonidæ
       [banished about 595 B. C.—see ATHENS: B. C. 612-595] were
       recalled, and Æthelred around them a party consisting mainly
       of the inhabitants of the seacoast, who, favored by trade, had
       the money in their hands; the genuine aristocrats, described
       as the inhabitants of the plains, who were in possession of
       the fruitful soil, were in perpetual antagonism to the
       Alemæonidæ; and, whilst these two parties were bickering, a
       third was formed from the inhabitants of the mountain
       districts, inferior to the two others in wealth, but of
       superior weight to either in the popular assemblies. At its
       head stood Peisistratus, a man distinguished by warlike
       exploits, and at an earlier date a friend of Solon. It was
       because his adherents did not feel themselves strong enough to
       protect their leader that they were induced to vote him a
       body-guard chosen from their own ranks. … As soon, however,
       as the first two parties combined, the third was at a
       disadvantage, so that after some time sentence of banishment
       was passed upon Peisistratus. … Peisistratus … found means
       to gather around him a troop of brave mercenaries, with whom,
       and with the support of his old adherents, he then invaded
       Attica. His opponents made but a feeble resistance, and he
       became without much trouble master both of the city and of the
       country.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

       He thus attained to power; it is true, with the approbation of
       the people, but nevertheless by armed force. … We have
       almost to stretch a point in order to call Peisistratus a
       tyrant—a word which carries with it the invidious sense of a
       selfish exercise of power. No authority could have been more
       rightly placed than his; it combined Athenian with
       Panhellenist tendencies. But for him Athens would not have
       been what she afterwards became to the world. …
       Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Peisistratus governed
       Athens absolutely, and even took steps to establish a
       permanent tyranny. He did, in fact, succeed in leaving the
       power he possessed to his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus. … Of
       the two brothers it was the one who had rendered most service
       to culture, Hipparchus, who was murdered at the festival of
       the Panathenæa. It was an act of revenge for a personal
       insult. … In his dread lest he should be visited by a
       similar doom, Hippias actually became an odious tyrant and
       excited universal discontent. One effect, however, of the loss
       of stability which the authority of the dominant family
       experienced was that the leading exiles ejected by
       Peisistratus combined in the enterprise which was a necessary
       condition of their return, the overthrow of Hippias. The
       Alcmæonidæ took the principal part. … The revolution to
       which this opened the way could, it might seem, have but one
       result, the establishment of an oligarchical government. …
       But the matter had a very different issue," resulting in the
       constitution of Cleisthenes and the establishment of democracy
       at Athens, despite the hostile opposition and interference of
       Sparta.

          L. von Ranke,
          Universal History:
          The oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,
          chapter 5.

          See, also,
          ATHENS: B. C. 510-507,
          and 509-506.

    GREECE: B. C. 752.
       The Archonship at Athens thrown open to the whole body of the
       people.

          See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

    GREECE: B. C. 624.
       The Draconian legislation at Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

    GREECE: B. C. 610-600.
       War of Athens and Megara for Salamis.
       Spartan Arbitration.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

    GREECE: B. C. 595-586.
       The Cirrhæan or first Sacred War.

          See ATHENS: B.C. 610-586; and DELPHI.

    GREECE: B. C. 500-493.
       Rising of the Ionians of Asia Minor against the Persians.
       Aid rendered to them by the Athenians.
       Provocation to Darius.

       The Ionic Greek cities, or states, of Asia Minor, first
       subjugated by Crœsus, King of Lydia, in the sixth century B.
       C., were swallowed up, in the same century, with all other
       parts of the dominion of Crœsus, in the conquests of Cyrus,
       and formed part of the great Persian Empire, to the
       sovereignty of which Cambyses and Darius succeeded. In the
       reign of Darius there occurred a revolt of the Ionians (about
       502 B. C.), led by the city of Miletus, under the influence of
       its governor, Aristagoras. Aristagoras, coming over to Greece
       in person, sought aid against the Persians, first at Sparta,
       where it was denied to him, and then, with better success, at
       Athens. Presenting himself to the citizens, just after they
       had expelled the Pisistratidæ, Aristagoras said to them "that
       the Milesians were colonists from Athens, and that it was just
       that the Athenians, being so mighty, should deliver them from
       slavery.
    {1570}
       And because his need was great, there was nothing that he did
       not promise, till at the last he persuaded them. For it is
       easier, it seems, to deceive a multitude than to deceive one
       man. Cleomenes the Spartan, being but one man, Aristagoras
       could not deceive; but he brought over to his purpose the
       people of Athens, being thirty thousand. So the Athenians,
       being persuaded, made a decree to send twenty ships to help
       the men of Ionia, and appointed one Melanthius, a man of
       reputation among them, to be captain. These ships were the
       beginning of trouble both to the Greeks and the barbarians.
       … When the twenty ships of the Athenians were arrived, and
       with them five ships of the Eretrians, which came, not for any
       love of the Athenians, but because the Milesians had helped
       them in the old time against the men of Chalcis, Aristagoras
       sent an army against Sardis, but he himself abode in Miletus.
       This army, crossing Mount Tmolus, took the city of Sardis
       without any hindrance; but the citadel they took not, for
       Artaphernes held it with a great force of soldiers. But though
       they took the city they had not the plunder of it, and for
       this reason. The houses in Sardis were for the most part built
       of reeds, and such as were built of bricks had their roofs of
       reeds; and when a certain soldier set fire to one of these
       houses, the fire ran quickly from house to house till the
       whole city was consumed. And while the city was burning, such
       Lydians and Persians as were in it, seeing they were cut off
       from escape (for the fire was in an the outskirts of the
       city), gathered together in haste to the market-place. Through
       this market-place flows the river Pactolus, which comes down
       from Mount Tmolus, having gold in its sands, and when it has
       passed out of the city it flows into the Hermus, which flows
       into the sea. Here then the Lydians and Persians were gathered
       together, being constrained to defend themselves. And when the
       men of Ionia saw their enemies how many they were, and that
       these were preparing to give battle, they were stricken with
       fear, and fled out of the city to Mount Tmolus, and thence,
       when it was night, they went back to the sea. In this manner
       was burnt the city of Sardis, and in it the great temple of
       the goddess Cybele, the burning of which temple was the cause,
       as said the Persians, for which afterwards they burnt the
       temples in Greece. Not long after came a host of Persians from
       beyond the river Halys; and when they found that the men of
       Ionia had departed from Sardis, they followed hard upon their
       track, and came up with them at Ephesus. And when the battle
       was joined, the men of Ionia fled before them. Many indeed
       were slain, and such as escaped were scattered, every man to
       his own city. After this the ships of the Athenians departed,
       and would not help the men of Ionia any more, though
       Aristagoras besought them to stay. Nevertheless the Ionians
       ceased not from making preparations of war against the King,
       making to themselves allies, some by force and some by
       persuasion, as the cities of the Hellespont and many of the
       Carians and the island of Cyprus. For all Cyprus, save Amathus
       only, revolted from the King under Onesilus, brother of King
       Gorgus. When King Darius heard that Sardis had been taken and
       burned with fire by the Ionians and the Athenians, with
       Aristagoras for leader, at the first he took no heed of the
       Ionians, as knowing that they would surely suffer for their
       deed, but he asked, 'Who are these Athenians?' And when they
       told him he took a bow and shot an arrow into the air, saying,
       'O Zeus, grant that I may avenge myself on these Athenians.'
       And he commanded his servant that every day, when his dinner
       was served, he should say three times, 'Master, remember the
       Athenians.' … Meanwhile the Persians took not a few cities
       of the Ionians and Æolians. But while they were busy about
       these, the Carians revolted from the King; whereupon the
       captains of the Persians led their army into Caria, and the
       men of Caria came out to meet them; and they met them at a
       certain place which is called the White Pillars, near to the
       river Mæander. Then there were many counsels among the
       Carians, whereof the best was this, that they should cross the
       river and so contend with the Persians, having the river
       behind them, that so there being no escape for them if they
       fled, they might surpass themselves in courage. But this
       counsel did not prevail. Nevertheless, when the Persians had
       crossed the Meander, the Carians fought against them, and the
       battle was exceeding long and fierce. But at the last the
       Carians were vanquished, being overborne by numbers, so that
       there fell of them ten thousand. And when they that
       escaped—for many had fled to Labranda, where there is a great
       temple of Zeus and a grove of plane trees—were doubting
       whether they should yield themselves to the King or depart
       altogether from Asia, there came to their help the men of
       Miletus with their allies. Thereupon the Carians, putting away
       their doubts altogether, fought with the Persians a second
       time, and were vanquished yet more grievously than before. But
       on this day the men of Miletus suffered the chief damage. And
       the Carians fought with the Persians yet again a third time;
       for, hearing that these were about to attack their cities one
       by one, they laid an ambush for them on the road to Pedasus.
       And the Persians, marching by night, fell into the ambush, and
       were utterly destroyed, they and their captains. After these
       things, Aristagoras, seeing the power of the Persians, and
       having no more any hope to prevail over them—and indeed, for
       all that he had brought about so much trouble, he was of a
       poor spirit—called together his friends and said to them, 'We
       must needs have some place of refuge, if we be driven out of
       Miletus. Shall we therefore go to Sardinia, or to Myrcinus on
       the river Strymon; which King Darius gave to Histiæus?' To
       this Hecateus, the writer of chronicles, made answer, 'Let
       Aristagoras build a fort in Leros (this Leros is an island
       thirty miles distant from Miletus) and dwell there quietly, if
       he be driven from Miletus. And hereafter he can come from
       Leros and set himself up again in Miletus.' But Aristagoras
       went to Myrcinus, and not long afterwards was slain while he
       besieged a certain city of the Thracians."

          Herodotus,
          The Story of the Persian War
          (version of A. J. Church, chapter 2).

          See, also,
          PERSIA: B. C. 521-493;
          and ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.

    GREECE: B. C. 496.
       War of Sparta with Argos.
       Overwhelming reverse of the Argives.

          See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

    GREECE: B. C. 492-491.
       Wrath of the Persian king against Athens.
       Failure of his first expedition of invasion.
       Submission of 'Medizing' Greek states.
       Coercion of Ægina.
       Enforced union of Hellas.
       Headship of Sparta recognized.

    {1571}

       The assistance given by Athens to the Ionian revolt stirred
       the wrath of the Persian monarch very deeply, and when he had
       put down the rebellion he prepared to chastise the audacious
       and insolent Greeks. "A great fleet started from the
       Hellespont, with orders to sail round the peninsula of Mt.
       Athos to the Gulf of Therma, while Mardonius advanced by land.
       His march was so harassed by the Thracians that when he had
       effected the conquest of Macedonia his force was too weak for
       any further attempt. The fleet was overtaken by a storm off
       Mt. Athos, on whose rocks 300 ships were dashed to pieces, and
       20,000 men perished. Mardonius returned in disgrace to Asia
       with the remnant of his fleet and army. This failure only
       added fury to the resolution of Darius. While preparing all
       the resources of his empire for a second expedition, he sent
       round heralds to the chief cities of Greece, to demand the
       tribute of earth and water as signs of his being their
       rightful lord. Most of them submitted: Athens and Sparta alone
       ventured on defiance. Both treated the demand as an outrage
       which annulled the sanctity of the herald's person. At Athens
       the envoy was plunged into the loathsome Barathrum, a pit into
       which the most odious public criminals were cast. At Sparta
       the herald was hurled into a well, and bidden to seek his
       earth and water there. The submission of Ægina, the chief
       maritime state of Greece, and the great enemy of Athens,
       entailed the most important results. The act was denounced by
       Athens as treason against Greece, and the design was imputed
       to Ægina of calling in the Persians to secure vengeance on her
       rival. The Athenians made a formal complaint to Sparta against
       the 'Medism' of the Æginetans; a charge which is henceforth
       often repeated both against individuals and states. The
       Spartans had recently concluded a successful war with Argos,
       the only power that could dispute her supremacy in
       Peloponnesus; and now this appeal from Athens, the second city
       of Greece, at once recognized and established Sparta as the
       leading Hellenic state. In that character, her king Cleomenes
       undertook to punish the Medizing party in Ægina 'for the
       common good of Greece'; but he was met by proofs of the
       intrigues of his colleague Demaratus in their favour. …
       Cleomenes obtained his deposition on a charge of illegitimacy,
       and a public insult from his successor Leotychides drove
       Demaratus from Sparta. Hotly pursued as a 'Medist,' he
       effected his escape to Darius, whose designs against Athens
       and Sparta were now stimulated by the councils of their exiled
       sovereigns, Hippias and Demaratus. Meanwhile, Cleomenes and
       his new colleague returned to Ægina, which no longer resisted,
       and having seized ten of her leading citizens, placed them as
       hostages in the hands of the Athenians. Ægina was thus
       effectually disabled from throwing the weight of her fleet
       into the scale of Persia: Athens and Sparta, suspending their
       political jealousies, were united when their disunion would
       have been fatal; their conjunction drew after them most of the
       lesser states: and so the Greeks stood forth for the first
       time as a nation prepared to act in unison, under the
       leadership of Sparta (B. C. 491). That city retained her proud
       position till it was forfeited by the misconduct of her
       statesmen."

          P. Smith,
          History of the World: Ancient,
          chapter 13 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Cox,
          The Greeks and the Persians,
          chapter 6.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 36 (volume 4.)

          See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.

    GREECE: B. C. 490.
       The Persian Wars: Marathon.

       The second and greater expedition launched by Darius against
       the Greeks sailed from the Cilician coast in the summer of the
       year 490 B. C. It was under the command of two generals,—a
       Mede, named Datis, and the king's nephew, Artaphernes. It made
       the passage safely, destroying Naxos on the way, but sparing
       the sacred island and temple of Delos. Its landing was on the
       shores of Eubœa, where the city of Eretria was easily taken,
       its inhabitants dragged into slavery, and the first act of
       Persian vengeance accomplished. The expedition then sailed to
       the coast of Attica and came to land on the plain of Marathon,
       which spreads along the bay of that name. "Marathon, situated
       near to a bay on the eastern coast of Attica, and in a
       direction E. N. E. from Athens, is divided by the high ridge
       of Mount Pentelikus from the city, with which it communicated
       by two roads, one to the north, another to the south of that
       mountain. Of these two roads, the northern, at once the
       shortest and the most difficult, is 22 miles in length. …
       [The plain] 'is in length about six miles, in breadth never
       less than about one mile and a half. Two marshes bound the
       extremities of the plain; the southern is not very large and
       is almost dry at the conclusion of the great heats; but the
       northern, which generally covers considerably more than a
       square mile, offers several parts which are at all seasons
       impassable. Both, however, leave a broad, firm sandy beach
       between them and the sea. The uninterrupted flatness of the
       plain is hardly relieved by a single tree; and an amphitheatre
       of rocky hills and rugged mountains separates it from the rest
       of Attica."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 36 (volume 4).

       The Athenians waited for no nearer approach of the enemy to
       their city, but met them at their landing-place. They were few
       in number—only 10,000, with 1,000 more from the grateful city
       of Platæa, which Athens had protected against Thebes. They had
       sent to Sparta for aid, but a superstition delayed the march
       of the Spartans and they came the day after the battle. Of all
       the nearer Greeks none came to the help of Athens in that hour
       of extreme need; and so much the greater to her was the glory
       of Marathon. The ten thousand Athenian hoplites and the one
       thousand brave Platæans confronted the great host of Persia,
       of the numbers in which there is no account. Ten generals had
       the right of command on successive days, but Miltiades was
       known to be the superior captain and his colleagues gave place
       to him. "On the morning of the seventeenth day of the month of
       Metagitnion (September 12th), when the supreme command
       according to the original order of succession fell to
       Miltiades, he ordered the army to draw itself up according to
       the ten tribes. … The troops had advanced with perfect
       steadiness across the trenches and palisadings of their camp,
       as they had doubtless already done on previous days. But as
       soon as they had approached the enemy within a distance of
       5,000 feet they changed their march to a double-quick pace,
       which gradually rose to the rapidity of a charge, while at the
       same time they raised the war-cry with a loud voice.
    {1572}
       When the Persians saw these men rushing down from the heights,
       they thought they beheld madmen: they quickly placed
       themselves in order of battle, but before they had time for an
       orderly discharge of arrows the Athenians were upon them,
       ready in their excitement to begin a closer contest, man
       against man in hand-to-hand fight, which is decided by
       personal courage and gymnastic agility, by the momentum of
       heavy-armed warriors, and by the use of lance and sword. Thus
       the well-managed and bold attack of the Athenians had
       succeeded in bringing into play the whole capability of
       victory which belonged to the Athenians. Yet the result was
       not generally successful. The enemy's centre stood firm. …
       But meanwhile both wings had thrown themselves upon the enemy;
       and after they had effected a victorious advance, the one on
       the way to Rhamnus, the other towards the coast, Miltiades …
       issued orders at the right moment for the wings to return from
       the pursuit, and to make a combined attack upon the Persian
       centre in its rear. Hereupon the rout speedily became general,
       and in their flight the troubles of the Persians increased;
       … they were driven into the morasses and there slain in
       numbers."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

       The Athenian dead, when gathered for the solemn obsequies,
       numbered 192; the loss of the Persians was estimated by
       Herodotus at 6,400.

          Herodotus,
          History,
          book 6.

          ALSO IN:
          E. S. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles,
          chapter 1.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 14 (volume 2).

          G. W. Cox,
          The Greeks and Persians,
          chapter 6.

          Sir E. Bulwer Lytton,
          Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
          book 2, chapter 5.

    GREECE: B. C. 489-480.
       The Æginetan War.
       Naval power of Athens created by Themistocles.

          SEE ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

    GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
       Congress at Corinth.
       Hellenic union against Persia.
       Headship of Sparta.

       "When it was known in Greece that Xerxes was on his march into
       Europe, it became necessary to take measures for the defence
       of the country. At the instigation of the Athenians, the
       Spartans, as the acknowledged leaders of Hellas and head of
       the Peloponnesian confederacy, called on those cities which
       had resolved to uphold the independence of their country to
       send plenipotentiaries to a congress at the Isthmus of
       Corinth. When the envoys assembled, a kind of Hellenic
       alliance was formed under the presidency of Sparta, and its
       unity was confirmed by an oath, binding the members to visit
       with severe penalties those Greeks who, without compulsion,
       had given earth and water to the envoys of Xerxes. This
       alliance was the nearest approach to a Hellenic union ever
       seen in Greece; but though it comprised most of the
       inhabitants of the Peloponnesus, except Argos and Achæa, the
       Megarians, Athenians, and two cities of Bœotia, Thespiæ and
       Platæa, were the only patriots north of the Isthmus. Others,
       who would willingly have been on that side, such as the common
       people of Thessaly, the Phocians and Locrians, were compelled
       by the force of circumstances to 'medize.' From the time at
       which it met in the autumn or summer of 481 to the autumn of
       480 B. C., the congress at the Isthmus directed the military
       affairs of Greece. It fixed the plan of operations. Spies were
       sent to Sardis to ascertain the extent of the forces of
       Xerxes; envoys visited Argos, Crete, Corcyra, and Syracuse, in
       the hope, which proved vain, of obtaining assistance in the
       impending struggle. As soon as Xerxes was known to be in
       Europe, an army of 10,000 men was sent to hold the pass of
       Tempe, but afterwards, on the advice of Alexander of Macedon,
       this barrier was abandoned; and it was finally resolved to
       await the approaching forces at Thermopylæ and Artemisium. The
       supreme authority, both by land and sea, was in the hands of
       the Spartans; they were the natural leaders of any army which
       the Greeks could put into the field, and the allies refused to
       follow unless the ships also were under their charge. … When
       hostilities were suspended, the congress re-appears, and the
       Greeks once more meet at the Isthmus to apportion the spoil
       and adjudge the prizes of valour. In the next year we hear of
       no common plan of operations, the fleet and army seeming to
       act independently of each other; yet we observe that the
       chiefs of the medizing Thebans were taken to the Isthmus
       (Corinth) to be tried, after the battle of Platæa. It appears
       then that, under the stress of the great Persian invasion, the
       Greeks were brought into an alliance or confederation; and for
       the two years from midsummer 481 to midsummer 479 a congress
       continued to meet, with more or less interruption, at the
       Isthmus, consisting of plenipotentiaries from the various
       cities. This congress directed the affairs of the nation, so
       far as they were in any way connected with the Persian
       invasion. When the Barbarians were finally defeated, and there
       was no longer any alarm from that source, the congress seems
       to have discontinued its meetings. But the alliance remained;
       the cities continued to act in common, at any rate, so far as
       naval operations were concerned, and Sparta was still the
       leading power."

          E. Abbott,
          Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          volume 1, appendix 4.

    GREECE: B. C. 480.
       The Persian War: Thermopylæ.

       "Now when tidings of the battle that had been fought at
       Marathon [B. C. 490] reached the ears of King Darius, the son
       of Hystaspes, his anger against the Athenians," says
       Herodotus, "which had been already roused by their attack on
       Sardis, waxed still fiercer, and he became more than ever
       eager to lead an army against Greece. Instantly he sent off
       messengers to make proclamation through the several states
       that fresh levies were to be raised, and these at an increased
       rate; while ships, horses, provisions and transports were
       likewise to be furnished. So the men published his commands;
       and now all Asia was in commotion by the space of three
       years." But before his preparations were completed Darius
       died. His son Xerxes, who ascended the Persian throne, was
       cold to the Greek undertaking and required long persuasion
       before he took it up. When he did so, however, his
       preparations were on a scale more stupendous than those of his
       father, and consumed nearly five years. It was not until ten
       years after Marathon that Xerxes led from Sardis a host which,
       Herodotus computes at 1,700,000 men, besides half a million
       more which manned the fleet he had assembled. "Was there a
       nation in all Asia," cries the Greek historian, "which Xerxes
       did not bring with him against Greece? Or was there a river,
       except those of unusual size, which sufficed for his troops to
       drink?" By a bridge of boats at Abydos the army crossed the
       Hellespont, and moved slowly through Thrace, Macedonia and
       Thessaly; while the fleet, moving on the
       coast circuit of the same countries, avoided the perilous
       promontory of Mount Athos by cutting a canal.
    {1573}
       The Greeks had determined at first to make their stand against
       the invaders in Thessaly, at the vale of Tempe; but they found
       the post untenable and were persuaded, instead, to guard the
       narrower Pass of Thermopylæ. It was there that the Persians,
       arriving at Trachis, near the Malian gulf, found themselves
       faced by a small body of Greeks. The spot is thus described by
       Herodotus: "As for the entrance into Greece by Trachis, it is,
       at its narrowest point, about fifty feet wide. This, however,
       is not the place where the passage is most contracted; for it
       is still narrower a little above and a little below
       Thermopylae. At Alpeni, which is lower down than that place,
       it is only wide enough for a single carriage; and up above, at
       the river Phœnix, near the town called Anthela, it is the
       same. West of Thermopylæ rises a lofty and precipitous hill,
       impossible to climb, which runs up into the chain of Œta;
       while to the east the road is shut in by the sea and by
       marshes. In this place are the warm springs, which the natives
       call 'The Cauldrons'; and above them stands an altar sacred to
       Hercules. A wall had once been carried across the opening; and
       in this there had of old times been a gateway. … King Xerxes
       pitched his camp in the region of Malis called Trachinia,
       while on their side the Greeks occupied the straits. These
       straits the Greeks in general call Thermopylæ (the Hot Gates);
       but the natives and those who dwell in the neighbourhood call
       them Pylæ (the Gates). … The Greeks who at this spot awaited
       the coming of Xerxes were the following:—From Sparta, 300
       men-at-arms; from Arcadia, 1,000 Tegeans and Mantineans, 500
       of each people; 120 Orchomenians, from the Arcadian
       Orchomenus; and 1,000 from other cities; from Corinth, 400
       men; from Phlius, 200; and from Mycenæ 80. Such was the number
       from the Peloponnese. There were also present, from Bœotia,
       700 Thespians and 400 Thebans. Besides these troops, the
       Locrians of Opus and the Phocians had obeyed the call of their
       countrymen, and sent, the former all the force they had, the
       latter 1,000 men. … The various nations had each captains of
       their own under whom they served; but the one to whom all
       especially looked up, and who had the command of the entire
       force, was the Lacedæmonian, Leonidas. … The force with
       Leonidas was sent forward by the Spartans in advance of their
       main body, that the sight of them might encourage the allies
       to fight, and hinder them from going over to the Medes, as it
       was likely they might have done had they seen Sparta backward.
       They intended presently, when they had celebrated the Carneian
       festival, which was what now kept them at home, to leave a
       garrison in Sparta, and hasten in full force to join the army.
       The rest of the allies also intended to act similarly; for it
       happened that the Olympic festival fell exactly at this same
       period. None of them looked to see the contest at Thermopylæ
       decided so speedily." For two days Leonidas and his little
       army held the pass against the Persians. Then, there was found
       a traitor, a man of Malis, who betrayed to Xerxes the secret
       of a pathway across the mountains, by which he might steal
       into the rear of the post held by the Greeks. A thousand
       Phocians had been stationed on the mountain to guard this
       path; but they took fright when the Persians came upon them in
       the early dawn, and fled without a blow. When Leonidas learned
       that the way across the mountain was open to the enemy he knew
       that his defense was hopeless, and he ordered his allies to
       retreat while there was yet time. But he and his Spartans
       remained, thinking it "unseemly" to quit the post they had
       been specially sent to guard. The Thespians remained with
       them, and the Thebans—known partisans at heart of the
       Persians—were forced to stay. The latter deserted when the
       enemy approached; the Spartans and the Thespians fought and
       perished to the last man.

          Herodotus,
          History
          (translated by Rawlinson), book 7.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 1.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 40 (volume 4).

          See, also,
          ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

    GREECE: B. C. 480.
       The Persian Wars: Artemisium.

       On the approach of the great invading army and fleet of
       Xerxes, the Greeks resolved to meet the one at the pass of
       Thermopylæ and the other at the northern entrance of the
       Eubœan channel. "The northern side of Eubœa afforded a
       commodious and advantageous station: it was a long beach,
       called, from a temple at its eastern extremity, Artemisium,
       capable of receiving the galleys, if it should be necessary to
       draw them upon the shore, and commanding a view of the open
       sea and the coast of Magnesia, and consequently an opportunity
       of watching the enemy's movements as he advanced towards the
       south; while, on the other hand, its short distance from
       Thermopylæ enabled the fleet to keep up a quick and easy
       communication with the land force."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 15 (volume 1).

       The Persian fleet, after suffering heavily from a destructive
       storm on the Magnesian coast, reached Aphetæ, opposite
       Artemisium, at the mouth of the Pagasæan gulf. Notwithstanding
       its losses, it still vastly outnumbered the armament of the
       Greeks, and feared nothing but the escape of the latter. But,
       in the series of conflicts which ensued, the Greeks were
       generally victorious and proved their superior naval genius.
       They could not, however, afford the heavy losses which they
       sustained, and, upon hearing of the disaster at Thermopylæ and
       the Persian possession of the all-important pass, they deemed it
       necessary to retreat.

          W. Mitford,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 8, section 4 (volume 2).

    GREECE: B. C. 480.
       The Persian Wars: Salamis.

       Leonidas and his Spartan band having perished vainly at
       Thermopylæ, in their heroic attempt to hold the pass against
       the host of Xerxes, and the Greek ships at Artemisium having
       vainly beaten their overwhelming enemies, the whole of Greece
       north of the isthmus of Corinth lay completely at the mercy of
       the invader. The Thebans and other false-hearted Greeks joined
       his ranks, and saved their own cities by helping to destroy
       their neighbors. The Platæans, the Thespians and the Athenians
       abandoned their homes in haste, conducted their families, and
       such property as they might snatch away, to the nearer islands
       and to places of refuge in Peloponnesus. The Greeks of
       Peloponnesus rallied in force to the isthmus and began there
       the building of a defensive wall. Their fleet, retiring from
       Artemisium, was drawn together, with some re-enforcements,
       behind the island of Salamis, which stretches across the
       entrance to the bay of Eleusis, off the inner coast of Attica,
       near Athens.
    {1574}
       Meantime the Persians had advanced through Attica, entered the
       deserted city of Athens, taken the Acropolis, which a small
       body of desperate patriots resolved to hold, had slain its
       defenders and burned its temples. Their fleet had also been
       assembled in the bay of Phalerum, which was the more easterly
       of the three harbors of Athens. At Salamis the Greeks were in
       dispute. The Corinthians and the Peloponnesians were bent upon
       falling back with the fleet to the isthmus; the Athenians, the
       Eginetans and the Megarians looked upon all as lost if the
       present combination of the whole naval power of Hellas in the
       narrow strait of Salamis was permitted to be broken up. At
       length Themistocles, the Athenian leader, a man of fertile
       brain and overbearing resolution, determined the question by
       sending a secret message to Xerxes that the Greek ships had
       prepared to escape from him. This brought down the Persian
       fleet upon them at once and left them no chance for retreat.
       Of the memorable fight which ensued (September 20 B. C. 480)
       the following is a part of the description given by Herodotus:
       "Against the Athenians, who held the western extremity of the
       line towards Eleusis, were placed the Phœnicians; against the
       Lacedæmonians, whose station was eastward towards the Piræus,
       the Ionians. Of these last, a few only followed the advice of
       Themistocles, to fight backwardly; the greater number did far
       otherwise. … Far the greater number of the Persian ships
       engaged in this battle were disabled, either by the Athenians
       or by the Eginetans. For as the Greeks fought in order and
       kept their line, while the barbarians were in confusion and
       had no plan in anything that they did, the issue of the battle
       could scarce be other than it was. Yet the Persians fought far
       more bravely here than at Eubœa, and indeed surpassed
       themselves; each did his utmost through fear of Xerxes, for
       each thought that the king's eye was upon himself. … During
       the whole time of the battle Xerxes sat at the base of the
       hill called Ægaleos, over against Salamis; and whenever he saw
       any of his own captains perform any worthy exploit he inquired
       concerning him; and the man's name was taken down by his
       scribes, together with the names of his father and his city.
       … When the rout of the barbarians began, and they sought to
       make their escape to Phalêrum, the Eginetans, awaiting them in
       the channel, performed exploits worthy to be recorded. Through
       the whole of the confused struggle the Athenians employed
       themselves in destroying such ships as either made resistance
       or fled to shore; while the Eginetans dealt with those which
       endeavoured to escape down the straits; so that the Persian
       vessels were no sooner clear of the Athenians than straightway
       they fell into the hands of the Eginetan squadron. … Such of
       the barbarian vessels as escaped from the battle fled to
       Phalêrum, and there sheltered themselves under the protection
       of the land army. … Xerxes, when he saw the extent of his
       loss, began to be afraid lest the Greeks might be counselled
       by the Ionians, or without their advice might determine, to
       sail straight to the Hellespont and break down the bridges
       there; in which case he would be blocked up in Europe and run
       great risk of perishing. He therefore made up his mind to
       fly."

          Herodotus,
          History
          (edited and translated by Rawlinson),
          book 8, sections 85—97 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 4 (volume 4).

          W. W. Goodwin,
          The Battle of Salamis
          (Papers of the American School at Athens, volume 1).

    GREECE: B. C. 479.
       The Persian Wars: Platæa.

       When Xerxes, after the defeat of his fleet at Salamis, fled
       back to Asia with part of his disordered host, he left his
       lieutenant, Mardonius, with a still formidable army, to repair
       the disaster and accomplish, if possible, the conquest of the
       Greeks. Mardonius retired to Thessaly for the winter, but
       returned to Attica in the spring and drove the Athenians once
       more from their shattered city, which they were endeavoring to
       repair. He made overtures to them which they rejected with
       scorn, and thereupon he destroyed everything in city and
       country which could be destroyed, reducing Athens to ruins and
       Attica to a desert. The Spartans and other Peloponnesians who
       had promised support to the Athenians were slow in coming, but
       they came in strong force at last. Mardonius fell back into
       Bœotia, where he took up a favorable position in a plain on
       the left bank of the Asopus, near Platæa. This was in
       September, B. C. 479. According to Herodotus, he had 300,000
       "barbarian" troops and 50,000 Greek allies. The opposing
       Greeks, who followed him to the Asopus, were 110,000 in
       number. The two armies watched one another for more than ten
       days, unwilling to offer battle because the omens were on both
       sides discouraging. At length the Greeks undertook a change of
       position and Mardonius, mistaking this for a movement of
       retreat, led his Persians on a run to attack them. It was a
       fatal mistake. The Spartans, who bore the brunt of the Persian
       assault, soon convinced the deluded Mardonius that they were
       not in flight, while the Athenians dealt roughly with his
       Theban allies. "The barbarians," says Herodotus, "many times
       seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in
       boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit
       inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers,
       untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in
       arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer
       and now more in number, they dashed forward upon the Spartan
       ranks, and so perished. … After Mardonius fell, and the
       troops with him, which were the main strength of the army,
       perished, the remainder yielded to the Lacedæmonians and took
       to flight. Their light clothing and want of bucklers were of
       the greatest hurt to them: for they had to contend against men
       heavily armed, while they themselves were without any such
       defence." Artabazus, who was second in command of the
       Persians, and who had 40,000 immediately under him, did not
       strike a blow in the battle, but quitted the field as soon as
       he saw the turn events had taken, and led his men in a retreat
       which had no pause until they reached and crossed the
       Hellespont. Of the remainder of the 300,000 of Mardonius'
       host, only 3,000, according to Herodotus, outlived the battle.
       It was the end of the Persian invasions of Greece.

          Herodotus,
          History
          (translated by Rawlinson), book 9.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 42 (volume 5).

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 16 (volume 1).

          G. W. Cox,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

    {1575}

       In celebration of the victory an altar to Zeus was erected and
       consecrated by the united Greeks with solemn ceremonies, a
       quintennial festival, called the Feast of Liberty, was
       instituted at Platæa, and the territory of the Platæans was
       declared sacred and inviolable, so long as they should
       maintain the appointed sacrifices and funeral honors to the
       dead. But these agreements did not avail to protect the
       Platæans when the subsequent Peloponnesian War broke out, and
       they stood faithfully among the allies of Athens. "The last
       act of the assembled army was the expedition against Thebes,
       in order, according to the obligation incumbent upon them, to
       take revenge on the most obstinate ally of the national enemy.
       Eleven days after the battle Pausanias appeared before the
       city and demanded the surrender of the party-leaders,
       responsible for the policy of Thebes. Not until the siege had
       lasted twenty days was the surrender obtained. … Timagenidas
       and the other leaders of the Thebans were executed as traitors
       against the nation, by order of Pausanias, after he had
       dismissed the confederate army."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    GREECE: B. C. 479.
       The Persian Wars: Mycale.

       The same day, in September, B. C. 479, on which the Greeks at
       Platæa destroyed the army of Mardonius, witnessed an almost
       equal victory won by their compatriots of the fleet, on the
       coast of Asia Minor. The Persian fleet, to avoid a battle with
       them, had retreated to Mycale on the narrow strait between the
       island of Samos and the mainland, where a land army of 60,000
       men was stationed at the time. Here they drew their ships on
       shore and surrounded them with a rampart. The Greeks, under
       Leotychides the Lacedæmonian, landed and attacked the whole
       combined force. The Ionians in the Persian army turned against
       their masters and helped to destroy them. The rout was
       complete and only a small remnant escaped to reach Sardis,
       where Xerxes was still lingering.

          Herodotus,
          History
          (translated by Rawlinson),
          book 9.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 16 (volume 1).

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 42 (volume 5).

    GREECE: B. C. 479-478.
       Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.
       Siege and capture of Sestus.
       Rebuilding and enlargement of Athens and its walls.
       Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

    GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
       Reduction of Byzantium.
       Mad conduct of Pausanias.
       His recall.
       Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
       Their closer union with Athens.
       Withdrawal of the Spartans from the war.
       Formation of the Delian Confederacy.

       "Sestos had fallen: but Byzantion and the Thrakian Doriskos,
       with Eion on the Strymon and many other places on the northern
       shores of the Egean, were still held by Persian garrisons,
       when, in the year after the battle of Plataiai, Pausanias, as
       commander of the confederate fleet, sailed with 20
       Peloponnesian and 30 Athenian ships to Kypros (Cyprus) and
       thence, having recovered the greater part of the island, to
       Byzantion. The resistance here was as obstinate perhaps as at
       Sestos; but the place was at length reduced, and Sparta stood
       for the moment at the head of a triumphant confederacy. It was
       now in her power to weld the isolated units, which made up the
       Hellenic world, into something like an organised society, and
       to kindle in it something like national life. … But she had
       no statesman capable, like Themistokles, of seizing on a
       golden opportunity, while in her own generals she found her
       greatest enemies." Pausanias "was, it would seem, dazzled by
       Persian wealth and enamoured of Persian pleasures. He had
       roused the indignation of his own people by having his name
       inscribed, as leader of all the Greek forces, on the tripod
       which was to commemorate the victory of Plataiai: and now his
       arrogance and tyranny were to excite at Byzantion a discontent
       and impatience destined to be followed by more serious
       consequences to his country as well as to himself. On the fall
       of Byzantion he sent to the Persian king the prisoners taken
       in the city, and spread the report that they had escaped. He
       forwarded at the same time, it is said, … a letter in which
       he informed Xerxes that he wished to marry his daughter and to
       make him lord of all Hellas." Xerxes opened negotiations with
       him, and "the head of this miserable man was now fairly
       turned. Clad in Persian garb, he aped the privacy of Asiatic
       despots; and when he came forth from his palace it was to make
       a royal progress through Thrace, surrounded by Median and
       Egyptian life guards, and to show his insolence to men who
       were at least his equals. The reports of this significant
       change in the behaviour of Pausanias led to his recall. He was
       put on his trial; but his accusers failed to establish the
       personal charges brought against him, while his Medism also
       was dismissed as not fully proved. The suspicion, however, was
       so strong that he was deprived of his command. … All these
       events were tending to alienate the Asiatic Greeks and the
       islanders of the Egean from a state which showed itself
       incapable of maintaining its authority over its own servants."
       Even before the recall of Pausanius, "the Asiatic Greeks
       intreated Aristeides the Athenian commander to admit them into
       direct relations with Athens; and the same change of feeling
       had passed over all the non-medising Greek states with the
       exception of the Peloponnesian allies of Sparta. In short, it
       had become clear that all Hellas was divided into two great
       sections, the one gravitating as naturally to Sparta, the
       great land power, as the other gravitated to Athens with her
       maritime preponderance. When therefore a Spartan commission
       headed by Dorkis arrived with a small force to take the place
       of Pausanias, they were met by passive resistance where they
       had looked for submission; and their retirement from the field
       in which they were unable to compel obedience left the
       confederacy an accomplished fact."

          G. W. Cox,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

       This confederacy of the Asiatic Greeks with Athens, now
       definitely organized, is known as the Confederacy of Delos, or
       the Delian League. "To Athens, as decidedly the preponderant
       power, both morally and materially, was of necessity, and also
       with free good-will, consigned the headship and chief control
       of the affairs and conduct of the alliance; a position that
       carried with it the responsibility of the collection and
       administration of a common fund, and the presidency of the
       assemblies of delegates. As time went on and circumstances
       altered, the terms of confederation were modified in various
       instances; but at first the general rule was the contribution,
       not only of money or ships, but of actual personal service.
       … We have no precise enumeration of the allies of Athens at
       this early time, but the course of the history brings up the
       mention of many.
    {1576}
       … Crete was never directly affected by these events, and
       Cyprus was also soon to be left aside; but otherwise all the
       Greek islands of the Aegean northwards—except Melos, Thera,
       Aegina, and Cythera—were contributory, including Euboea; as
       were the cities on the coasts of Thrace and the Chalcidic
       peninsula from the Macedonian boundary to the Hellespont;
       Byzantium and various cities on the coasts of the Propontis,
       and less certainly of the Euxine; the important series of
       cities on the western coast of Asia Minor—though apparently
       with considerable exceptions—Aeolian, Ionian, Dorian, and
       Carian, as far as Caunus at least on the borders of Lycia, if
       not even round to the Chelidonian isles. The sacred island of
       Delos was chosen as the depository of the common treasure and
       the place of meeting of the contributors. Apart from its
       central convenience and defensibleness as an island, and the
       sanctity of the temple, … it was a traditional centre for
       solemn reunions of Ionians from either side the Aegean. … At
       the distinct request of the allies the Athenians appointed
       Aristides to superintend the difficult process of assessing
       the various forms and amounts of contribution. … The total
       annual amount of the assessment was the large sum of 460
       talents (£112,125), and this perhaps not inclusive of, but
       only supplementary to, the costly supply of equipped ships."

          W. W. Lloyd,
          The Age of Pericles,
          chapter 14 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Abbott,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 6 and 8.

    GREECE: B. C. 477-462.
       Advancing democracy of Athens.
       Sustentation of the Commons from the Confederate Treasury.
       The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

    GREECE: B. C. 477-461.
       Athens as the head of the Delian League.
       Triumph of Anti-Spartan policy at Athens and approach of war.
       Ostracism of Cimon.

       "Between the end of the Persian war and the year 464 B. C.,
       Sparta had sunk from the champion of the whole of Hellas to
       the half-discredited leader of the Peloponnese only. Athens,
       on the contrary, had risen from a subordinate member of the
       league controlled by Sparta to be the leader and almost the
       mistress of a league more dangerous than that over which
       Sparta held sway. Sparta unquestionably entertained towards
       Athens the jealous hatred of a defeated rival. By what steps
       Athens was increasing her control over the Delian League, and
       changing her position from that of a president to that of an
       absolute ruler will be explained. …

          See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

       She was at the same time prosecuting the war against Persia
       with conspicuous success. Her leader in this task was Cimon.
       In the domain of practice Athens produced no nobler son than
       this man. He was the son of Miltiades, the victor of Marathon,
       and by heredity and inclination took his stand with the
       conservative party in Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, to 460-449.

       He succeeded here to the leading position of Aristides, and he
       possessed all that statesman's purity of character. … It was
       as a naval commander, and as a supporter of a forward policy
       against Persia, that Cimon won his greatest renown. But he had
       also a keen interest in the domestic development of Athens and
       her attitude to the other states of Greece. To maintain
       friendship with Sparta was the root of all his policy. His
       perfect honesty in supporting this policy was never
       questioned, and Sparta recognised his good will to them by
       appointing him Proxenus in Athens. It was his duty in this
       capacity to protect any Spartan resident in or visiting
       Athens. His character and personality were eminently
       attractive. … Under his guidance the Athenian fleet struck
       Persia blow on blow. … In 466, near the mouth of the
       Eurymedon in Pamphylia [see ATHENS: B. C. 470-466], the
       Persian fleet was destroyed, and after a fierce struggle her
       land forces also were defeated with very great slaughter. It
       was long before Persian influence counted for anything again
       on the waters of the Mediterranean. Cimon, with the personal
       qualities of Aristides, had obtained the successes of
       Themistocles. Opposition to Cimon was not wanting. The
       Athenian democracy had entered on a path that seemed blocked
       by his personal supremacy. And now the party of advancing
       democracy possessed a leader, the ablest and greatest that it
       was ever to possess. Pericles was about thirty years of age.
       … He was related to great families through both father and
       mother, and to great families that had championed the
       democratic side. His father Zanthippus had prosecuted
       Miltiades, the father of Cimon. … To lead the party of
       advanced democracy was to attack Cimon, against whom he had
       hereditary hostility. … When in 465 Thasos rebelled from
       Athens, defeat was certain unless she found allies. She
       applied to Sparta for assistance. Athens and Sparta were still
       nominally allies, for the creation of the Delian League had
       not openly destroyed the alliance that had subsisted between
       them since the days of the Persian war. But the Thasians hoped
       that Sparta's jealousy of Athens might induce her to disregard
       the alliance. And they reckoned rightly. The Spartan fleet was
       so weak that no interference upon the sea could be thought of,
       but if Attica were attacked by land the Athenians would be
       forced to draw off some part of their armament from Thasos.
       Sparta gave a secret promise that this attack should be made.
       But before they could fulfil their promise their own city was
       overwhelmed by a terrible earthquake. … Only five houses
       were left standing, and twenty thousand of the inhabitants
       lost their lives. King Archidamus saved the state from even
       more appalling ruin. While the inhabitants were dazed with the
       catastrophe, he ordered the alarm-trumpet to be blown; the
       military instincts of the Spartans answered to the call, and
       all that were left assembled outside of the city safe from the
       falling ruins. Archidamus's presence of mind saved them from
       even greater danger than that of earthquake. The disaster
       seemed to the masses of Helots that surrounded Sparta clear
       evidence of the wrath of the god Poseidon. … The Helots
       seized arms, therefore, and from all sides rushed upon Sparta.
       Thanks to Archidamus's action, they found the Spartans
       collected and ready for battle. They fell back upon Messenia,
       and concentrated their strength round Mount Ithome, the
       natural Acropolis of that district. … All the efforts of
       their opponents, never very successful in sieges, failed to
       dislodge them. At last, in 464, Sparta had to appeal to her
       allies for help against her own slaves; and, as Athens was her
       ally, she appealed to Athens. Should the help be granted? …
       Cimon advocated the granting of Sparta's demand with all his
       strength. … But there was much to be said on the other side,
       and it was said by Ephialtes and Pericles.
    {1577}
       The whole of Pericles's foreign policy is founded on the
       assumption that union between Athens and Sparta was
       undesirable and impossible. In everything they stood at
       opposite poles of thought. …. Cimon gained the vote of the
       people. He went at once with a force of four thousand
       heavy-armed soldiers to Ithome. Athenian soldiers enjoyed a
       great reputation for their ability in the conduct of sieges;
       but, despite their arrival, the Helots in Ithome still held
       out. And soon the Spartans grew suspicious of the Athenian
       contingent. The failure of Sparta was so clearly to the
       interest of Athens that the Spartans could not believe that
       the Athenians were in earnest in trying to prevent it; and at
       last Cimon was told that Sparta no longer had need of the
       Athenian force. The insult was all the more evident because
       none of the other allies were dismissed. Cimon at once
       returned to Athens. …

          See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

       On his return he still opposed those complete democratic
       changes that Pericles and Ephialtes were at this time
       introducing into the state. A vote of ostracism was demanded.
       The requisite number of votes fell to Cimon, and he had to
       retire into exile (461). … His ostracism doubtless allowed
       the democratic changes, in any case inevitable, to be
       accomplished without much opposition or obstruction, but it
       also deprived Athens of her best soldier at a time when she
       needed all her military talent. For Athens could not forget
       Sparta's insult. In 461 she renounced the alliance with her
       that had existed since the Persian wars; and that this rupture
       did not mean neutrality was made clear when, immediately
       afterwards, Athens contracted an alliance with Argos, always
       the enemy and now the dangerous enemy of Sparta, and with the
       Thessalians, who also had grounds of hostility to Sparta.
       Under such circumstances war could not be long in coming."

          A. J. Grant,
          Greece in the Age of Pericles,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Cimon; Pericles.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 17 (volume 3).

          E. Abbott,
          Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
          chapters 5-6.

    GREECE: B. C. 460-449.
       Disastrous Athenian expedition to Egypt.
       Cimon's last enterprise against the Persians.
       The disputed Peace of Cimon, or Callias.
       Five years truce between Athens and Sparta.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

    GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
       Alliance of Corinth and Ægina against Athens and Megara.
       Athenian victories.
       Siege and conquest of Ægina.
       The Spartans in Bœotia.
       Defeat of Athens at Tanagra.
       Her success at Œnophyta.
       Humiliation of Thebes.
       Athenian ascendancy restored.

       Crippled by the great earthquake of 464 B. C., and harassed by
       the succeeding Messenian War, "nothing could be done, on the
       part of Sparta, to oppose the establishment and extension of
       the separate alliance between Athens and Argos; and
       accordingly the states of Northern Peloponnesus commenced
       their armaments against Athens on their own account, in order
       to obtain by force what formerly they had achieved by secret
       intrigues and by pushing forward Sparta. To stop the progress
       of the Attic power was a necessary condition of their own
       existence; and thus a new warlike group of states formed
       itself among the members of the disrupted confederation. The
       Corinthians entered into a secret alliance with Ægina and
       Epidaurus, and endeavored to extend their territory and obtain
       strong positions beyond the Isthmus at the expense of Megara.
       This they considered of special importance to them, inasmuch
       as they knew the Megareans, whose small country lay in the
       midst between the two hostile alliances, to be allies little
       deserving of trust. … The fears of the Corinthians were
       realized sooner than they had anticipated. The Megareans,
       under the pressure of events, renounced their treaty
       obligations to Sparta, and joined the Attico-Argive alliance.
       … The passes of the Geranea, the inlets and outlets of the
       Doric peninsula, now fell into the hands of the Athenians;
       Megara became an outwork of Athens; Attic troops occupied its
       towns; Attic ships cruised in the Gulf of Corinth, where
       harbors stood open to them at Pegæ and Ægosthena. The
       Athenians were eager to unite Megara as closely as possible to
       themselves, and for this reason immediately built two lines of
       walls, which connected Megara with its port Nisæa, eight
       stadia off, and rendered both places impregnable to the
       Peloponnesians. This extension of the hostile power to the
       boundaries of the Isthmus, and into the waters of the western
       gulf, seemed to the maritime cities of Peloponnesus to force
       them into action. Corinth, Epidaurus, and Ægina commenced an
       offensive war against Athens—a war which opened without
       having been formally declared; and Athens unhesitatingly
       accepted the challenge thrown out with sufficient distinctness
       in the armaments of her adversaries. Myronides, an experienced
       general and statesman, … landed with an Attic squadron near
       Halieis (where the frontiers of the Epidaurians and Argives
       met), and here found a united force of Corinthians,
       Epidaurians, and Æginetans awaiting him. Myronides was
       unsuccessful in his campaign. A few months later the hostile
       fleets met off the island of Cecryphalea, between Ægina and
       the coast of Epidaurus. The Athenians were victorious, and the
       struggle now closed round Ægina itself. Immediately opposite
       the island ensued a second great naval battle. Seventy of the
       enemy's ships fell into the hands of the Athenians, whose
       victorious fleet without delay surrounded Ægina. The
       Peloponnesians were fully aware of the importance of Ægina to
       them. Three hundred hoplites came to the relief of the island,
       and the Corinthians marched across the Geranea into Megaris to
       the relief of Ægina. It seemed impossible that, while the
       fleet of the Athenians was fighting in the land of the Nile,
       and another was lying before Ægina, they should have a third
       army in readiness for Megara. But the Peloponnesians had no
       conception of the capabilities of action belonging to the
       Athenians. True, the whole military levy was absent from the
       country, and only enough men were left at home for the mere
       defence of the walls. Yet all were notwithstanding agreed that
       neither should Ægina be given up nor the new allies be left in
       the lurch. Myronides advanced to meet the Corinthians with
       troops composed of those who had passed the age of military
       service or not yet reached it. In the first fight he held his
       ground: when the hostile forces returned for the second time,
       they were routed with tremendous loss. Megara was saved, and
       the energy of the Athenians had been most splendidly
       established.
    {1578}
       In attestation of it the sepulchral pillars were erected in
       the Ceramicus, on which were inscribed the names of the
       Athenian soldiers who had fallen in one and the same year (Ol.
       lxxx 3; B. C. 458-7) off Cyprus, in Egypt, Phœicia, Halieis,
       Ægina, and Megara. A fragment of this remarkable historical
       document is preserved to this day. While thus many years'
       accumulation of combustible materials had suddenly broken out
       into a flame of the fiercest war in Central Greece, new
       complications also arose in the north. The Thebans, who had
       suffered so deep a humiliation, believed the time to have
       arrived when the events of the past were forgotten, and when
       they could attain to new importance and power. In opposition
       to them the Phocians put forth their strength. … After the
       dissolution of the Hellenic Confederation, and the calamities
       which had befallen the Spartans, the Phocians thought they
       might venture an attack upon the Dorian tetrapolis, in order
       to extend their frontiers in this direction. … For Sparta it
       was a point of honor not to desert the primitive communities
       of the Dorian race. She roused herself to a vigorous effort,
       and, notwithstanding all her losses and the continuance of the
       war in Messenia, was able to send 11,500 men of her own troops
       and those of the confederates across the Isthmus before the
       Athenians had time to place any obstacles in their way [B. C.
       457]. The Phocians were forced to relinquish their conquests.
       But when the Spartan troops were about to return home across
       the Isthmus they found the mountain-passes occupied by Athens,
       and the Gulf of Corinth made equally insecure by the presence
       of hostile ships. Nothing remained for the Lacedæmonians but
       to march into Bœotia, where their presence was welcome to
       Thebes. They entered the valley of the Asopus, and encamped in
       the territory of Tanagra, not far from the frontiers of
       Attica. Without calculating the consequences, the Athenians
       had brought themselves into an extremely dangerous situation.
       … Their difficulties increased when, contemporaneously, evil
       signs of treasonable plots made their appearance in the
       interior of the city. …

          See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

       Thus, then, it was now necessary to contend simultaneously
       against foes within and foes without, to defend the
       constitution as well as the independence of the state. Nor was
       the question merely as to an isolated attack and a transitory
       danger; for the conduct of the Spartans in Bœotia clearly
       showed that it was now their intention to restore to power
       Thebes … because they were anxious to have in the rear of
       Athens a state able to stop the extension of the Attic power
       in Central Greece. This intention could be best fulfilled by
       supporting Thebes in the subjugation of the other Bœotian
       cities. For this purpose the Peloponnesians had busily
       strengthened the Theban, i. e. the oligarchical party, in the
       whole of the country, and encircled Thebes itself with new
       fortifications. Thebes was from a country town to become a
       great city, an independent fortified position, and a base for
       the Peloponnesian cause in Central Greece. Hence Athens could
       not have found herself threatened by a more dangerous
       complication. The whole civic army accordingly took the field,
       amounting, together with the Argives, and other allies, to
       14,000 men, besides a body of Thessalian cavalry. In the low
       ground by the Asopus below Tanagra the armies met. An arduous
       and sanguinary struggle ensued, in which for the first time
       Athens and Sparta mutually tested their powers in a regular
       battle. For a long time the result was doubtful; till in the
       very thick of the battle the cavalry went over to the enemy,
       probably at the instigation of the Laconian party. This act of
       treason decided the day in favor of Sparta, although patriotic
       Athenians would never consent to count this among the battles
       lost by Athens. The Spartans were far from fulfilling the
       expectations of the party of the Oligarchs. As soon as they
       knew that the passes of the Isthmus were once more open, they
       took their departure, towards the fall of the year, through
       Megara, making this little country suffer for its defection by
       the devastation of its territory. … They reckoned upon
       Thebes being for the present strong enough to maintain herself
       against her neighbors; for ulterior offensive operations
       against Athens, Tanagra was to serve as a base. The plan was
       good, and the conjuncture of affairs favorable. But whatever
       the Spartans did, they did only by halves: they concluded a
       truce for four months, and quitted the ground. The Athenians,
       on the other hand, had no intention of allowing a menacing
       power to establish itself on the frontiers of their country.
       Without waiting for the return of the fair season, they
       crossed Mount Parnes two months after the battle, before any
       thoughts of war were entertained in Bœotia; Myronides, who was
       in command, defeated the Theban army which was to defend the
       valley of the Asopus, near Œnophyta. This battle with one blow
       put an end to all the plans of Thebes; the walls of Tanagra
       were razed. Myronides continued his march from town to town;
       everywhere the existing governments were overthrown, and
       democratic constitutions established with the help of Attic
       partisans. … Thus, after a passing humiliation, Athens was
       soon more powerful than ever, and her sway extended as far as
       the frontiers of the Phocians. Nay, during the same campaign
       she extended her military dominion as far as Locris. …
       Meanwhile the Æginetans also were gradually losing their power
       of resistance. For nine months they had resisted the Attic
       squadron. … Now their strength was exhausted; and the proud
       island of the Æacidæ, which Pindar had sung as the mother of
       the men who in the glorious rivalry of the festive games shone
       out before all other Hellenes, had to bow down before the
       irresistible good fortune of the Athenians, and was forced to
       pull down her walls, to deliver up her vessels of war, and
       bind herself to the payment of tribute. Contemporaneously with
       this event, the two arms of walls [at ATHENS] … between the
       upper and lower town were completed. Athens was now placed
       beyond the fear of any attack. … The Peloponnesian
       confederation was shaken to its very foundations; and Sparta
       was still let and hindered by the Messenian revolt, while the
       Athenians were able freely to dispose of their military and
       naval forces."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Cox,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2).

          Thucydides,
          Peloponnesian War
          (translated by Jowett),
          book 1, sections 107-108.

    {1579}

    GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
       Quarrel of Delphians and Phocians.
       Interference of Sparta and Athens.
       Bœotian revolution.
       Defeat of Athenians at Coroneia.
       Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
       The Thirty Years Truce.

       In 449 B. C. "on occasion of a dispute between the Delphians
       and the Phocians as to which should have the care of the
       temple and its treasures, the Lacedæmonians sent an army, and
       gave them to the former; but as soon as they were gone,
       Pericles led thither an Athenian army, and put the Phocians in
       possession. Of this the Lacedæmonians took no notice. The
       right of Promanty, or first consulting the oracle, which had
       been given to Sparta by the Delphians, was now assigned to
       Athens by the Phocians; and this honor was probably the cause
       of the interference of both states. As the Athenians had given
       the upper hand to the democratic party in Bœotia, there was of
       course a large number of the opposite party in exile. These
       had made themselves masters of Orchomenus, Chæroneia, and some
       other places, and if not checked in time, might greatly
       endanger the Athenian influence. Tolmidas, therefore, led an
       army and took and garrisoned Chæroneia; but, as he was
       returning, he was attacked at Coroneia by the exiles from
       Orchomenus, joined by those of Eubœa and their other friends.
       Tolmidas fell, and his troops were all slain or made
       prisoners. (Ol. 83, 2.) [B. C. 447.] The Athenians, fearing a
       general war, agreed to a treaty, by which, on their prisoners
       being restored, they evacuated Bœotia. The exiles returned to
       their several towns, and things were placed on their old
       footing. … Eubœa was now (Ol. 83, 3) [B. C. 446] in revolt:
       and while Pericles was at the head of an army reducing it, the
       party in Megara adverse to Athens rose and massacred all the
       Athenian garrisons except that of Nisæa. Corinthians,
       Sicyonians, and Epidaurians came to their aid: and the
       Peloponnesians, led by one of the Spartan kings, entered and
       wasted the plain of Eleusis. Pericles led back his army from
       Eubœa, but the enemy was gone; he then returned and reduced
       that island, and having expelled the people of Hestiæa, gave
       their lands to Athenian colonists; and the Athenians, being
       unwilling to risk the chance of war with the Dorian
       confederacy, gladly formed (Ol. 83, 4) [B. C. 445] a truce for
       thirty years, surrendering Nisæa and Pegæ, and withdrawing a
       garrison which they had in Trœzen, and ceasing to interfere in
       Achaia."

          T. Keightley,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 1.

       "The Athenians saw themselves compelled to give up their
       possessions in Peloponnesus, especially Achaia, as well as
       Trœzene and Pagæ, an important position for their
       communication with the peninsula. Even Nisæa was abandoned.
       Yet these losses, sensibly as they affected their influence
       upon the Grecian continent, were counterbalanced by a
       concession still more significant, the acknowledgment of the
       Delian League. It was left open to states and cities which
       were members of neither confederacy to join either at
       pleasure. These events happened in Ol. 83,3 (B. C. 445)—the
       revolt of Megara and Eubœa, the invasion of Pleistoanax, the
       re-conquest of Eubœa, and the conclusion of the treaty, which
       assumed the form of an armistice for thirty years. Great
       importance must be attributed to this settlement, as involving
       an acknowledgment which satisfied both parties and did justice
       to the great interests at stake on either side. If Athens
       renounced some of her possessions, the sacrifice was
       compensated by the fact that Sparta recognized the existence
       of the naval supremacy of Athens, and the basis on which it
       rested. We may perhaps assume that the compromise between
       Pericles and Pleistoanax was the result of the conviction felt
       by both these leading men that a fundamental dissociation of
       the Peloponnesian from the Delian league was a matter of
       necessity. The Spartans wished to be absolutely supreme in the
       one, and resigned the other to the Athenians."

          L. von Ranke,
          Universal History:
          The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,
          chapter 7, section 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. B. Lytton,
          Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
          book 5, chapter 1.

    GREECE: B. C. 445-431.
       Splendor of Athens and greatness of the Athenian Empire under
       the rule of Pericles.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

    GREECE: B. C. 440.
       Subjugation of revolted Samos by the Athenians.
       Spartan interference prevented by Corinth.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

    GREECE: B. C. 435-432.
       Causes of the Peloponnesian War.

       "In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the
       Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended
       in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel
       between Corinth and Kerkyra [or Korkyra, or Corcyru], in which
       Athens assisted Kerkyra. A congress was held at Sparta;
       Corinth and other States complained of the conduct of Athens,
       and war was decided on. The real cause of the war was that
       Sparta and its allies were jealous of the great power that
       Athens had gained. A far greater number of Greek States were
       engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in a single
       undertaking before. States that had taken no part in the
       Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other. Sparta
       was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles everywhere;
       Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the common people;
       so that the war was to some extent a struggle between these
       classes all over Greece."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Greece (History Primer),
          chapter 5.

       "The Peloponnesian War was a protracted struggle, and attended
       by calamities such as Hellas had never known within a like
       period of time. Never were so many cities captured and
       depopulated—some by Barbarians, others by Hellenes themselves
       fighting against one another; and several of them after their
       capture were re-peopled by strangers. Never were exile and
       slaughter more frequent, whether in the war or brought about
       by civil strife. … There were earthquakes unparalleled in
       their extent and fury, and eclipses of the sun more numerous
       than are recorded to have happened in any former age; there
       were also in some places great droughts causing famines, and
       lastly the plague which did immense harm and destroyed numbers
       of the people. All these calamities fell upon Hellas
       simultaneously with the war, which began when the Athenians
       and Peloponnesians violated the thirty years' truce concluded
       by them after the recapture of Euboea. Why they broke it and
       what were the grounds of quarrel I will first set forth, that
       in time to come no man may be at a loss to know what was the
       origin of this great war. The real though unavowed cause I
       believe to have been the growth of the Athenian power, which
       terrified the Lacedaemonians and forced them into war."

          Thucydides,
          History
          (translated by Jowett),
          book 1, section 23.

       The quarrel between Corinth and Korkyra, out of which, as an
       immediate excitement, the Peloponnesian War grew, concerned
       "the city of Epidamnus, known afterwards, in the Roman times,
       as Dyrrachium, hard by the modern Durazzo—a colony founded by
       the Korkyreans on the coast of Illyria, in the Ionic gulf,
       considerably to the north of their own island."
    {1580}
       The oligarchy of Epidamnus, driven out by the people, had
       allied themselves with the neighboring Illyrians and were
       harassing the city. Korkyra refused aid to the latter when
       appealed to, but Corinth (of which Korkyra was itself a
       colony) promptly rendered help. This involved Corinth and
       Korkyra in hostilities, and Athens gave support to the latter.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          volume 3, book 4.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 19-30.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 47-48 (volume 5).

    GREECE: B. C. 432.
       Great Sea-fight of the Corinthians
       with the Korkyrians and Athenians.
       Revolt of Potidæa.

       "Although Korkyra became the ally of Athens, the force sent to
       her aid was confined to the small number of ten ships, for the
       express purpose of making it clear to the Corinthians that no
       aggressive measures were intended; and the generals received
       precise instructions to remain strictly neutral unless the
       Corinthians should attempt to effect a landing either on
       Korkyra or on any Korkyraian settlements. The Corinthians lost
       no time in bringing the quarrel to an issue. With a fleet of
       150 ships, of which 60 were furnished by their allies, they
       sailed to the harbor of Cheimerion near the lake through which
       the river Acheron finds its way into the sea about thirty
       miles to the east of the southernmost promontory of Korkyra.
       The conflict which ensued exhibited a scene of confusion which
       the Athenian seamen probably regarded with infinite contempt.
       After a hard struggle the Korkyraians routed the right wing of
       the enemy's fleet, and chasing it to its camp on shore, lost
       time in plundering it and burning the tents. For this folly
       they paid a terrible price. The remainder of the Korkyraian
       fleet, borne down by sheer force of numbers, was put to
       flight, and probably saved from utter ruin only by the open
       interference of the Athenians, who now dashed into the fight
       without scruple, and came into direct conflict with the
       Corinthians. The latter were now resolved to press their
       advantage to the utmost. Sailing through the enemy's ships,
       they applied themselves to the task not of taking prizes, but
       of indiscriminate slaughter, to which not a few of their own
       people fell victims. After this work of destruction, they
       conveyed their disabled ships with their dead to Sybota, and,
       still unwearied, advanced again to the attack, although it was
       now late in the day. Their Paian, or battle cry, had already
       rung through the air, when they suddenly backed water. Twenty
       Athenian ships had come into sight, and the Corinthians,
       supposing them to be only the vanguard of a larger force,
       hastily retreated. The Korkyraians, ignorant of the cause of
       this movement, marvelled at their departure: but the darkness
       was now closing in, and they also withdrew to their own
       ground. So ended the greatest sea-fight in which Hellenes had
       thus far contended not with barbarians but with their own
       kinsfolk. On the following day the Korkyraians sailed to
       Sybota with such of their ships as were still fit for service,
       supported by the thirty Athenian ships. But the Corinthians,
       far from wishing to come to blows with the newcomers, were
       anxious rather for their own safety. Concluding that the
       Athenians now regarded the Thirty Years' Truce as broken, they
       were afraid of being forcibly hindered by them in their
       homeward voyage. It became necessary therefore to learn what
       they meant to do. The answer of the Athenians was plain and
       decisive. They did not mean to break the truce, and the
       Corinthians might go where they pleased, so long as they did
       not go to Korkyra or to any city or settlement belonging to
       her. … Upwards of a thousand prisoners had fallen into the
       hands of the Corinthians. Of these 250 were conveyed to
       Corinth, and treated with the greatest kindness and care. Like
       the Athenians, the Corinthians were acting only from a regard
       to their own interests. Their object was to send these
       prisoners back to Korkyra, nominally under pledge to pay a
       heavy ransom for their freedom, but having really covenanted
       to put down the Demos, and thus to insure the hearty alliance
       of Korkyra with Corinth. These men returned home to stir up
       the most savage seditions that ever disgraced an Hellenic
       city.

          G. W. Cox,
          General History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 1.

       "The evils of this imprudent interference of the Athenians
       began now to be seen. In consequence of the Corcyrian
       alliance, the Athenians issued an order to Potidæa, a
       Macedonian town acknowledging their supremacy, to demolish its
       walls; to send back certain officers whom they had received
       from Corinth, and to give hostages for their good conduct.
       Potidæa, although an ally of Athens, had originally been a
       colony of Corinth, and thus arose the jealousy which
       occasioned these harsh and peremptory orders. Symptoms of
       universal hostility to Athens now appeared in the states
       around. The Corinthians and their allies were much irritated;
       the oppressed Potidæans were strongly instigated to revolt;
       and Perdiccas, king of Macedon, who had some time since been
       at open war with the Athenians, now gladly seized the
       opportunity to distress them, by exciting and assisting the
       malcontents. The Potidæans, however, deputed ambassadors to
       Athens to deprecate the harsh orders which had been sent them;
       but in the mean time to prepare for the worst, they also sent
       messengers to Sparta entreating support, where they met
       deputies from Corinth and Megara. By these loud and general
       complaints Sparta was at length roused to head the conspiracy
       against Athens, and the universal flames of war shortly
       afterwards broke forth throughout Greece." The revolt of
       Potidæa followed immediately; the Corinthians placed a strong
       force in the town, under Aristeus, and the Athenians sent an
       army under Phormion to lay siege to it.

          Early History of Greece
         (Enc. Metropolitana),
          page 283.

    GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
       Charges brought by Corinth against Athens.
       The hearing and the Congress at Sparta.
       Decision for war.
       Theban attack on Platæa.
       The Peloponnesian War begun.

       The Corinthians "invited deputies from the other states of the
       confederacy to meet them at Sparta, and there charged the
       Athenians with having broken the treaty, and trampled on the
       rights of the Peloponnesians. The Spartans held an assembly to
       receive the complaints of their allies, and to discuss the
       question of peace or war. Here the Corinthians were seconded
       by several other members of the confederacy, who had also
       wrongs to complain of against Athens, and urged the Spartans
       for redress. … It happened that at this time Athenian
       envoys, who had been sent on other business, were still in
       Sparta.
    {1581}
       They desired permission to attend and address the assembly.
       … When the strangers had all been heard, they were desired
       to withdraw, that the assembly might deliberate. The feeling
       against the Athenians was universal; most voices were for
       instant war. … The deputies of the allies were then informed
       of the resolution which the assembly had adopted, and that a
       general congress of the confederacy would shortly be summoned
       to deliberate on the same question, in order that war, if
       decided on, might be decreed by common consent. … The
       congress decided on the war; but the confederacy was totally
       unprepared for commencing hostilities, and though the
       necessary preparations were immediately begun and vigorously
       prosecuted, nearly a year elapsed before it was ready to bring
       an army into the field. In the meantime embassies were sent to
       Athens with various remonstrances and demands, for the double
       purpose of amusing the Athenians with the prospect of peace,
       and of multiplying pretexts for war. An attempt was made, not,
       perhaps, so foolish as it was insolent, to revive the popular
       dread of the curse which had been supposed to hang over the
       Alcmæonids. The Athenians were called upon, in the name of the
       gods, to banish all who remained among them of that
       blood-stained race. If they had complied with this demand,
       they must have parted with Pericles, who, by the mother's
       side, was connected with the Alcmæonids. This, indeed, was not
       expected; but it was hoped that the refusal might afford a
       pretext to his enemies at Athens for treating him as the
       author of the war. The Athenians retorted by requiring the
       Spartans to expiate the pollution with which they had profaned
       the sanctuary of Tænarus, by dragging from it some Helots who
       had taken refuge there, and that of Athene, by the death of
       Pausanias. … Still, war had been only threatened, not
       declared; and peaceful intercourse, though not wholly free
       from distrust, was still kept up between the subjects of the
       two confederacies. But early in the following spring, B. C.
       431, in the fifteenth year of the Thirty Years' Truce, an
       event took place which closed all prospects of peace,
       precipitated the commencement of war, imbittered the animosity
       of the contending parties, and prepared some of the most
       tragical scenes of the ensuing history. In the dead of night
       the city of Platæa was surprised by a body of 300 Thebans,
       commanded by two of the great officers called Bœotarchs. They
       had been invited by a Platæan named Nauclides, and others of
       the same party, who hoped, with the aid of the Thebans, to rid
       themselves of their political opponents, and to break off the
       relation in which their city was standing to Athens, and
       transfer its alliance to Thebes. The Thebans, foreseeing that
       a general war was fast approaching, felt the less scruple in
       strengthening themselves by this acquisition, while it might
       be made with little cost and risk. The gates were unguarded,
       as in time of peace, and one of them was secretly opened to
       the invaders, who advanced without interruption into the
       marketplace. … The Platæans, who were not in the plot,
       imagined the force by which their city had been surprised to
       be much stronger than it really was, and, as no hostile
       treatment was offered to them, remained quiet, and entered
       into a parley with the Thebans. In the course of these
       conferences they gradually discovered that the number of the
       enemy was small, and might be easily overpowered. … Having
       barricaded the streets with wagons, and made such other
       preparations as they thought necessary, a little before
       daybreak they suddenly fell upon the Thebans. The little band
       made a vigorous defence, and twice or thrice repulsed the
       assailants; but as these still returned to the charge, and
       were assisted by the women and slaves, who showered stones and
       tiles from the houses on the enemy, all, at the same time,
       raising a tumultuous clamour, and a heavy rain increased the
       confusion caused by the darkness, they at length lost their
       presence of mind, and took to flight. But most were unable to
       find their way in the dark through a strange town, and several
       were slain as they wandered to and fro in search of an outlet.
       … The main body, which had kept together, entered a large
       building adjoining the walls, having mistaken its gates, which
       they found open, for those of the town, and were shut in. The
       Platæans at first thought of setting fire to the building; but
       at length the men within, as well as the rest of the Thebans,
       who were still wandering up and down the streets, surrendered
       at discretion. Before their departure from Thebes it had been
       concerted that as large a force as could be raised should
       march the same night to support them. The distance between the
       two places was not quite nine miles, and these troops were
       expected to reach the gates of Platæa before the morning; but
       the Asopus, which crossed their road, had been swollen by the
       rain, and the state of the ground and the weather otherwise
       retarded them, so that they were still on their way when they
       heard of the failure of the enterprise. Though they did not
       know the fate of their countrymen, as it was possible that
       some might have been taken prisoners, they were at first
       inclined to seize as many of the Platæans as they could find
       without the walls, and to keep them as hostages. … The
       Thebans afterward alleged that they had received a promise,
       confirmed by an oath, that, on condition of their retiring
       from the Platæan territory, the prisoners should be released;
       and Thucydides seems disposed to believe this statement. The
       Platæans denied that they had pledged themselves to spare the
       lives of the prisoners, unless they should come to terms on
       the whole matter with the Thebans; but it does not seem likely
       that, after ascertaining the state of the case, the Thebans
       would have been satisfied with so slight a security. It is
       certain, however, that they retired, and that the Platæans, as
       soon as they had transported their movable property out of the
       country into the town, put to death all the prisoners—
       amounting to 180, and including Eurymachus, the principal
       author of the enterprise, and the man who possessed the
       greatest influence in Thebes. On the first entrance of the
       Thebans into Platæa, a messenger had been despatched to Athens
       with the intelligence, and the Athenians had immediately laid
       all the Bœotians in Attica under arrest; and when another
       messenger brought the news of the victory gained by the
       Platæans, they sent a herald to request that they would
       reserve the prisoners for the disposal of the Athenians. The
       herald came too late to prevent the execution; and the
       Athenians, foreseeing that Platæa would stand in great need of
       defence, sent a body of troops to garrison it, supplied it
       with provisions, and removed the women and children and all
       persons unfit for service in a siege.
    {1582}
       After this event it was apparent that the quarrel could only
       be decided by arms. Platæa was so intimately united with
       Athens, that the Athenians felt the attack which had been made
       on it as an outrage offered to themselves, and prepared for
       immediate hostilities. Sparta, too, instantly sent notice to
       all her allies to get their contingents ready by an appointed
       day for the invasion of Attica."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 19 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Thucydides,
          History,
          books 1-2.

    GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
       The Peloponnesian War: How Hellas was divided.
       The opposing camps.
       Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
       The Plague at Athens.
       Death of Pericles.
       Surrender of Potidæa to the Athenians.

       "All Hellas was excited by the coming conflict between her two
       chief cities. … The feeling of mankind was strongly on the
       side of the Lacedaemonians; for they professed to be the
       liberators of Hellas. … The general indignation against the
       Athenians was intense; some were longing to be delivered from
       them, others fearful of falling under their sway. … The
       Lacedaemonian confederacy included all the Peloponnesians with
       the exception of the Argives and the Achaeans—they were both
       neutral; only the Achaeans of Pellene took part with the
       Lacedaemonians at first; afterwards all the Achaeans joined
       them. Beyond the borders of the Peloponnese, the Megarians,
       Phocians, Locrians, Boeotians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, and
       Anactorians were their allies. Of these the Corinthians,
       Megarians, Sicyonians, Pellenians, Eleans, Ambraciots, and
       Leucadians provided a navy, the Boeotians, Phocians, and
       Locrians furnished cavalry, the other states only infantry.
       The allies of the Athenians were Chios, Lesbos, Plataea, the
       Messenians of Naupactus, the greater part of Acarnania,
       Corcyra, Zacynthus, and cities in many other countries which
       were their tributaries. There was the maritime region of
       Caria, the adjacent Dorian peoples, Ionia, the Hellespont, the
       Thracian coast, the islands that lie to the east within the
       line of Peloponnesus and Crete, including all the Cyclades
       with the exception of Melos and Thera. Chios, Lesbos and
       Corcyra furnished a navy; the rest, land forces and money.
       Thus much concerning the two confederacies, and the character
       of their respective forces. Immediately after the affair at
       Plataea the Lacedaemonians determined to invade Attica, and
       sent round word to their Peloponnesian and other allies,
       bidding them equip troops and provide all things necessary for
       a foreign expedition. The various states made their
       preparations as fast as they could, and at the appointed time,
       with contingents numbering two-thirds of the forces of each,
       met at the Isthmus." Then followed the invasion of Attica, the
       siege of Athens, the plague in the city, the death of
       Pericles, and the success won by the indomitable Athenians, at
       Potidaea, in the midst of their sore distress.

          Thucydides,
          History
          (translated by Jowett),
          book 2, sections 8-70 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Abbott,
          Pericles,
          chapters 13-15.

          See ATHENS: 431 B. C. 431 and 430-429.

    GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Siege, capture and destruction of Platæa.

       "In the third spring of the war, the Peloponnesians changed
       their plan of offence. By the invasion and ravage of Attica
       for two following summers, tho much injury had been done to
       the Athenians, little advantage had accrued to themselves: the
       booty was far from paying the expense of the expedition; the
       enemy, it was found, could not be provoked to risk a battle,
       and the great purpose of the war was little forwarded. The
       Peloponnesians were yet very unequal to attempt naval
       operations of any consequence. Of the continental dependencies
       of Athens none was so open to their attacks, none so
       completely excluded from naval protection, none so likely by
       its danger to superinduce that war of the field which they
       wished, as Platæa. Against that town therefore it was
       determined to direct the principal effort. … Under the
       command still of Archidamus, the confederate army accordingly
       entered the Platæid, and ravage was immediately begun. … The
       town was small, as may be judged from the very small force
       which sufficed for an effectual garrison; only 400 Platæans,
       with 80 Athenians. There were besides in the place 110 women
       to prepare provisions, and no other person free or slave. The
       besieging army, composed of the flower of the Peloponnesian
       youth, was numerous. The first operation was to surround the
       town with a palisade, which might prevent any ready egress;
       the neighboring forest of Cithæron supplying materials. Then,
       in a chosen spot, ground was broken, according to the modern
       phrase, for making approaches. The business was to fill the
       town-ditch, and against the wall to form a mound, on which a
       force sufficient for assault might ascend. … Such was at
       that time the inartificial process of a siege. Thucydides
       appears to have been well aware that it did no credit to the
       science of his age. … To oppose this mode of attack, the
       first measure of the besieged was to raise, on that part of
       their wall against which the mound was forming, a strong
       wooden frame, covered in front with leather and hides; and,
       within this, to build a rampart with bricks from the
       neighboring houses. The wooden frame bound the whole, and kept
       it firm to a considerable height: the covering of hides
       protected both work and workmen against weapons discharged
       against them, especially fiery arrows. But the mound still
       rising as the superstructure on the wall rose, and this
       superstructure becoming unavoidably weaker with increasing
       height, while the mound was liable to no counterbalancing
       defect, it was necessary for the besieged to devise other
       opposition. Accordingly they broke through the bottom of
       their wall, where the mound bore against it, and brought in
       the earth. The Peloponnesians, soon aware of this, instead of
       loose earth, repaired their mound with clay or mud inclosed in
       baskets. This requiring more labor to remove, the besieged
       undermined the mound; and thus, for a long time unperceived,
       prevented it from gaining height. Still, however, fearing that
       the efforts of their scanty numbers would be overborne by the
       multitude of hands which the besiegers could employ, they had
       recourse to another device. Within their town-wall they built,
       in a semilunar form, a second wall, connected with the first
       at the extremities. These extended, on either side, beyond the
       mound; so that should the enemy possess themselves of the
       outer wall, their work would be to be renewed in a far less
       favorable situation. … A ram, advanced upon the
       Peloponnesian mound, battered the superstructure on the
       Platæan rampart, and shook it violently; to the great alarm of
       the garrison, but with little farther effect.
    {1583}
       Other machines of the same kind were employed against
       different parts of the wall itself, but to yet less purpose.
       … No means however were neglected by the besiegers that
       either approved practice suggested, or their ingenuity could
       devise, to promote their purpose; yet, after much of the
       summer consumed, they found every effort of their numerous
       forces so completely baffled by the vigilance, activity, and
       resolution of the little garrison, that they began to despair
       of succeeding by assault. Before however they would recur to
       the tedious method of blockade, they determined to try one
       more experiment, for which their numbers, and the neighboring
       woods of Cithæron, gave them more than ordinary facility.
       Preparing a very great quantity of faggots, they filled with
       them the town-ditch in the parts adjoining to their mound, and
       disposed piles in other parts around the place, wherever
       ground or any other circumstance gave most advantage. On the
       faggots they put sulphur and pitch, and then set all on fire.
       The conflagration was such as was never before known, says
       Thucydides, to have been prepared and made by the hands or
       men. … But fortunately for the garrison, a heavy rain,
       brought on by a thunderstorm without wind, extinguished the
       fire, and relieved them from an attack far more formidable
       than any they had before experienced. This attempt failing,
       the Peloponnesians determined immediately to reduce the siege
       to a blockade. … To the palisade, which already surrounded
       the town, a contravallation was added; with a double ditch,
       one without, and one within. A sufficient body of troops being
       then appointed to the guard of these works, the Bœotians
       undertaking one half, the other was allotted to detachments
       drafted from the troops of every state of the confederacy,
       and, a little after the middle of September, the rest of the
       army was dismissed for the winter."

          W. Mitford,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 15, section 1 (volume 2).

       When the blockade had endured for more than a year, and food
       in the city grew scarce, about half of the defending force
       made a bold dash for liberty, one stormy night, scaled the
       walls of circumvallation, and escaped. The remainder held out
       until some time in the next year, when they surrendered and
       were all put to death, the city being destroyed. The families
       of the Platæans had been sheltered at Athens before the siege
       began.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          books 2-3.

    GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Phormio's sea-fights.
       Revolt of Lesbos.
       Siege and capture of Mitylene.
       The ferocious decree of Cleon reversed.

       "At the same time that Archidamus laid siege to Plataea, a
       small Peloponnesian expedition, under a Spartan officer named
       Cnemus, had crossed the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth, and
       joined the land forces of the Leucadians and Ambraciots. They
       were bent on conquering the Acarnanians and the Messenians of
       Naupactus, the only continental allies whom Athens possessed
       in Western Greece. … When Cnemus had been joined by the
       troops of Leucas and the other Corinthian towns, and had
       further strengthened himself by summoning to his standard a
       number of the predatory barbarian tribes of Epirus, he
       advanced on Stratus, the chief city of Acarnania. At the same
       time a squadron of Peloponnesian ships collected at Corinth,
       and set sail down the gulf towards Naupactus. The only
       Athenian force in these waters consisted of twenty galleys
       under an able officer named Phormio, who was cruising off the
       straits of Rhium, to protect Naupactus and blockade the
       Corinthian Gulf. Both by land and by sea the operations of the
       Peloponnesians miscarried miserably. Cnemus collected a very
       considerable army, but as he sent his men forward to attack
       Stratus by three separate roads, he exposed them to defeat in
       detail. … By sea the defeat of the Peloponnesians was even
       more disgraceful; the Corinthian admirals Machaon and
       Isocrates were so scared, when they came across the squadron
       of Phormio at the mouth of the gulf, that, although they
       mustered 47 ships to his 20, they took up the defensive.
       Huddling together in a circle, they shrank from his attack,
       and allowed themselves to be hustled and worried into the
       Achaian harbour of Patrae, losing several ships in their
       flight. Presently reinforcements arrived; the Peloponnesian
       fleet was raised to no less than 77 vessels, and three Spartan
       officers were sent on board, to compel the Corinthian
       admirals, who had behaved so badly, to do their best in
       future. The whole squadron then set out to hunt down Phormio.
       They found him with his 20 ships coasting along the Aetolian
       shore towards Naupactus, and at once set out in pursuit. The
       long chase separated the larger fleet into scattered knots,
       and gave the fighting a disconnected and irregular character.
       While the rear ships of Phormio's squadron were compelled to
       run on shore a few miles outside Naupactus, the 11 leading
       vessels reached the harbour in safety. Finding that he was now
       only pursued by about a score of the enemy—the rest having
       stayed behind to take possession of the stranded Athenian
       vessels—Phormio came boldly out of port again. His 11
       vessels took 6, and sunk one of their pursuers; and then,
       pushing on westward, actually succeeded in recapturing most of
       the 9 ships which had been lost in the morning. This
       engagement, though it had no great results, was considered the
       most daring feat performed by the Athenian navy during the
       whole war. … The winter passed uneventfully, and the war
       seemed as far as ever from showing any signs of producing a
       definite result. But although the Spartan invasion of 428 B.
       C. had no more effect than those of the preceding years, yet
       in the late summer there occurred an event so fraught with
       evil omens for Athens, as to threaten the whole fabric of her
       empire. For the first time since the commencement of
       hostilities, an important subject state made an endeavour to
       free itself by the aid of the Spartan fleet. Lesbos was one of
       the two Aegean islands which still remained free from tribute,
       and possessed a considerable war-navy. Among its five towns
       Mitylene was the chief, and far exceeded the others in wealth
       and resources. It was governed by an oligarchy, who had long
       been yearning to revolt, and had made careful preparation by
       accumulating war-like stores and enlisting foreign
       mercenaries. … The whole island except Methymna, where a
       democracy ruled, rose in arms, and determined to send for aid
       to Sparta. The Athenians at once despatched against Mitylene a
       squadron of 40 ships under Cleïppides, which had just been
       equipped for a cruise in Peloponnesian waters. This force had
       an engagement with the Lesbian fleet, and drove it back into
       the harbour of Mitylene.
    {1584}
       To gain time for assistance from across the Aegean to arrive,
       the Lesbians now pretended to be anxious to surrender, and
       engaged Cleïppides in a long and fruitless negotiation, while
       they were repeating their demands at Sparta. But at last the
       Athenian grew suspicious, established a close blockade of
       Mitylene by sea, and landed a small force of hoplites to hold
       a fortified camp on shore. … Believing the revolt of the
       Lesbians to be the earnest of a general rising of all the
       vassals of Athens, the Peloponnesians determined to make a
       vigorous effort in their favour. The land contingents of the
       various states were summoned to the Isthmus—though the
       harvest was now ripe, and the allies were loath to leave their
       reaping—while it was also determined to haul over the
       Corinthian Isthmus the fleet which had fought against Phormio,
       and then to despatch it to relieve Mitylene. … The Athenians
       were furious at the idea that their vassals were now about to
       be stirred up to revolt, and strained every nerve to defend
       themselves. While the blockade of Mitylene was kept up, and
       100 galleys cruised in the Aegean to intercept any succours
       sent to Lesbos, another squadron of 100 ships sailed round
       Peloponnesus and harried the coastland with a systematic
       ferocity that surpassed any of their previous doings. To
       complete the crews of the 250 ships now afloat and in active
       service proved so great a drain on the military force of
       Athens, that not only the Thetes but citizens of the higher
       classes were drafted on shipboard. Nevertheless the effect
       which they designed by this display of power was fully
       produced. To defend their own harvests the confederates who
       had met at the Isthmus went homewards, while the dismay at the
       strength of the Athenian fleet was so great that the plan of
       sending naval aid to Lesbos was put off for the present. …
       All through the winter of 428-7 B. C. the blockade of Mitylene
       was kept up, though its maintenance proved a great drain on
       the resources of Athens. On the land side a considerable force
       of hoplites under Paches strengthened the troops already on
       the spot, and made it possible to wall the city in with lines
       of circumvallation. … When the spring of 427 B. C. arrived,
       the Spartans determined to make a serious attempt to send aid
       to Lesbos; but the fear of imperiling all their naval
       resources in a single expedition kept them from despatching a
       fleet of sufficient size. Only 42 galleys, under an admiral
       named Alcidas, were sent forth from Corinth. This squadron
       managed to cross the Aegean without meeting the Athenians, by
       steering a cautious and circuitous course among the islands.
       But so much time was lost on the way, that on arriving off
       Embatum in Ionia, Ælia found that Mitylene had surrendered
       just seven days before. … Learning the fall of Mitylene, he
       made off southward, and, after intercepting many merchant
       vessels off the Ionian coast and brutally slaying their crews,
       returned to Corinth without having struck a single blow for
       the cause of Sparta. Paches soon reduced Antissa, Eresus, and
       Pyrrha, the three Lesbian towns which had joined in the revolt
       of Mitylene, and was then able to sail home, taking with him
       the Laconian general Salaethus, who had been caught in hiding
       at Mitylene, together with the other leaders of the revolt.
       When the prisoners arrived at Athens Salaethus was at once put
       to death without a trial. But the fate of the Lesbians was the
       subject of an important and characteristic debate in the
       Ecclesia. Led by the demagogue Cleon, the Athenians at first
       passed the monstrous resolution that the whole of the
       Mitylenaeans, not merely the prisoners at Athens, but every
       adult male in the city, should be put to death, and their
       wives and families sold as slaves. It is some explanation but
       no excuse for this horrible decree that Lesbos had been an
       especially favoured ally, and that its revolt had for a moment
       put Athens in deadly fear of a general rising of Ionia and
       Aeolis. Cleon the leather-seller, the author of this infamous
       decree, was one of the statesmen of a coarse and inferior
       stamp, whose rise had been rendered possible by the democratic
       changes which Pericles had introduced into the state. … On
       the eve of the first day of debate the motion of Cleon had
       been passed, and a galley sent off to Paches at Mitylene,
       bidding him slay all the Lesbians; but on the next morning …
       the decree of Cleon was rescinded by a small majority, and a
       second galley sent off to stay Paches from the massacre. …
       By extraordinary exertions the bearers of the reprieve
       contrived to reach Lesbos only a few hours after Paches had
       received the first despatch, and before he had time to put it
       into execution. Thus the majority of the Mitylenaeans were
       saved; but all their leaders and prominent men, not less than
       1,000 in number, were put to death. … The land of the
       Lesbians was divided into 3,000 lots, of which a tenth was
       consecrated to the gods, while the rest were granted out to
       Athenian cleruchs, who became the landlords of the old
       owners."

          C. W. C. Oman,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 28.

          ALSO IN:
          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 2, sections 80-92,
          and book 3, sections 1-50.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

    GREECE: B. C. 425.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Spartan catastrophe at Sphacteria.
       Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

       In the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 425), the
       enterprising Athenian general, Demosthenes, obtained
       permission to seize and fortify a harbor on the west coast of
       Messenia, with a view to harassing the adjacent Spartan
       territory and stirring up revolt among the subjugated
       Messenians. The position he secured was the promontory of
       Pylus, overlooking the basin now called the Bay of Navarino,
       which latter was protected from the sea by the small island of
       Sphacteria, stretching across its front. The seizure of Pylus
       created alarm in Sparta at once, and vigorous measures were
       taken to expel the intruders. The small force of Demosthenes
       was assailed, front and rear, by a strong land army and a
       powerful Peloponnesian fleet; but he had fortified himself
       with skill and stoutly held his ground, waiting for help from
       Athens. Meantime his assailants had landed 420 men on the
       island of Sphacteria, and these were mostly hoplites, or
       heavy-armed soldiers, from the best citizenship of Sparta. In
       this situation an Athenian fleet made its sudden and
       unexpected appearance, defeated the Peloponnesian fleet
       completely, took possession of the harbor and surrounded the
       Spartans on Sphacteria with a ring from which there was no
       escape. To obtain the release of these citizens the Spartans
       were reduced to plead for peace on almost any terms, and
       Athens had her opportunity to end the war at that moment with
       great advantage to herself. But Cleon, the demagogue,
       persuaded the people to refuse peace. The beleaguered hoplites
       on Sphacteria were made prisoners by force, and little came of
       it in the end.

    {1585}

          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 4, sections 2-38.

       Pylus remained in the possession of the Athenians until
       B. C. 408, when it was retaken by the Spartans.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 52.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

    GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Brasidas in Chalcidice.
       Athenian defeat at Delium.
       A year's Truce.
       Renewed hostilities.
       Death of Brasidas and Cleon at Amphipolis.
       The Peace of Nikias (Nicias).

       "About the beginning of 424 B. C. Brasidas did for Sparta what
       Demosthenes had done for the Athenians. Just as Demosthenes
       had understood that the severest blow which he could inflict
       on Sparta was to occupy the coasts of Laconia, so Brasidas
       understood that the most effective method of assailing the
       Athenians was to arouse the allies to revolution, and by all
       means to aid the uprising. But since, from lack of a
       sufficient naval force, he could not work on the islands, he
       resolved to carry the war to the allied cities of the
       Athenians situated on the coast of Macedonia; especially since
       Perdikkas, king of Macedonia, the inhabitants of Chalkidike,
       and some other districts subject to the Athenians, had sought
       the assistance of Sparta, and had asked Brasidas to lead the
       undertaking. Sparta permitted his departure, but so little did
       she appear disposed to assist him, that she granted him only
       700 Helots. In addition to these, however, he succeeded,
       through the money sent from Chalkidike, in enrolling about
       1,000 men from the Peloponnesus. With this small force of
       1,700 hoplites, Brasidas resolved to undertake this
       adventurous and important expedition. He started in the spring
       of 424, and reached Macedonia through eastern Hellas and
       Thessaly. He effected the march with great daring and wisdom,
       and on his way he also saved Megara, which was in extreme
       danger from the Athenians. Reaching Macedonia and uniting
       forces with Perdikkas, Brasidas detached from the Athenians
       many cities, promising them liberty from the tyranny they
       suffered, and their association in the Peloponnesian alliance
       on equal terms. He made good these promises by great military
       experience and perfectly honest dealings. In December he
       became master of Amphipolis, perhaps the most important of all
       the foreign possessions of Athens. The historian Thucydides,
       to whom was intrusted the defense of that important town, was
       at Thasos when Brasidas surprised it. He hastened to the
       assistance of the threatened city, but did not arrive in time
       to prevent its capture. Dr. Thirlwall says it does not appear
       that human prudence and activity could have accomplished
       anything more under the same circumstances; yet his
       unavoidable failure proved the occasion of a sentence under
       which he spent twenty years of his life in exile, where he
       composed his history. … The revolution of the allied cities
       in Macedonia astonished the Athenians, who almost at the same
       time sustained other misfortunes. Following the advice of
       Kleon, instead of directing their main efforts to the
       endangered Chalkidike, they decided, about the middle of 424,
       to recover Bœotia itself, in conjunction as usual with some
       malcontents in the Bœotian towns, who desired to break down
       and democratize the oligarchical governments. The undertaking,
       however, was not merely unsuccessful, but attended with a
       ruinous defeat. A force of 7,000 hoplites [among them,
       Socrates, the philosopher—see DELIUM], several hundred
       horsemen, and 25,000 light-armed under command of Hippokrates,
       took possession of Delium, a spot strongly situated,
       overhanging the sea, about five miles from Tanagra, and very
       near the Attic confines. But while the Athenians were still
       occupied in raising their fortifications, they were suddenly
       startled by the sound of the Bœotian pæan, and found
       themselves attacked by an army of 7,000 hoplites, 1,000 horse,
       and 500 peltasts. The Athenians suffered a complete defeat,
       and were driven away with great loss. Such was the change of
       affairs which took place in 424 B. C. During the preceding
       year they could have ended the war in a manner most
       advantageous to them. They did not choose to do so, and were
       now constantly defeated. Worse still, the seeds of revolt
       spread among the allied cities. The best citizens, among whom
       Nikias was a leader, finally persuaded the people that it was
       necessary to come to terms of peace, while affairs were yet
       undecided. For, although the Athenians had suffered the
       terrific defeat near Delium, and had lost Amphipolis and other
       cities of Macedonia, they were still masters of Pylos, of
       Kythera, of Methone, of Nisæa, and of the Spartans captured in
       Sphakteria; so that there was now an equality of advantages
       and of losses. Besides, the Lacedæmonians were ever ready to
       lay aside the sword in order to regain their men. Again, the
       oligarchy in Sparta envied Brasidas, and did not look with
       pleasure on his splendid achievements. Lately they had refused
       to send him any assistance whatever: The opportunity,
       therefore, was advantageous for the conclusion of peace, …
       Such were the arguments by which Nikias and his party finally
       gained the ascendency over Kleon, and in the beginning of 423
       B. C. persuaded the Athenians to enter into an armistice of
       one year, within which they hoped to be able to put an end to
       the destructive war by a lasting peace. Unfortunately, the
       armistice could not be carried out in Chalkidike. The cities
       there continued in their rebellion against the Athenians.
       Brasidas could not be prevailed upon to leave them unprotected
       in the struggle which they had undertaken, relying on his
       promises of assistance. The war-like party at Athens, taking
       advantage of this, succeeded in frustrating any definite
       conditions of peace. On the other hand, the Lacedæmonians,
       seeing that the war was continued, sent an ample force to
       Brasidas. This army did not succeed in reaching him, because
       the king of Macedonia, Perdikkas, had in the meantime become
       angered with Brasidas, and persuaded the Thessalians to oppose
       the Lacedæmonians in their passage. The year of the armistice
       passed, and Kleon renewed his expostulations against the
       incompetency of the generals who had the control of affairs in
       Chalkidike. … The Athenians decided to forward a new force,
       and intrusted its command to Kleon. He therefore, in August,
       422 B. C., started from the Peiræus, with 1,200 hoplites, 300
       horsemen, a considerable number of allies, and thirty
       triremes. Reaching Chalkidike, he engaged in battle against
       Brasidas in Amphipolis, suffered a disgraceful defeat, and was
       killed while fleeing. Brasidas also ended his short but
       glorious career in this battle, dying the death of a hero. The
       way in which his memory was honored was the best evidence of
       the deep impression that he had made on the Hellenic world.
    {1586}
       All the allies attended his funeral in arms, and interred him
       at the public expense, in front of the market-place of
       Amphipolis. … Thus disappeared the two foremost champions of
       the war—its good spirit, Brasidas, and its evil, Kleon. The
       party of Nikias finally prevailed at Athens, and that general
       soon after arranged a conference with King Pleistoanax of
       Sparta, who was also anxious for peace. Discussions continued
       during the whole autumn and winter after the battle of
       Amphipolis, without any actual hostilities on either side.
       Finally, at the beginning of the spring of 421 B. C., a peace
       of fifty years was agreed upon. The principal conditions of
       this peace, known in history as the 'peace of Nikias,' were as
       follows:

       1. The Lacedæmonians and their allies were to restore
       Amphipolis and all the prisoners to the Athenians. They were
       further to relinquish to the Athenians Argilus, Stageirus,
       Acanthus, Skolus, Olynthus, and Spartolus. But, with the
       exception of Amphipolis, these cities were to remain
       independent, paying to the Athenians only the usual tribute of
       the time of Aristeides.

       2. The Athenians should restore to the Lacedæmonians
       Koryphasium, Kythera, Methone, Pteleum, and Atalante, with all
       the captives in their hands from Sparta or her allies.

       3. Respecting Skione, Torone, Sermylus, or any other town in
       the possession of Athens, the Athenians should have the right
       to adopt such measures as they pleased.

       4. The Lacedæmonians and their allies should restore Panaktum
       to the Athenians.

       When these terms were submitted at Sparta to the consideration
       of the allied cities, the majority accepted them. The
       Bœotians, Megarians, and Corinthians, however, summarily
       refused their consent. The Peloponnesian war was now
       considered to be at an end, precisely ten years from its
       beginning; Both the combatants came out from it terribly
       maimed. Sparta not only did not attain her object—the
       emancipation of the Hellenic cities from the tyranny of the
       Athenians—but even officially recognized this tyranny, by
       consenting that the Athenians should adopt such measures as
       they choose toward the allied cities. Besides, Sparta obtained
       an ill repute throughout Hellas, because she had abandoned the
       Greeks in Chalkidike, who had at her instigation revolted, and
       because she had also sacrificed the interests of her principal
       allies. … Athens, on the other hand, preserved intact her
       supremacy, for which she undertook the struggle. This,
       however, was gained at the cost of Attica ravaged, a multitude
       of citizens slain, the exhaustion of the treasury, and the
       increase of the common hatred."

          T. T. Timayenis,
          History of Greece,
          part 5, chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 23 (volume 3).

    GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       New combinations.
       The Argive League against Sparta.
       Conflicting alliances of Athens with both.
       Rising influence of Alcibiades.
       War in Argos.
       Spartan victory at Mantinea.
       Revolution in Argos.

       "All the Spartan allies in Peloponnesus and the Boeotians
       refused to join in this treaty [of Nicias]. The latter
       concluded with the Athenians only a truce of ten days … ,
       probably on condition, that, if no notice was given to the
       contrary, it was to be constantly renewed after the lapse of
       ten days. With Corinth there existed no truce at all. Some of
       the terms of the peace were not complied with, though this was
       the case much less on the part of Athens than on that of
       Sparta. … The Spartans, from the first, were guilty of
       infamous deception, and this immediately gave rise to bitter
       feelings. But before matters had come to this, and when the
       Athenians were still in the full belief that the Spartans were
       honest, all Greece was startled by a treaty of alliance
       between Athens and Sparta against their common enemies. This
       treaty was concluded very soon after the peace. … The
       consequence was, that Sparta suddenly found herself deserted
       by all her allies; the Corinthians and Boeotians renounced
       her, because they found themselves given over to the
       Athenians, and the Boeotians perhaps thought that the
       Spartans, if they could but reduce the Eleans to the condition
       of Helots, would readily allow Boeotia to be subdued by the
       Athenians. Thus Argos found the means of again following a
       policy which ever since the time of Cleomenes it had not
       ventured to think of, and … became the centre of an alliance
       with Mantinea, 'which had always been opposed to the
       Lacedaemonians,' and some other Arcadian towns, Achaia, Elis,
       and some places of the Acte. The Arcadians had dissolved their
       union, the three people of the country had separated
       themselves, though sometimes they united again; and thus it
       happened that only some of their towns were allied with Argos.
       Corinth at first would listen to neither party, and chose to
       remain neutral; 'for although for the moment it was highly
       exasperated against Sparta, yet it had at all times
       entertained a mortal hatred of Argos, and its own interests
       drew it towards Sparta.' But when, owing to Sparta's
       dishonesty, the affairs on the coasts of Thrace became more
       and more complicated, when the towns refused to submit to
       Athens, and when it became evident that this was the
       consequence of the instigations of Sparta, then the relation
       subsisting between the two states became worse also in Greece,
       and various negotiations and cavillings ensued. … After much
       delay, the Athenians and Spartans were already on the point of
       taking up arms against each other; but then they came to the
       singular agreement (Olympiad 89, 4), that the Athenians should
       retain possession of Pylos, but keep in it only Athenian
       troops, and not allow the Helots and Messenians to remain
       there. After this the loosened bonds between the Spartans,
       Corinthians, and Boeotians, were drawn more closely. The
       Boeotians were at length prevailed upon to surrender Panacton
       to the Spartans, who now restored it to the Athenians. This
       was in accordance with the undoubted meaning of the peace; but
       the Boeotians had first destroyed the place, and the Spartans
       delivered it to the Athenians only a heap of ruins. The
       Athenians justly complained, that this was not an honest
       restoration, and that the place ought to have been given back
       to them with its fortifications uninjured. The Spartans do not
       appear to have had honest intentions in any way. … While
       thus the alliance between Athens and Sparta, in the eyes of
       the world, still existed, it had in reality ceased and become
       an impossibility. Another alliance, however, was formed
       between Athens and Argos (Olympiad 89, 4) through the
       influence of Alcibiades, who stood in the relation of an
       hereditary proxenus to Argos.
    {1587}
       A more natural alliance than this could not be conceived, and
       by it the Athenians gained the Mantineans, Eleans, and other
       Peloponnesians over to their side. Alcibiades now exercised a
       decisive influence upon the fate of his country. … We
       generally conceive Alcibiades as a man whose beauty was his
       ornament, and to whom the follies of life were the main thing,
       and we forget that part of his character which history reveals
       to us. … Thucydides, who cannot be suspected of having been
       particularly partial to Alcibiades, most expressly recognises
       the fact, that the fate of Athens depended upon him, and that,
       if he had not separated his own fate from that of his native
       city, at first from necessity, but afterwards of his own
       accord, the course of the Peloponnesian war, through his
       personal influence alone, would have taken quite a different
       direction, and that he alone would have decided it in favour
       of Athens. This is, in fact, the general opinion of all
       antiquity, and there is no ancient writer of importance who
       does not view and estimate him in this light. It is only the
       moderns that entertain a derogatory opinion of him, and speak
       of him as an eccentric fool, who ought not to be named among
       the great statesmen of antiquity. … Alcibiades is quite a
       peculiar character; and I know no one in the whole range of
       ancient history who might be compared with him, though I have
       sometimes thought of Caesar. … Alcibiades was opposed to the
       peace of Nicias from entirely personal, perhaps even mean,
       motives. … It was on his advice that Athens concluded the
       alliance with Argos and Elis. Athens now had two alliances
       which were equally binding, and yet altogether opposed to each
       other: the one with Sparta, and an equally stringent one with
       Argos, the enemy of Sparta. This treaty with Argos, the
       Peloponnesians, etc., was extremely formidable to the
       Spartans; and they accordingly, for once, determined to act
       quickly, before it should be too late. The alliance with
       Argos, however, did not confer much real strength upon Athens,
       for the Argives were lazy, and Elis did not respect them,
       whence the Spartans had time again to unite themselves more
       closely with Corinth, Boeotia, and Megara. When, therefore,
       the war between the Spartans and Argives broke out, and the
       former resolutely took the field, Alcibiades persuaded the
       Athenians to send succour to the Argives, and thus the peace
       with Sparta was violated in an unprincipled manner. But still
       no blow was struck between Argos and Sparta. … King Agis had
       set out with a Spartan army, but concluded a truce with the
       Argives (Olympiad 90, 2); this, however, was taken very ill at
       Sparta, and the Argive commanders who had concluded it were
       censured by the people and magistrates of Argos. Soon
       afterwards the war broke out again, and, when the Athenian
       auxiliaries appeared, decided acts of hostility commenced. The
       occasion was an attempt of the Mantineans to subdue Tegea: the
       sad condition of Greece became more particularly manifest in
       Arcadia, by the divisions which tore one and the same nation
       to pieces. The country was distracted by several parties; had
       Arcadia been united, it would have been invulnerable. A battle
       was fought (Olympiad 90, 3) in the neighbourhood of Mantinea,
       between the Argives, their Athenian allies, the Mantineans,
       and part of the Arcadians ('the Eleans, annoyed at the conduct
       of the Argives, had abandoned their cause'), on the one hand,
       and the Spartans and a few allies on the other. The Spartans
       gained a most decisive victory; and, although they did not
       follow it up, yet the consequence was, that Argos concluded
       peace, the Argive alliance broke up, and at Argos a revolution
       took place, in which an oligarchical government was
       instituted, and by which Argos was drawn into the interest of
       Sparta (Olympiad 90, 4). This constitution, however, did not
       last, and very soon gave way to a democratic form of
       government. Argos, even at this time, and still more at a
       later period, is a sad example of the most degenerate and
       deplorable democracy, or, more properly speaking, anarchy."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient History,
          lecture 49 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Alcibiades.

          W. Mitford,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 17 (volume 3).

    GREECE: B. C. 416.
       Siege and conquest of Melos by the Athenians.
       Massacre of the inhabitants.

       "It was in the beginning of summer 416 B. C. that the
       Athenians undertook the siege and conquest of the Dorian
       island of Mêlos, one of the Cyclades, and the only one, except
       Thêra, which was not already included in their empire. Mêlos
       and Thêra were both ancient colonies of Lacedæmon, with whom
       they had strong sympathies of lineage. They had never joined
       the confederacy of Delos, nor been in any way connected with
       Athens; but, at the same time, neither had they ever taken
       part in the recent war against her, nor given her any ground
       of complaint, until she landed and attacked them in the sixth
       year of the recent war. She now renewed her attempt, sending
       against the island a considerable force under Kleomêdês and
       Tisias."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 56.

       "They desired immediate submission on the part of Melos, any
       attempt at resistance being regarded as an inroad upon the
       omnipotence of Athens by sea. For this reason they were wroth
       at the obstinate courage of the islanders, who broke off all
       further negotiations, and thus made it necessary for the
       Athenians to commence a costly circumvallation of the city.
       The Melians even succeeded on two successive occasions in
       breaking through part of the wall built round them by the
       enemy, and obtaining fresh supplies; but no relief arrived;
       and they had to undergo sufferings which made the 'Melian
       famine' a proverbial phrase to express the height of misery;
       and before the winter ended the island was forced to surrender
       unconditionally. … There was no question of quarter. All the
       islanders capable of bearing arms who had fallen into the
       hands of the Athenians were sentenced to death, and all the
       women and children to slavery."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 5, sections 84-116.

    GREECE: B. C. 415.
       The mutilation of the Hermæ at Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

    GREECE: B. C. 415-413.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Disastrous Athenian expedition against Syracuse.
       Alcibiades a fugitive in Sparta.
       His enmity to Athens.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

    {1588}

    GREECE: B. C. 413.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Effects and consequences of the Sicilian expedition.
       Prostration of Athens.
       Strengthening of Sparta.
       Negotiations with the Persians against Athens.
       Peloponnesian invasion of Attica.
       The Decelian War.

       "The Sicilian expedition ended in a series of events which, to
       this day, it is impossible to recall without a feeling of
       horror. … Since the Persian wars it had never come to pass,
       that on the one side all had been so completely lost, while on
       the other all was won. … When the Athenians recovered from
       the first stupefaction of grief, they called to mind the
       causes of the whole calamity, and hereupon in passionate fury
       turned round upon all who had advised the expedition, or who
       had encouraged vain hopes of victory, as orators, prophets, or
       soothsayers. Finally, the general excitement passed into the
       phase of despair and terror, conjuring up dangers even greater
       and more imminent than existed in reality. The citizens every
       day expected to see the Sicilian fleet with the Peloponnesians
       appear off the harbor, to take possession of the defenceless
       city; and they believed that the last days of Athens had
       arrived. … Athens had risked all her military and naval
       resources for the purpose of overcoming Syracuse. More than
       200 ships of state, with their entire equipment, had been
       lost; and if we reckon up the numbers despatched on successive
       occasions to Sicily, the sum total, inclusive of the auxiliary
       troops, may be calculated at about 60,000 men. A squadron
       still lay in the waters of Naupactus; but even this was in
       danger and exposed to attack from the Corinthians, who had
       equipped fresh forces. The docks and naval arsenals were
       empty, and the treasury likewise. In the hopes of enormous
       booty and an abundance of new revenues, no expense had been
       spared; and the resources of the city were entirely exhausted.
       … But, far heavier than the material losses in money, ships,
       and men, was the moral blow which had been received by Athens,
       and which was more dangerous in her case than in that of any
       other state, because her whole power was based on the fear
       inspired in the subject states, so long as they saw the fleets
       of Athens absolutely supreme at sea. The ban of this fear had
       now been removed; disturbances arose in those island-states
       which were most necessary to Athens, and whose existence
       seemed to be most indissolubly blended with that of Attica,
       —in Eubœa, Chios, and Lesbos; everywhere the oligarchical
       parties raised their head, in order to overthrow the odious
       dominion of Athens. … Sparta, on the other hand, had in the
       course of a few months, without sending out an army or
       incurring any danger or losses, secured to herself the
       greatest advantages, such as she could not have obtained from
       the most successful campaign. Gylippus had again proved the
       value of a single Spartan man: inasmuch as in the hour of the
       greatest danger his personal conduct had altered the course of
       the most important and momentous transaction of the entire
       war. He was, in a word, the more fortunate successor of
       Brasidas. The authority of Sparta in the Peloponnesus, which
       the peace of Nicias had weakened, was now restored; with the
       exception of Argos and Elis, all her allies were on amicable
       terms with her; the brethren of her race beyond the sea, who
       had hitherto held aloof, had, by the attack made by the
       Athenian invasion, been drawn into the war, and had now become
       the most zealous and ardent allies of the Peloponnesians. …
       Moreover, the Athenians had driven the most capable of all
       living statesmen and commanders into the enemy's camp. No man
       was better adapted than Alcibiades for rousing the
       slowly-moving Lacedæmonians to energetic action; and it was he
       who supplied them with the best advice, and with the most
       accurate information as to Athenian politics and localities.
       Lastly, the Spartans were at the present time under a warlike
       king, the enterprising and ambitious Agis, the son of
       Archidamus. … Nothing was now required, except pecuniary
       means. And even these now unexpectedly offered themselves to
       the Spartans, in consequence of the events which had in the
       meantime occurred in the Persian empire. … Everywhere [in
       that empire] sedition raised its head, particularly in Asia
       Minor. Pissuthnes, the son of Hystaspes, who had on several
       previous occasions interfered in Greek affairs, rose in
       revolt. He was supported by Greek soldiers, under the command
       of an Athenian of the name of Lycon. The treachery of the
       latter enabled Darius to overthrow Pissuthnes, whose son,
       Amorges, maintained himself by Athenian aid in Caria. After
       the fall of Pissuthnes, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus appear in
       Asia Minor as the first dignitaries of the Great King.
       Tissaphernes succeeded Pissuthnes as satrap in the maritime
       provinces. He was furious at the assistance offered by Athens
       to the party of his adversary; moreover, the Great King
       (possibly in consequence of the Sicilian war and the
       destruction of the Attic fleet) demanded that the tributes
       long withheld by the coast-towns, which were still regarded as
       subject to the Persian empire, should now be levied.
       Tissaphernes was obliged to pay the sums according to the rate
       at which they were entered in the imperial budget of Persia;
       and thus, in order to reimburse himself, found himself forced
       to pursue a war policy. … Everything now depended for the
       satrap upon obtaining assistance from a Greek quarter. He
       found opportunities for this purpose in Ionia itself, in all
       the more important cities of which a Persian party existed.
       … The most important and only independent power in Ionia was
       Chios. Here the aristocratic families had with great sagacity
       contrived to retain the government. … It was their
       government which now became the focus of the conspiracy
       against Athens, in the first instance establishing a
       connection on the opposite shore with Erythræ. Hereupon
       Tissaphernes opened negotiations with both cities, and in
       conjunction with them despatched an embassy to Peloponnesus
       charged with persuading the Spartans to place themselves at
       the head of the Ionian movement, the satrap at the same time
       promising to supply pay and provisions to the Peloponnesian
       forces. The situation of Pharnabazus was the same as that of
       Tissaphernes. Pharnabazus was the satrap of the northern
       province. … Pharnabazus endeavored to outbid Tissaphernes in
       his promises; and two powerful satraps became rival suitors
       for the favor of Sparta, to whom they offered money and their
       alliance. … While thus the most dangerous combinations were
       on all sides forming against Athens, the war had already
       broken out in Greece. This time Athens had been the first to
       commence direct hostilities. … A Peloponnesian army under
       Agis invaded Attica, with the advent of the spring of B. C.
       413 (Olympiad xci. 3); at which date it was already to be
       anticipated how the Sicilian war would end. For twelve years
       Attica had been spared hostile invasions, and the vestiges of
       former wars had been effaced.
    {1589}
       The present devastations were therefore doubly ruinous; while
       at the same time it was now impossible to take vengeance upon
       the Peloponnesians by means of naval expeditions. And the
       worst point in the case was that they were now fully resolved,
       instead of recurring to their former method of carrying on the
       war and undertaking annual campaigns, to occupy permanently a
       fortified position on Attic soil." The invaders seized a
       strong position at Decelea, only fourteen miles northward from
       Athens, on a rocky peak of Mount Parnes, and fortified
       themselves so strongly that the Athenians ventured on no
       attempt to dislodge them. From this secure station they
       ravaged the surrounding country at pleasure. "This success was
       of such importance that even in ancient times it gave the name
       of the Decelean War to the entire last division of the
       Peloponnesian War. The occupation of Decelea forms the
       connecting link between the Sicilian War and the
       Attico-Peloponnesian, which now broke out afresh. … Its
       immediate object … it failed to effect; inasmuch as the
       Athenians did not allow it to prevent their despatching a
       fresh armament to Sicily. But when, half a year later, all was
       lost, the Athenians felt more heavily than ever the burden
       imposed upon them by the occupation of Decelea. The city was
       cut off from its most important source of supplies, since the
       enemy had in his power the roads communicating with Eubœa. …
       One-third of Attica no longer belonged to the Athenians, and
       even in the immediate vicinity of the city communication was
       unsafe; large numbers of the country-people, deprived of labor
       and means of subsistence, thronged the city; the citizens were
       forced night and day to perform the onerous duty of keeping
       watch."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 61 (volume 7).

    GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos, and Rhodes from Athens.
       Revolution at Samos.
       Intrigues of Alcibiades for a revolution at Athens and for his
       own recall.

       "Alkibiades … persuaded the Spartans to build a fleet, and
       send it over to Asia to assist the Ionians in revolting. He
       himself crossed at once to Chios with a few ships, in order to
       begin the revolt. The government of Chios was in the hands of
       the nobles; but they had hitherto served Athens so well that
       the Athenians had not altered the government to a democracy.
       Now, however, they revolted (B. C. 413). This was a heavy blow
       to Athens, for Chios was the most powerful of the Ionian
       States, and others would be sure to follow its example.
       Miletus and Lesbos revolted in B. C. 412. The nobles of Samos
       prepared to revolt, but the people were in favour of Athens,
       and rose against the nobles, killing 200 of them, and
       banishing 400 more. Athens now made Samos its free and equal
       ally, instead of its subject, and Samos became the
       head-quarters of the Athenian fleet and army. … The
       Athenians … had now manned a fresh navy. They defeated the
       Peloponnesian and Persian fleets together at Miletus, and were
       only kept from besieging Miletus by the arrival of a fleet
       from Syracuse. [This reinforcement of the enemy held them
       powerless to prevent a revolt in Rhodes, carried out by the
       oligarchs though opposed by the people.] Alkibiades had made
       enemies among the Spartans, and when he had been some time in
       Asia Minor an order came over from Sparta to put him to death.
       He escaped to Tissaphernes, and now made up his mind to win
       back the favour of Athens by breaking up the alliance between
       Tissaphernes and the Spartans. He contrived to make a quarrel
       between them about the rate of pay, and persuaded Tissaphernes
       that it would be the best thing for Persia to let the Spartans
       and Athenians wear one another out, without giving help to
       either. Tissaphernes therefore kept the Spartans idle for
       months, always pretending that he was on the point of bringing
       up his fleet to help them. Alkibiades now sent a lying message
       to the generals of the Athenian army at Samos that he could
       get Athens the help of Tissaphernes, if the Athenians would
       allow him to return from his exile: but he said that he could
       never return while there was a democracy; so that if they
       wished for the help of Persia they must change the government
       to an oligarchy (B. C. 412). In the army at Samos there were
       many rich men willing to see an oligarchy established at
       Athens, and peace made with Sparta. … Therefore, though the
       great mass of the army at Samos was democratical, a certain
       number of powerful men agreed to the plan of Alkibiades for
       changing the government. One of the conspirators, named
       Pisander, was sent to Athens to instruct the clubs of nobles
       and rich men to work secretly for this object. In these clubs
       the overthrow of the democracy was planned. Citizens known to
       be zealous for the constitution were secretly murdered. Terror
       fell over the city, for no one except the conspirators knew
       who did, and who did not, belong to the plot; and at last,
       partly by force, the assembly was brought to abolish the
       popular government."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Greece
          (History Primer),
          chapter 5, sections 36-39.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Cox,
          The Athenian Empire,
          chapter 6.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 8, chapters 4-51.

    GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
       Exploits of Alcibiades.
       His return to Athens and to supreme command.
       His second deposition and exile.

       While Athens was in the throes of its revolution, "the war was
       prosecuted with vigour on the coast of Asia Minor. Mindarus,
       who now commanded the Peloponnesian fleet, disgusted at length
       by the often-broken promises of Tissaphernes, and the scanty
       and irregular pay which he furnished, set sail from Miletus
       and proceeded to the Hellespont, with the intention of
       assisting the satrap Pharnabazus, and of effecting, if
       possible, the revolt of the Athenian dependencies in that
       quarter. Hither he was pursued by the Athenian fleet under
       Thrasyllus. In a few days an engagement ensued (in August, 411
       B. C.), in the famous straits between Sestos and Abydos, in
       which the Athenians, though with a smaller force, gained the
       victory, and erected a trophy on the promontory of Cynossema
       [see CYNOSSEMA] near the tomb and chapel of the Trojan queen
       Hecuba. The Athenians followed up their victory by the
       reduction of Cyzicus, which had revolted from them. A month or
       two afterward, another obstinate engagement took place between
       the Peloponnesian and Athenian fleets near Abydos, which
       lasted a whole day, and was at length decided in favour of the
       Athenians by the arrival of Alcibiades with his squadron of 18
       ships from Samos."

          W. Smith,
          Smaller History of Greece,
          chapter 13.

    {1590}

       Alcibiades, although recalled, had "resolved to delay his
       return until he had performed such exploits as might throw
       fresh lustre over his name, and endear him to all classes of
       his fellow-citizens. With this ambition he sailed with a small
       squadron from Samos, and having gained information that
       Mindarus, with the Peloponnesian fleet, had gone in pursuit of
       the Athenian navy, he hastened to afford his countrymen
       succour. Happily he arrived at the scene of action, near
       Abydos, at a most critical moment; when, after a severe
       engagement, the Spartans had on one side obtained an
       advantage, and were pursuing the broken lines of the
       Athenians. … He speedily decided the fortune of the day,
       completely routed the Spartans, … broke many of their ships
       in pieces, and took 30 from them. … His vanity after this
       signal success had, however, nearly destroyed him; for, being
       desirous of appearing to Tissaphernes as a conqueror instead
       of a fugitive, he hastened with a splendid retinue to visit
       him, when the crafty barbarian, thinking he should thus
       appease the suspicions of the Spartans, caused him to be
       arrested and confined in prison at Sardis. Hence, however, he
       found means to escape. … He sailed immediately for the
       Athenian camp to diffuse fresh animation among the soldiers,
       and induce them hastily to embark on an expedition against
       Mindarus and Pharnabazus, who were then with the residue of
       the Peloponnesian fleet at Cyzicum" (Cyzicus). Mindarus was
       defeated and killed and Pharnabazus driven to flight (B. C.
       410). "Alcibiades pursued his victory, took Cyzicum without
       difficulty, and, staining his conquest with a cruelty with
       which he was not generally chargeable, put to death all the
       Peloponnesians whom he found within the city. A very short
       space of time elapsed after this brilliant success before
       Alcibiades found another occasion to deserve the gratitude of
       Athens," by defeating Pharnabazus, who had attacked the troops
       of Thrasyllus while they were wasting the territory of Abydos.
       He next reduced Chalcedon, bringing it back into the Athenian
       alliance, and once more defeating Pharnabazus, when the
       Persian satrap attempted to relieve the town. He also
       recovered Selymbria, and took Byzantium (which had revolted)
       after a severe fight (B. C. 408). "Alcibiades having raised
       the fortunes of his country from the lowest state of
       depression, not only by his brilliant victories, but his
       conciliating policy, prepared to return and enjoy the praise
       of his successes. He entered the Piræus [B. C. 407] in a
       galley adorned with the spoils of numerous victories, followed
       by a long line of ships which he had taken from the foe. …
       The whole city came down to the harbour to see and welcome
       him, and took no notice of Thrasybulus or Theramenes, his
       fellow-commanders. … An assembly of the people being
       convened, he addressed them in a gentle and modest speech,
       imputing his calamities not to their envy, but to some evil
       genius which pursued him. He exhorted them to take courage,
       bade them oppose their enemies with all the fresh inspiration
       of their zeal, and taught them to hope for happier days.
       Delighted with these assurances, they presented him with a
       crown of brass and gold, which never was before given to any
       but the Olympic victors, invested him with absolute control
       over their naval and military affairs, restored to him his
       confiscated wealth, and ordered the ministers of religion to
       absolve him from the curses which they had denounced against
       him. Theodorus, however, the high-priest, evaded the last part
       of the decree, by alleging that he had never cast any
       imprecation on him, if he had committed no offence against the
       republic. The tablets on which the curses against him had been
       inscribed were taken to the shore, and thrown with eagerness
       into the sea. His next measure heightened, if possible, the
       brief lustre of his triumph. In consequence of the
       fortification of Decelea by the Lacedæmonians, and their
       having possession of the passes of the country, the procession
       to Eleusis, in honour of Athene, had been long unable to take
       its usual course, and being conducted by sea, had lost many of
       its solemn and august ceremonials. He now, therefore, offered
       to conduct the solemnity by land. … His proposal being
       gladly accepted, he placed sentinels on the hills; and,
       surrounding the consecrated band with his soldiers, conducted
       the whole to Eleusis and back to Athens, without the slightest
       opposition, or breach of that order and profound stillness
       which he had exhorted the troops to maintain. After this
       graceful act of homage to the religion he was once accused of
       destroying, he was regarded by the common people as something
       more than human; they looked on him as destined never to know
       defeat, and believed their triumph was certain so long as he
       was their commander. But, in the very height of his
       popularity, causes of a second exile were maturing. The great
       envied him in proportion to the people's confidence, and that
       confidence itself became the means of his ruin: for, as the
       people really thought the spell of invincibility was upon him,
       they were prepared to attribute the least pause in his career
       of glory to a treacherous design. He departed with a hundred
       vessels, manned under his inspection, with colleagues of his
       own choice, to reduce the isle of Chios to obedience. At
       Andros he once more gained a victory over both the natives and
       the Spartans, who attempted to assist them. But, on his
       arrival at the chief scene of action, he found that he would
       be unable to keep the soldiers from deserting, unless he could
       raise money to pay them sums more nearly equal to those which
       the Lacedæmonians offered, than the pay he was able to bestow.
       He was compelled, therefore, to leave the fleet [at Notium]
       and go into Caria in order to obtain supplies. While absent on
       this occasion, he left Antiochus in the command. … To this
       officer Alcibiades gave express directions that he should
       refrain from coming to an engagement, whatever provocations he
       might receive. Anxious, however, to display his bravery,
       Antiochus took the first occasion to sail out in front of the
       Lacedæmonian fleet, which lay near Ephesus, under the command
       of Lysander, and attempt, by insults, to incite them to attack
       him. Lysander accordingly pursued him; the fleets came to the
       support of their respective admirals, and a general engagement
       ensued, in which Antiochus was slain, and the Athenians
       completely defeated. On receiving intelligence of this unhappy
       reverse, Alcibiades hastened to the fleet, and eager to repair
       the misfortune, offered battle to the Spartans; Lysander,
       however, did not choose to risk the loss of his advantage by
       accepting the challenge, and the Athenians were compelled to
       retire. This event, for which no blame really attached to
       Alcibiades, completed the ruin of his influence at Athens.
    {1591}
       It was believed that this, the first instance of his failure,
       must have arisen from corruption, or, at least, from a want of
       inclination to serve his country. He was also accused of
       leaving the navy under the direction of those who had no other
       recommendation to the charge but having been sharers in his
       luxurious banquets, and of having wandered about to indulge in
       profligate excesses. … On these grounds, the people in his
       absence took from him his command, and confided it to other
       generals. As soon as he heard of this new act of ingratitude,
       he resolved not to return home, but withdrew into Thrace, and
       fortified three castles … near to Perinthus. Here, having
       collected a formidable band, as an independent captain, he
       made incursions on the territories of those of the Thracians
       who acknowledged no settled form of government, and acquired
       considerable spoils."

          Sir T. N. Talfourd,
          Early History of Greece (Encyclopedia Metropolitana),
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 29 (volume 4).

          Plutarch,
          Alcibiades.

          Xenophon,
          Hellenica,
          book 1, chapters 1-4.

    GREECE: B. C. 406.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Battle of Arginusæ.
       Trial and execution of the generals at Athens.

       Alcibiades was succeeded by Conon and nine colleagues in
       command of the Athenian fleet on the coast of Asia Minor. The
       Athenians, soon afterwards, were driven into the harbor of
       Mitylene, on the island of Lesbos, by a superior Peloponnesian
       fleet, commanded by Callicratidas, and were blockaded there
       with small chance of escape. Conon contrived to send news of
       their desperate situation to Athens, and vigorous measures
       were promptly taken to rescue the fleet and to save Mitylene.
       Within thirty days, a fleet of 110 triremes was fitted out at
       the Piræus, and manned with a crew which took nearly the last
       able-bodied Athenian to make it complete. At Samos these were
       joined by 40 more triremes, making 150 in all, against which
       Callicratidas was able to bring out only 120 ships from
       Mitylene, when the relieving armament approached. The two
       fleets encountered one another near the islands of Arginusæ,
       off Cape Malea, the southern promontory of Lesbos. In the
       battle that ensued, which was the greatest naval conflict of
       the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were completely
       victorious; Callicratidas was drowned and no less than 77 of
       the Peloponnesian ships were destroyed, while the Athenians
       themselves lost 25. As the result of this battle Sparta again
       made overtures of peace, as she had done after the battle of
       Cyzicus, and Athens, led by her demagogues, again rejected
       them. But the Athenian demagogues and populace did worse. They
       summoned home the eight generals who had won the battle of
       Arginusæ, to answer to a charge of having neglected, after the
       victory, to pick up the floating bodies of the Athenian dead
       and to rescue the drowning from the wrecked ships of their
       fleet. Six of the accused generals came home to meet the
       charge; but two thought it prudent to go into voluntary exile.
       The six were brought to trial; the forms of legality were
       violated to their prejudice and all means were unscrupulously
       employed to work up the popular passion against them. One man,
       only, among the prytanes—senators, that is, of the tribe then
       presiding, and who were the presidents of the popular
       assembly—stood out, without flinching, against the lawless
       rage of his fellow citizens, and refused, in calm scorn of all
       fierce threats against himself, to join in taking the
       unconstitutional vote. That one was the philosopher Socrates.
       The generals were condemned to death and received the fatal
       draught of hemlock from the same populace which pressed it a
       little later to the lips of the philosopher. "Thus died the
       son of Pericles and Aspasia [one of the generals, who bore his
       father's name], to whom his father had made a fatal gift in
       obtaining for him the Attic citizenship, and with him
       Erasinides, Thrasylus, Lysias, Aristocrates, and Diomedon. The
       last-named, the most innocent of all, who had wished that the
       whole fleet should immediately be employed in search of the
       wrecked, addressed the people once more; he expressed a wish
       that the decree dooming him to death might be beneficial to
       the state, and called upon his fellow-citizens to perform the
       thanksgiving offerings to the saving gods which they, the
       generals, had vowed on account of their victory. These words
       may have sunk deep into the hearts of many of his hearers; but
       their only effect has been to cast a yet brighter halo in the
       eyes of subsequent generations around the memory of these
       martyrs. Their innocence is best proved by the series of
       glaring infractions of law and morality which were needed to
       ensure their destruction, as well as by the shame and
       repugnance which seized upon the citizens, when they had
       recognized how fearfully, they had been led astray by a
       traitorous faction.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 5 (volume 3).

       Mr. Grote attempts to uphold a view more unfavorable to the
       generals and less severe upon the Athenian people.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 64.

          ALSO IN:
          Xenophon,
          Hellenica,
          book 1, chapters 5-7.

          See, also,
          ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.

    GREECE: B. C. 405.
       The Peloponnesian War
       Decisive battle of Aigospotamoi.
       Defeat of the Athenians.

       After the execution of the generals, "no long time passed
       before the Athenians repented of their madness and their
       crimes: but, yielding still to their old besetting sin, they
       insisted, as they had done in the days of Miltiades and after
       the catastrophe at Syracuse, on throwing the blame not on
       themselves but on their advisers. This great crime began at
       once to produce its natural fruits. The people were losing
       confidence in their officers, who, in their turn, felt that no
       services to the state could secure them against illegal
       prosecutions and arbitrary penalties. Corruption was eating
       its way into the heart of the state, and treason was losing
       its ugliness in the eyes of many who thought themselves none
       the worse for dallying with it. … The Athenian fleet had
       fallen back upon Samos; and with this island as a base, the
       generals were occupying themselves with movements, not for
       crushing the enemy, but for obtaining money. … The Spartans,
       whether at home or on the Asiatic coast, were now well aware
       that one more battle would decide the issue of the war; for
       with another defeat the subsidies of the Persians would be
       withdrawn from them as from men doomed to failure, and perhaps
       be transferred to the Athenians. In the army and fleet the cry
       was raised that Lysandros was the only man equal to the
       emergency. Spartan custom could not appoint the same man twice
       to the office of admiral; but when Arakos was sent out with
       Lysandros [Lysander] as his secretary, it was understood that
       the latter was really the man in power."
    {1592}
       In the summer of 405 B. C. Lysandros made a sudden movement
       from the southern Ægean to the Hellespont, and laid siege to
       the rich town of Lampsacus, on the Asiatic side. The Athenians
       followed him, but not promptly enough to save Lampsacus, which
       they found in his possession when they arrived. They took
       their station, thereupon, at the mouth of the little stream
       called the Aigospotamoi (the Goat's Stream), directly opposite
       to Lampsacus, and endeavored for four successive days to
       provoke Lysandros to fight. He refused, watching his
       opportunity for the surprise which he effected on the fifth
       day, when he dashed across the narrow channel and caught the
       Athenian ships unprepared, their crews mostly scattered on
       shore. One only, of the six Athenian generals, Conon, had
       foreseen danger and was alert. Conon, with twelve triremes,
       escaped. The remaining ships, about one hundred and seventy in
       number, were captured almost without the loss of a man on the
       Peloponnesian side. Of the crews, some three or four thousand
       Athenians were pursued on shore and taken prisoners, to be
       afterwards slaughtered in cold blood. Two of the incapable
       generals shared their fate. Of the other generals who escaped,
       some at least were believed to have been bribed by Lysandros
       to betray the fleet into his hands. The blow to Athens was
       deadly. She had no power of resistance left, and when her
       enemies closed around her, a little later, she starved within
       her walls until resistance seemed no longer heroic, and then
       gave herself up to their mercy.

          G. W. Cox,
          The Athenian Empire,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 30 (volume 4).

          Plutarch,
          Lysander.

          Xenophon,
          Hellenica,
          book 2, chapter 1.

    GREECE: B. C. 404.
       End of the Peloponnesian War.
       Fall of Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

    GREECE: B. C. 404-403.
       The Year of Anarchy at Athens.
       Reign of the Thirty.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

    GREECE: B. C. 401-400.
       The expedition of Cyrus, and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand
       Greeks.

          See PERSIA: B. C.,401-400.

    GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
       Spartan war with Persia.
       Greek confederacy against Sparta.
       The Corinthian War.
       Peace of Antalcidas.

       The successful retreat of the Ten Thousand from Cunaxa,
       through the length of the Persian dominions (B. C. 401-400),
       and the account which they brought of the essential hollowness
       of the power of the Great King, produced an important change
       among the Greeks in their estimate of the Persian monarchy as
       an enemy to be feared. Sparta became ashamed of having
       abandoned the Greek cities of Asia Minor to their old
       oppressors, as she did after breaking the strength of their
       protector, Athens, in the Peloponnesian War. When, therefore,
       the Persians began to lay siege to the coast cities which
       resisted them, Sparta found spirit enough to interfere (B. C.
       399) and sent over a small army, into which the surviving
       Cyreans were also enlisted. The only immediate result was a
       truce with the Persian satrap. But, meantime, the Athenian
       general Conon—he who escaped with a few triremes from
       Ægospotami and fled to Cyprus—had there established relations
       with the Persian court at Susa and had acquired a great
       influence, which he used to bring about the creation of a
       powerful Persian armament against Sparta, himself in command.
       The news of this armament, reaching Sparta, provoked the
       latter to a more vigorous prosecution of the war in Asia
       Minor. King Agesilaus took the field in Ionia with a strong
       army and conducted two brilliant campaigns (B. C. 396-395),
       pointing the way, as it were, to the expedition of Alexander a
       couple of generations later. The most important victory won
       was on the Pactolus, not far from Sardis. But, in the midst of
       his successes, Agesilaus was called home by troubles which
       arose in Greece. Sparta, by her arrogance and oppressive
       policy, had already alienated all the Greek states which
       helped her to break down Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
       Persian agents, with money, had assisted her enemies to
       organize a league against her. Thebes and Athens, first, then
       Argos and Corinth, with several of the lesser states, became
       confederated in an agreement to overthrow her domination. In
       an attempt to crush Thebes, the Spartans were badly beaten at
       Haliartus (B. C. 395), where their famous Lysander, conqueror
       of Athens, was killed. Their power in central and northern
       Greece was virtually annihilated, and then followed a struggle
       with their leagued enemies for the control or the Corinthian
       isthmus, whence came the name of the Corinthian War. It was
       this situation of things at home which called back King
       Agesilaus from his campaigns in Asia Minor. He had scarcely
       crossed the Hellespont on his return, in July B. C. 394,
       before all his work in Asia was undone by an overwhelming
       naval victory achieved at Cnydus by the Athenian Conon,
       commanding the Persian-Phœnician fleet. With his veteran army,
       including the old Cyreans, now returning home after seven
       years of incredible adventures and hardships, he made his way
       through all enemies into Bœotia and fought a battle with the
       league at Coronea, in which he so far gained a victory that he
       held the field, although the fruits of it were doubtful. The
       Spartans on the isthmus had also just gained a considerable
       success near Corinth, on the banks of the Nemea. On the whole,
       the results of the war were in their favor, until Conon and
       the Persian satrap, Pharnabazus, came over with the victorious
       fleet from Cnydus and lent its aid to the league. The most
       important proceeding of Conon was to rebuild (B. C. 393), with
       the help of his Persian friends, the Long Walls of Athens,
       which the Peloponnesians had required to be thrown down eleven
       years before. By this means he restored to Athens her
       independence and secured for her a new career of commercial
       prosperity. During six years more the war was tediously
       prolonged, without important or decisive events, while Sparta
       intrigued to detach the Persian king from his Athenian allies
       and the latter intrigued to retain his friendship. In the end,
       all parties were exhausted—Sparta, perhaps, least so—and
       accepted a shameful peace which was practically dictated by
       the Persian and had the form of an edict or mandate from Susa,
       in the following terms: "The king, Artaxerxes, deems it just
       that the cities in Asia, with the islands of Clazomenae and
       Cyprus, should belong to himself; the rest of the Hellenic
       cities he thinks it just to leave independent, both small and
       great, with the exception of Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, which
       three are to belong to Athens as of yore. Should any of the
       parties concerned not accept this peace, I, Artaxerxes, will
       war against him or them with those who share my views.
    {1593}
       This will I do by land and by sea, with ships and with money."
       By this, called the Peace of Antalcidas (B. C. 387) from the
       Lacedæmonian who was instrumental in bringing it about, the
       Ionian Greeks were once more abandoned to the Persian king and
       his satraps, while Sparta, which assumed to be the
       administrator and executor of the treaty, was confirmed in her
       supremacy over the other Grecian states.

          Xenophon,
          Hellenica (translated by Dakyns),
          books 3-5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Sankey,
          The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
          chapters 7-9.

          W. Mitford,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 24-25 (volume 4).

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Five Great Monarchies,
          volume 3; Persia, chapter 7.

    GREECE: B. C. 385.
       Destruction of Mantinea by the Spartans.

       The Mantineians, having displayed unfriendliness to Sparta
       during the Corinthian War, were required by the latter, after
       the Peace of Antalcidas, to demolish their walls. On their
       refusal, king Agesipolis was sent to subdue them. By damming
       up the waters of the river Ophis he flooded the city and
       brought it to terms. "The city of Mantineia was now broken up,
       and the inhabitants were distributed again into the five
       constituent villages. Out of four-fifths of the population
       each man pulled down his house in the city, and rebuilt it in
       the village near to which his property lay. The remaining
       fifth continued to occupy Mantineia as a village. Each village
       was placed under oligarchical government and left
       unfortified."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 76 (volume 9).

          ALSO IN:
          Xenophon,
          Hellenica,
          book 5, chapter 2.

    GREECE: B. C. 383.
       The betrayal of Thebes to the Spartans.

       When the Spartans sent their expedition against Olynthus, in
       383 B. C., it marched in two divisions, the last of which,
       under Phoebidas, halted at Thebes, on the way, probably having
       secret orders to do so. "On reaching Thebes the troops
       encamped outside the city, round the gymnasium. Faction was
       rife within the city. The two polemarchs in office, Ismenias
       and Leontiades, were diametrically opposed, being the
       respective heads of antagonistic political clubs. Hence it was
       that, while Ismenias, ever inspired by hatred to the
       Lacedaemonians, would not come anywhere near the Spartan
       general, Leontiades, on the other hand, was assiduous in
       courting him; and when a sufficient intimacy was established
       between them, he made a proposal as follows: 'You have it in
       your power,' he said, addressing Phoebidas, 'this very day to
       confer supreme benefit on your country. Follow me with your
       hoplites, and I will introduce you into the citadel.'"

          Xenophon,
          Hellenica
          (translated by Dakyns),
          book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2).

       "On the day of the Thesmophoria, a religious festival
       celebrated by the women apart from the men, during which the
       acropolis, or Kadmeia, was consecrated to their exclusive use,
       Phœbidas, affecting to have concluded his halt, put himself in
       march to proceed as if towards Thrace; seemingly rounding the
       walls of Thebes, but not going into it. The Senate was
       actually assembled in the portico of the agora, and the heat
       of a summer's noon had driven everyone out of the streets,
       when Leontiades, stealing away from the Senate, hastened on
       horseback to overtake Phœbidas, caused him to face about, and
       conducted the Lacedæmonians straight up to the Kadmeia; the
       gates of which, as well as those of the town, were opened to
       his order as Polemarch. There were not only no citizens in the
       streets, but none even in the Kadmeia; no male person being
       permitted to be present at the feminine Thesmophoria; so that
       Phœbidas and his army became possessed of the Kadmeia without
       the smallest opposition. … The news of the seizure of the
       Kadmeia and of the revolution at Thebes [was] … received at
       Sparta with the greatest surprise, as well as with a mixed
       feeling of shame and satisfaction. Everywhere throughout
       Greece, probably, it excited a greater sensation than any
       event since the battle of Ægospotami. Tried by the recognised
       public law of Greece, it was a flagitions iniquity, for which
       Sparta had not the shadow of a pretence. … It stood
       condemned by the indignant sentiment of all Greece,
       unwillingly testified even by the philo-Laconian Xenophon
       himself. But it was at the same time an immense accession to
       Spartan power. … Phœbidas might well claim to have struck
       for Sparta the most important blow since Ægospotami, relieving
       her from one of her two really formidable enemies."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 76.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 37 (volume 5).

    GREECE: B. C. 383-379.
       Overthrow of the Olynthian confederacy by Sparta.

       Among the Greek cities which were founded at an early day in
       that peninsula of Macedonia called Chalcidice, from Chalcis,
       in Eubœa, which colonized the greater number of them, Olynthus
       became the most important. It long maintained its independence
       against the Macedonian kings, on one hand, and against Athens,
       when Athens ruled the Ægean and its coasts, on the other. As
       it grew in power, it took under its protection the lesser
       towns of the peninsula and adjacent Macedonia, and formed a
       confederacy among them, which gradually extended to the larger
       cities and acquired a formidable character. But two of the
       Chalcidian cities watched this growth of Olynthus with
       jealousy and refused to be confederated with her. More than
       that, they joined the Macedonians in sending an embassy (B. C.
       383) to Sparta, then all-powerful in Greece, after the Peace
       of Antalcidas, and invoked her intervention, to suppress the
       rising Olynthian confederacy. The response of Sparta was
       prompt, and although the Olynthians defended themselves with
       valor, inflicting one severe defeat upon the Lacedæmonian
       allies, they were forced at last (B. C. 379) to submit and the
       confederacy was dissolved. "By the peace of Antalkidas, Sparta
       had surrendered the Asiatic Greeks to Persia; by crushing the
       Olynthian confederacy, she virtually surrendered the Thracian
       Greeks to the Macedonian princes. … She gave the victory to
       Amyntas [king of Macedonia], and prepared the indispensable
       basis upon which his son Philip afterwards rose, to reduce not
       only Olynthus, but … the major part of the Grecian world, to
       one common level of subjection."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 76 (volume 9).

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapter 4, section 3.

    GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
       The liberation of Thebes and her rise to supremacy.
       The humbling of Sparta.

       For three years after the betrayal of the Acropolis, or
       Cadmea, of Thebes to the Spartans, the city groaned under the
       tyranny of the oligarchical party of Leontiades, whom the
       Spartans supported. Several hundreds of the more prominent of
       the democratic and patriotic party found a refuge at Athens,
       and the deliverance of Thebes was effected at last, about
       December, B. C. 379, by a daring enterprise on the part of
       some of these exiles.
    {1594}
       Their plans were concerted with friends at Thebes, especially
       with one Phyllidas, who had retained the confidence of the
       party in power, being secretary to the polemarchs. The leader
       of the undertaking was Melon. "After a certain interval Melon,
       accompanied by six of the trustiest comrades he could find
       among his fellow-exiles, set off for Thebes. They were armed
       with nothing but daggers, and first of all crept into the
       neighbourhood under cover of night. The whole of the next day
       they lay concealed in a desert place, and drew near to the
       city gates in the guise of labourers returning home with the
       latest comers from the fields. Having got safely within the
       city, they spent the whole of that night at the house of a man
       named Charon, and again the next day in the same fashion.
       Phyllidas meanwhile was busily taken up with the concerns of
       the polemarchs, who were to celebrate a feast of Aphrodite on
       going out of office. Amongst other things, the secretary was
       to take this opportunity of fulfilling an old undertaking,
       which was the introduction of certain women to the polemarchs.
       They were to be the most majestic and the most beautiful to be
       found in Thebes. … Supper was over, and, thanks to the zeal
       with which the master of the ceremonies responded to their
       mood, they were speedily intoxicated. To their oft-repeated
       orders to introduce their mistresses, he went out and fetched
       Melon and the rest, three of them dressed up as ladies and the
       rest as their attendant maidens. … It was preconcerted that
       as soon as they were seated they were to throw aside their
       veils and strike home. That is one version of the death of the
       polemarchs. According to another, Melon and his friends came
       in as revellers, and so despatched their victims."

          Xenophon,
          Hellenica,
          (translated by Dakyns),
          book 5, chapter 4.

       Having thus made way with the polemarchs, the conspirators
       surprised Leontiades in his own house and slew him. They then
       liberated and armed the prisoners whom they found in
       confinement and sent heralds through the city to proclaim the
       freedom of Thebes. A general rally of the citizens followed
       promptly. The party of the oppression was totally crushed and
       its prominent members put to death. The Spartan garrison in
       the Cadmea capitulated and was suffered to march out without
       molestation. The government of Thebes was reorganized on a
       more popular basis, and with a view to restoring the Bœotian
       League, in a perfected state, with Thebes for its head.

          See THEBES: B. C. 378.

       In the war with Sparta which followed, Athens was soon
       involved, and the Spartans were driven from all their
       footholds in the Bœotian towns. Then Athens and Thebes
       quarreled afresh, and the Spartans, to take advantage of the
       isolation of the latter, invaded her territory once more. But
       Thebes, under the training of her great statesman and soldier,
       Epaminondas, had become strong enough to face her Lacedæmonian
       enemy without help, and in the momentous battle of Leuctra,
       fought July 6, B. C. 371, on a plain not far from Platæa, the
       domineering power of Sparta was broken forever. "It was the
       most important of all the battles ever fought between Greeks.
       On this day Thebes became an independent power in Greece, and
       a return of Spartan despotism was henceforth impossible for
       all times."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 6, chapter 1 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Pelopidas.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 77-78.

          C. Sankey,
          The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
          chapters 10-11.

    GREECE: B. C. 378-357.
       The new Athenian Confederacy.
       The Social War.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

    GREECE: B. C. 371.
       The Arcadian union.
       Restoration of Mantinea.
       Building of Megalopolis.

       One of the first effects of the battle of Leuctra (B. C. 371),
       which ended the domination of Sparta in Greek affairs, was to
       emancipate the Arcadians and to work great changes among them.
       Mantinea, which the Spartans had destroyed, was rebuilt the
       same year. Then "the chiefs of the parties opposed to the
       Spartan interest in the principal Arcadian towns concerted a
       plan for securing the independence of Arcadia, and for raising
       it to a higher rank than it had hitherto held in the political
       system of Greece. With a territory more extensive than any
       other region of Peloponnesus, peopled by a hardy race, proud
       of its ancient origin and immemorial possession of the land,
       and of its peculiar religious traditions, Arcadia—the Greek
       Switzerland—had never possessed any weight in the affairs of
       the nation; the land only served as a thoroughfare for hostile
       armies, and sent forth its sons to recruit the forces of
       foreign powers. … The object was to unite the Arcadian
       people in one body, yet so as not to destroy the independence
       of the particular states; and with this view it was proposed
       to found a metropolis, to institute a national council which
       should be invested with supreme authority in foreign affairs,
       particularly with regard to peace and war, and to establish a
       military force for the protection of the public safety. …
       Within a few months after the battle of Leuctra, a meeting of
       Arcadians from all the principal towns was held to deliberate
       on the measure; and under its decree a body of colonists,
       collected from various quarters, proceeded to found a new
       city, which was to be the seat of the general government, and
       was called Megalepolis, or Megalopolis (the Great City). The
       site chosen was on the banks of the Helisson, a small stream
       tributary to the Alpheus. … The city was designed on a very
       large scale, and the magnitude of the public buildings
       corresponded to its extent; the theatre was the most spacious
       in Greece. … The population was to be drawn … from a great
       number of the most ancient Arcadian towns. Pausanias gives a
       list of forty which were required to contribute to it. The
       greater part of them appear to have been entirely deserted by
       their inhabitants."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 39 (volume 5).

       "The patriotic enthusiasm, however, out of which Megalopolis
       had first arisen, gradually became enfeebled. The city never
       attained that preeminence or power which its founders
       contemplated, and which had caused the city to be laid out on
       a scale too large for the population actually inhabiting it."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 78.

    GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
       Popular fury in Argos.
       Arcadian union and disunion.
       Restoration of Mantinea.
       Expeditions of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus.
       His attempts against Sparta.
       His victory and death at Mantinea.

       "In many of the Peloponnesian cities, when the power of Sparta
       seemed visibly on the wane, internal commotions had arisen, and
       much blood had been shed on both sides. But now Argos
       displayed the most fearful example of popular fury recorded in
       Greek annals, red as they are with tales of civil bloodshed.
    {1595}
       The democratic populace detected a conspiracy among the
       oligarchs, and thirty of the chief citizens were at once put
       to death. The excitement of the people was inflamed by the
       harangues of demagogues, and the mob, arming itself with
       cudgels, commenced a general massacre. When 1,200 citizens had
       fallen, the popular orators interfered to check the
       atrocities, but met with the same fate; and, sated at length
       with bloodshed, the multitude stayed the deadly work. But
       where the pressure of Spartan interference had been heaviest
       and most constant, there the reaction was naturally most
       striking. The popular impulses which were at work in Arkadia
       [see above] found their first outlet in the rebuilding of
       Mantineia." But there was far from unanimity in the Arkadian
       national movement. "In Tegea … public opinion was divided.
       The city had been treated by Sparta with special
       consideration, and had for centuries been her faithful ally;
       hence the oligarchical government looked with disfavour upon
       the project of union. But the democratical party was powerful
       and unscrupulous; and, with the help of the Mantineians, they
       effected a revolution, in which many were killed, and 800
       exiles fled to Sparta." The Spartans, under Agesilaos, avenged
       them by ravaging the plain in front of Mantineia. "This
       invasion of Arkadia is chiefly important for the pretext which
       it furnished for Theban intervention. The Mantineians applied
       for help at first to Athens, and, meeting with a refusal, went
       on to Thebes. For this request Epameinondas must have been
       thoroughly prepared beforehand, and he was soon on the march
       with a powerful army. … On his arrival in the Peloponnese
       [B. C. 370], he found that Agesilaos had already retired; and
       some of the Theban generals, considering the season of the
       year, wished at once to return." But Epameinondas was
       persuaded by the allies of Thebes to make an attempt upon
       Sparta itself. "In four divisions the invading host streamed
       into the land which, according to the proudest boast of its
       inhabitants, had felt no hostile tread for 600 years. At
       Sellasia, not ten miles distant from Sparta, the army
       reunited; and, having plundered and burnt the town, swept down
       into the valley of the Eurotas, and marched along the left
       bank till it reached the bridge opposite the city. Within
       Sparta itself, though a universal terror prevailed, one man
       rose equal to the emergency. While the men fainted in spirit
       as they thought how few they were, and how wide their unwalled
       city, … Agesilaos accepted, not without mistrust, the
       services of 6,000 helots, collected reinforcements, preserved
       order, suppressed conspiracy, stamped out mutiny, posted
       guards on every vantage-ground, and refused to be tempted to a
       battle by the taunts of foes or the clamours of over-eager
       friends. … After one unsuccessful cavalry skirmish, the
       Theban general, who, in a campaign undertaken on his sole
       responsibility, dared not risk the chance of defeat, decided
       to leave the 'wasps'-nest' untaken. He completed his work of
       devastation by ravaging the whole of southern Lakonia, … and
       then turned back into Arkadia to devote himself to the more
       permanent objects of his expedition." Messene was now rebuilt
       (see MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD), and "the descendants of the
       old Messenian stock were gathered to form a new nation from
       Rhegion and Messene [Sicily], and from the parts of Lybia
       round Kyrene. … By thus restoring the Messenians to their
       ancient territory, Epameinondas deprived Sparta at one blow of
       nearly half her possessions. … At last Epameinondas had done
       his work; and, leaving Pammenes with a garrison in Tegea, he
       hastened to lead his soldiers home. At the Isthmus he found a
       hostile army from Athens," which had been persuaded to send
       succor to Sparta; but the Athenians did not care to give
       battle to the conquering Thebans, and the latter passed
       unopposed. On the arrival of Epameinondas at Thebes, "the
       leaders of a petty faction threatened to bring him and his
       colleagues to trial for retaining their command for four
       months beyond the legal term of office. But Epameinondas stood
       up in the assembly, and told his simple tale of victorious
       generalship and still more triumphant statesmanship; and the
       invidious cavils of snarling intriguers were at once
       forgotten." Sparta and Athens now formed an alliance, with the
       senseless agreement that command of the common forces "should
       be given alternately to each state for five days. … The
       first aim of the confederates was to occupy the passes of the
       isthmus," but Epameinondas forced a passage for his army,
       captured Sikyon, ravaged the territory of Epidauros, and made
       a bold but unsuccessful attempt to surprise Corinth. Then, on
       the arrival of reinforcements to the Spartans from Syracuse,
       he drew back to Thebes (B. C. 368). For a time the Thebans
       were occupied with troubles in Thessaly, and their Arkadian
       proteges in Peloponnese were carrying on war against Sparta
       independently, with so much momentary success that they became
       over-confident and rash. They paid for their foolhardiness by
       a frightful defeat, which cost them 10,000 men, whilst no
       Spartan is said to have fallen; hence the fight was known in
       Sparta as the Tearless Battle. "This defeat probably caused
       little grief at Thebes, for it would prove to the arrogant
       Arkadians that they could not yet dispense with Theban aid;
       and it decided Epameinondas to make a third expedition into
       the Peloponnese." The result of his third expedition was the
       enrolment of a number of Achaian cities as Theban allies,
       which gave to Thebes "the control of the coast-line of the
       Corinthian gulf." But the broad and statesmanlike terms on
       which Epameinondas arranged these alliances were set aside by
       his narrow-minded fellow citizens, and a policy adopted by
       which Achaia was "converted from a lukewarm neutral into an
       enthusiastic supporter of Sparta. In this unsettled state of
       Greek politics the Thebans resolved to have recourse, like the
       Spartans before them, to the authority of the Great King.
       Existing treaties, for which they were not responsible,
       acknowledged his right to interfere in the internal affairs of
       Greece." Pelopidas and other envoys were accordingly sent to
       Susa (E. C. 366), where they procured from Artaxerxes a
       rescript "which recognised the independence of Messene and
       ordered the Athenians to dismantle their fleet." But the
       mandate of the Great King proved void of effect. "After this
       the confusion in Greece grew infinitely worse. An accident
       transferred the town of Oropos … from the hands of Athens to
       those of Thebes; and as the Peloponnesian allies of the
       Athenians refused to help them to regain it, they broke with
       them, and, in spite of the efforts of Epameinondas, formed an
       alliance with Arkadia. …
    {1596}
       The Athenians made soon after a vain attempt to seize the
       friendly city of Corinth, and the disgusted Corinthians,
       together with the citizens of Epidauros and Phlious, …
       obtained the grudging consent of Sparta, and made a separate
       peace with Thebes. As soon as tranquillity was restored in one
       quarter, in another the flame of war would again burst forth."
       Its next outbreak (B. C. 365) was between Elis and Arkadia,
       the former being assisted by Sparta, and its principal event
       was a desperate battle fought for the possession of Olympia.
       The Arkadians held part of the city and acquired possession of
       the sacred treasures in the Olympian temple, which they
       determined to apply to the expenses of the war. "Raising the
       cry of sacrilege, the Mantineians, who were jealous both of
       Tegea and Megalopolis, at once broke loose and shut their
       gates." Soon afterwards, Mantineia separated herself wholly
       from the Arkadian confederacy and entered the Spartan
       alliance. This was among the causes which drew Epameinondas
       once more, and for the last time, into the Peloponnese (B. C.
       362). "The armies of Greece were now gathering from all
       quarters for the great struggle. On the one side stood Sparta,
       Athens, Elis, Achaia, and a part of Arkadia, led by Mantineia;
       on the other side were ranged Boiotia [Thebes], Argos,
       Messenia, and the rest of Arkadia, while a few of the smaller
       states—as Phokis, Phlious, and Corinth—remained neutral."
       At the outset of his campaign, Epameinondas made a bold
       attempt, by a rapid night march, to surprise Sparta; but a
       traitorous warning had been given, the Spartans were
       barricaded and prepared for defence, and the undertaking
       failed. Then he marched quickly to Mantineia, and failed in
       his design there, likewise. A pitched battle was necessary to
       decide the issue, and it was fought on the plain between
       Mantineia and Tegea, on the 3d day of July, B. C. 362. The
       fine discipline of the Theban troops and the skilful tactics
       of Epameinondas had given the victory into his hands, when,
       "suddenly, the aspect of the battle changed. Except among the
       light troops on the extreme right, the advance was everywhere
       stayed. The Spartan hoplites were in full flight, but the
       conquerors did not stir a step in the pursuit. … The fury of
       the battle had instantly ceased. … Epameinondas had fallen
       wounded to death, and this was the result. … Every heart was
       broken, every arm paralysed. … Both sides claimed the
       victory in the battle, and erected the usual trophies, but the
       real advantage remained with the Thebans. … By the peace
       that ensued, the independence of Messenia was secured, and
       Megalopolis and the Pan-Arkadian constitution were preserved
       from destruction. The work of Epameinondas, though cut short,
       was thus not thrown away; and the power of Sparta was confined
       within the limits which he had assigned."

          C. Sankey,
          The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          Xenophon,
          Hellenica,
          books 5-6.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 6, chapter 2.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 80 (volume 10).

    GREECE: B. C. 359-358.
       First proceedings of Philip of Macedonia.
       His acquisition of Amphipolis.

       The famous Philip of Macedon succeeded to the Macedonian
       throne in 359 B. C., at the age of 23. In his youth he had
       been delivered to the Thebans as one of the hostages given
       upon the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 368. "His
       residence at Thebes gave him some tincture of Grecian
       philosophy and literature; but the most important lesson which
       he learned at that city was the art of war, with all the
       improved tactics introduced by Epaminondas. Philip …
       displayed at the beginning of his reign his extraordinary
       energy and abilities. After defeating the Illyrians he
       established a standing army, in which discipline was preserved
       by the severest punishments. He introduced the far-famed
       Macedonian phalanx, which was 16 men deep, armed with long
       projecting spears. Philip's views were first turned towards
       the eastern frontiers of his dominions, where his interests
       clashed with those of the Athenians. A few years before the
       Athenians had made various unavailing attempts to obtain
       possession of Amphipolis, once the jewel of their empire, but
       which they had never recovered since its capture by Brasidas
       in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war."

          W. Smith,
          Smaller History of Greece,
          chapter 19.

       The importance of Amphipolis to the Athenians arose chiefly
       from its vicinity to "the vast forests which clothed the
       mountains that enclose the basin of the Strymon, and afforded
       an inexhaustible supply of ship-timber." For the same reason
       that the Athenians desired ardently to regain possession of
       Amphipolis their enemies were strong in the wish to keep it
       out of their hands. Moreover, as the Macedonian kingdom became
       well-knitted in the strong hands of the ambitious Philip, the
       city of "the Nine Ways" assumed importance to that rising
       power, and Philip resolved to possess it. It was at this point
       that his ambitions first came into conflict with Athens. But
       the Athenians were not aware of his aims until too late. He
       deceived them completely, in fact, by a bargain to give help
       in acquiring Amphipolis for them, and to receive help in
       gaining Pydna for himself. But when his preparations were
       complete, he suddenly laid siege to Amphipolis and made
       himself master of the city (B. C. 358), besides taking Pydna
       as well. At Athens, "Philip was henceforth viewed as an open
       enemy, and this was the beginning—though without any formal
       declaration—of a state of hostility between the two powers,
       which was called, from its origin, the Amphipolitan War."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 42 (volume 5).

    GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
       Advancement of Philip of Macedonia to supremacy.
       The Sacred Wars and their consequences.
       The fatal field of Chæronea.
       Philip's preparations for the invasion of Asia.
       His assassination.

       A war between the Thebans and their neighbors, the Phocians,
       which broke out in 357 or 356 B. C., assumed great importance
       in Greek history and was called the Sacred War,—as two
       earlier contests, in which Delphi was concerned, had been
       likewise named. It is sometimes called the Ten Years Sacred
       War. Thebes, controlling the shadowy Amphictyonic Council, had
       brought a charge of sacrilege against the Phocians and
       procured a decree imposing upon them a heavy fine. The
       Phocians resisted the decree with unexpected energy, and, by a
       bold and sudden movement, gained possession of Delphi, where
       they destroyed the records of the Amphictyonic judgment
       against them. Having the vast accumulation of the sacred
       treasures of the Delphic temple in their hands, they did not
       scruple to appropriate them, and were able to maintain a
       powerful army of mercenaries, gathered from every part of
       Greece, with which they ravaged the territories of Bœotia and
       Locris, and acquired control of the pass of Thermopylæ.
    {1597}
       In the midst of their successes they were called upon for help
       by the tyrant of Pheræ in Thessaly, then being attacked by
       Philip of Macedon (B. C. 353). The Phocians opposed Philip
       with such success, at first, that he retreated from Thessaly;
       but it was only to recruit and reanimate his army. Returning
       presently he overthrew the Phocian army, with great
       slaughter—Onomarchus, its leader, being slain—and made
       himself master of all Thessaly. Both Athens and Sparta were
       now alarmed by this rapid advance into Central Greece of the
       conquering arms of the ambitious Macedonian, and both sent
       forces to the help of the Phocians. The former was so
       energetic that an army of 5,000 Athenian foot-soldiers and 400
       horse reached Thermopylæ (May 352 B. C.) before Philip had
       been able to push forward from Thessaly. When he did advance,
       proclaiming his purpose to rescue the Delphian temple from
       sacrilegious robbers, he was repulsed at the pass and drew
       back. It was the beginning of the struggle for Greek
       independence against Macedonian energy and ambition. A few
       months later Demosthenes delivered the first of his immortal
       orations, called afterwards Philippics, in which he strove to
       keep the already languishing energy of the Athenians alive, in
       unfaltering resistance to the designs of Philip. For six years
       there was a state of war between Philip and the Athenians with
       their allies, but the conquests of the former in Thrace and
       the Chalcidian peninsula were steadily pressed. At length (B.
       C. 346) Athens was treacherously persuaded into a treaty of
       peace with Philip (the Peace of Philocrates) which excluded
       the Phocians from its terms. No sooner had he thus isolated
       the latter than he marched quickly to Thermopylæ, secured
       possession of the pass and declared himself the supporter of
       Thebes. The Sacred War was ended, Delphi rescued, Phocis
       punished without mercy, and Greece was under the feet of a
       master. This being accomplished, the Peace of Philocrates was
       doubtfully maintained for about six years. Then quarrels broke
       out which led up to still another Sacred War, and which gave
       Philip another opportunity to trample on the liberties of
       Greece. Curiously, the provoking causes of this outbreak were
       an inheritance from that more ancient Sacred War which brought
       ruin upon the town of Cirrha and a lasting curse upon its
       soil. The Locrians of Amphissa, dwelling near to the accursed
       territory, had ventured in the course of years to encroach
       upon it with brick-kilns, and to make use of its harbor. At a
       meeting of the Amphictyonic Council, in the spring of B. C.
       339, this violation of the Sacred Law was brought to notice,
       by way of retaliation for some offence which the deputies of
       Amphissa had given to those of Athens. Hostilities ensued
       between the citizens of Delphi, pushed on by the Amphictyons,
       on one side, and the Amphissians on the other. The influence
       of Philip in the Amphictyonic Council was controlling, and his
       partisans had no difficulty in summoning him to act for the
       federation in settling this portentous affair. He marched into
       Bœotia, took possession of the strong city of Elatea, and very
       soon made it manifest that he contemplated something more than
       mere dealing with the refractory trespassers of Amphissa.
       Athens watched his movements with terror, and even Thebes, his
       former ally, took alarm. Through the exertions of Demosthenes,
       Thebes and Athens, once more, but too late, gave up their
       ancient enmity and united their strength and resources in a
       firm league. Megara, Corinth and other states were joined to
       them and common cause was made with the Locrians of Amphissa.
       These movements consumed a winter, and war opened in the
       spring. Philip gained successes from the beginning. He took
       Amphissa by surprise and carried Naupactus by storm. But it
       was not until August—the first day of August, B. C. 338—that
       the two combatants came together in force. This occurred in
       the Bœotian valley of the Cephisus, near the town of Chæronea,
       which gave its name to the battle. The Sacred Band of Thebes
       and the hoplites of Athens, with their allies, fought
       obstinately and well; but they were no match for the veterans
       of the Macedonian phalanx and most of them perished on the
       field. It was the last struggle for Grecian independence.
       Henceforth, practically at least, Hellas was swallowed up in
       Macedonia. We can see very plainly that Philip's "conduct
       towards Athens after the victory, under the appearance of
       generosity, was extremely prudent. His object was, to separate
       the Thebans from the Athenians, and he at once advanced
       against the former. The Athenian prisoners he sent home, free
       and clothed, accompanied by Antipater; he ordered the dead
       bodies to be burned, and their ashes to be conveyed to Athens,
       while the Thebans had to purchase their dead from him. He then
       entered Thebes, which he seems to have taken without any
       resistance, placed a Macedonian garrison in the Cadmea, and,
       with the same policy which Sparta had followed at Athens after
       the Peloponnesian war, he established an oligarchy of 300 of
       his partizans, who were for the most part returned exiles, and
       who now, under the protection of the garrison in the Cadmea,
       ruled like tyrants, and raged in a fearful manner. … Philip
       accepted all the terms which were agreeable to the Athenians;
       no investigations were to be instituted against his enemies,
       and none of them was to be sent into exile. Athens was not
       only to remain a perfectly sovereign city, but retain Lemnos,
       Imbros, and Scyros, nay even Samos and Chersonnesus, though he
       might have taken the latter without any difficulty, and though
       the Athenians had most cleruchiae in Samos. Thus he bought
       over the Athenians through this peace, against which
       Demosthenes and others, who saw farther, could not venture to
       protest, because Philip offered more than they could give him
       in return. … The only thing which the Athenians conceded to
       Philip, was, that they concluded a symmachia with him, and
       conferred upon him the supreme command in the Persian war. For
       with great cunning Philip summoned an assembly of the Greeks
       whom he called his allies, to Corinth, to deliberate upon the
       war against Persia. The war of revenge against the Persians
       had already become a popular idea in Greece. … Philip now
       entered Peloponnesus with his whole army, and went to the diet
       at Corinth, where the Greek deputies received his orders. In
       Peloponnesus he acted as mediator, for he was invited as such
       by the Arcadians, Messenians, and Argives, to decide their
       disputes with Lacedaemon, and they demanded that he should
       restore to them their ancient territories.
    {1598}
       The Arcadians had formerly possessed many places on the
       Eurotas, and the Messenians were still very far from having
       recovered all their ancient territories. He accordingly fixed
       the boundaries, and greatly diminished the extent of Laconia.
       … The Spartans, on that occasion, behaved in a dignified
       manner; they were the only ones who refused to acknowledge
       Philip as generalissimo against Persia. … Even the ancients
       regarded the day of Chaeronea as the death-day of Greece;
       every principle of life was cut off; the Greeks, indeed,
       continued to exist, but in spirit, and politically, they were
       dead. … Philip was now at the height of his power.
       Byzantium, and the other allied cities, had submitted to the
       conqueror, when he sent his army against them, and he was
       already trying to establish himself in Asia. 'A detachment of
       troops, under Attalus, had been sent across, to keep open the
       road for the great expedition, and had encamped on mount Ida.'
       Philip was thus enabled to commence his passage across the
       Hellespont whenever he pleased. But the close of his career
       was already at hand." He was assassinated in August, B. C.
       336, by a certain Pausanias, at the instigation, it is said,
       of Olympias, one of Philip's several wives—and the mother of
       his famous son Alexander—whom he had repudiated to please a
       younger bride. "Philip was unquestionably an uncommon and
       extraordinary man, and the opinion of several among the
       ancients, that by the foundation of the Macedonian state he
       did something far greater than Alexander by the application of
       the powers he inherited, is quite correct. … When we regard
       him as the creator of his state, by uniting the most different
       nations, Macedonians and Greeks; … when we reflect what a
       man he must have been, from whom proceeded the impulse to
       train such great generals, … to whom Alexander, it must be
       observed, did not add one, for all Alexander's generals
       proceeded from the school of Philip, and there is not one whom
       Alexander did not inherit from Philip;—when we perceive the
       skill with which he gained over nations and states, … we
       cannot but acknowledge that he was an extraordinary man."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient History,
          lectures 69 and 66 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 43-46 (volumes 5-6).

          T. Leland,
          History of the Life and Reign of Philip of Macedon,
          books 2-5.

    GREECE: B. C. 351-348.
       The Olynthian War.
       Destruction of Olynthus by Philip of Macedonia.

       After the overthrow of Spartan domination in Greece, Olynthus
       recovered its independence and regained, during the second
       quarter of the fourth century B. C., a considerable degree of
       prosperity and power. It was even helped in its rise by the
       cunning, dangerous hand of Philip of Macedon, who secured many
       and great advantages in his treacherous diplomacy by playing
       the mutual jealousies of Athens and Olynthus against one
       another. The Olynthian Confederacy, formed anew, just served
       its purpose as a counterpoise to the Athenian Confederacy,
       until Philip had no more need of that service. He was the
       friend and ally of the former until he had secured Amphipolis,
       Methone, and other necessary positions in Macedonia and
       Thrace. Then the mask began to slip and Olynthus (B. C. 351)
       got glimpses of the true character of her subtle neighbor. Too
       late, she made overtures to Athens, and Athens, too late, saw
       the vital importance of a league of friendship between the two
       Greek confederacies, against the half Hellenic, half barbaric
       Macedonian kingdom. Three of the great speeches of
       Demosthenes—the "Olynthiac orations"—were made upon this
       theme, and the orator succeeded for the first time in
       persuading his degenerated countrymen to act upon his clear
       view of the situation. Athens and Olynthus were joined in a
       defensive league and Athenian ships and men were sent to the
       Chalcidian peninsula,—too late. Partly by the force of his
       arms and partly by the power of his gold, buying traitors,
       Philip took Olynthus (B. C. 348) and all the thirty-two lesser
       towns that were federated with her. He took them and he
       destroyed them most brutally. "The haughty city of Olynthus
       vanished from the face of the earth, and together with it
       thirty-two towns inhabited by Greeks and flourishing as
       commercial communities. … The lot of those who saved life
       and liberty was happy in comparison with the fate of those
       who, like the majority of the Olynthians, fell into the hands
       of the conqueror and were sold into slavery, while their
       possessions were burnt to ashes or flung as booty to the
       mercenaries. … The mines continued to be worked for the
       royal treasury; with this exception the whole of Chalcidice
       became a desert"

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 7, chapter 3 (volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          A. M. Curteis,
          Rise of the Macedonian Empire,
          chapters 4-5.

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient History,
          lectures 66-68 (volume 2).

    GREECE: B. C. 340.
       Siege of Byzantium by Philip of Macedonia.

       The enmity between Athens and Byzantium yielded in 340 B. C.
       to their common fear of Philip of Macedon, and the exertions
       of Demosthenes brought about an alliance of the two cities, in
       which Perinthus, the near neighbor of Byzantium, was also
       joined. Philip, in wrath, proceeded with a fleet and army
       against both cities, laying siege, first to Perinthus and
       afterwards to Byzantium, but without success in either case.
       He was compelled to withdraw, after wasting several months in
       the fruitless undertaking. It was one of the few failures of
       the able Macedonian.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 90 (volume 11).

    GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
       Northern campaign of Alexander of Macedonia.
       Revolt at Thebes.
       Destruction of the city.

       "Alexander … took up and continued the political and
       military schemes which his father had begun. We first make
       acquaintance with him and his army during his campaign against
       the tribes on the northern frontier of Makedonia. This
       campaign he carried out with energy equal to that of Philip,
       and with more success (spring of 335 B. C.). The distinctive
       feature of the war was that the Makedonian phalanx, the
       organization and equipment of which were adapted from Grecian
       models, everywhere won and maintained the upper hand. … Even
       at this epoch Byzantium was rising into importance. That city
       had, owing to its hostility with Persia, deserted the side of
       the Greeks for that of the Makedonians. It was from Byzantium
       that Alexander summoned triremes to help him against the
       island in the Danube on which the king of the Triballi had
       taken refuge. … The great successes of Alexander induced all
       the neighboring nationalities to accept the proposals of
       friendship which he made to them. … In Greece false reports
       concerning the progress of events in the north had raised to
       fever heat the general ferment which naturally existed.
    {1599}
       Alexander relied upon the resolutions of the League of the
       Public Peace [formed by the Congress at Corinth], which had
       recognized his father and afterwards himself as its head. But
       he was now opposed by all those who were unable to forget
       their former condition, and who preferred the alliance with
       Persia which had left them independent, to the league with
       Makedonia which robbed them of their autonomy. … Thebes took
       the lead of the malcontents, and set about ridding herself of
       the garrison which Philip had placed in the Cadmeia. She thus
       became the centre of the whole Hellenic opposition. The
       enemies of Makedon, who had been exiled from every city,
       assembled in Thebes. … The same party was stirring in
       Lakedæmon, in Arcadia, in Ætolia, and, above all, at Athens.
       From Athens the Thebans were supplied, through the mediation
       of Demosthenes, and doubtless by means of Persian gold, with
       arms, of which they were likely to stand in need. …
       Alexander had no sooner settled with his enemies in the north
       than he turned to Hellas. So rapid was his movement that he
       found the pass of Thermopylæ still open, and, long before he
       was expected, appeared before the walls of Thebes." The fate
       of the city was decided by a battle in which the Makedonians
       were overwhelmingly victorious. "In the market-place, in the
       streets, in the very houses, there ensued a hideous massacre.
       … The victors were, however, not satisfied with the
       slaughter. Alexander summoned a meeting of his League, by
       which the complete destruction of Thebes was decreed, and this
       destruction was actually carried out (October, 335 B. C.). [At
       the same time Platæa, which Thebes had destroyed, was ordered
       to be rebuilt.] In Grecian history it was no unheard-of event
       that the members of the defeated nation should be sold into
       slavery, and so it happened on this occasion. The sale of the
       slaves supplied Alexander with a sum of money which was no
       inconsiderable addition to his military chest. But his main
       object was to strike terror, and this was spread through
       Greece by the ruthless destruction of the city of Œdipus, of
       Pindar, and of Epameinondas. … Deep and universal horror
       fell upon the Greeks. … The close connection that existed at
       this moment between Grecian and Persian affairs forbade him to
       lose a moment in turning his arms towards Asia. … A war
       between Alexander and Persia was inevitable, not only on
       account of the relation of the Greeks to Makedon, whose yoke
       they were very loth to bear, but on account of their relation
       to Persia, on whose support they leaned. … The career which
       Philip had begun, and in which Alexander was now proceeding,
       led of necessity to a struggle with the power that held sway
       in Asia Minor. Until that power were defeated, the Makedonian
       kingdom could not be regarded as firmly established."

          L. von Ranke,
          Universal History:
          The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,
          chapter 10, part 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Arrian,
          Anabasis of Alexander,
          book 1, chapters 1-10.

          T. A. Dodge,
          Alexander,
          chapters 14-17.

    GREECE: B. C. 334-323.
       Asiatic conquests of Alexander the Great.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330; and 330-323.

    GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
       Attempt to break the Macedonian yoke.
       The Lamian War.
       Subjugation of Athens.
       Suppression of democracy.
       Expulsion of poor citizens.
       Death of Demosthenes.

       On the death of Alexander the Great, B. C. 323, a party at
       Athens which still hoped for freedom in Greece set on foot a
       vigorous movement designed to break the Macedonian yoke. A
       league was formed in which many cities joined—a larger
       assemblage of Hellenic states, says Mr. Grote, than that which
       resisted Xerxes in 480 B. C. A powerful army of Greek citizens
       and mercenaries was formed and placed under the command of a
       capable Athenian, Leosthenes, who led it into Thessaly, to
       meet the Macedonian general Antipater, who now ruled Greece.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

       The latter was defeated in a battle which ensued, and was
       driven into the fortified Thessalian town of Lamia, where he
       was besieged. Unfortunately, Leosthenes was killed during the
       progress of the siege, and a long interval occurred before a
       new commander could be agreed on. This gave Antipater time to
       obtain succor from Asia. A Macedonian army, under Leonnatus,
       crossed the Hellespont, and the besiegers of Lamia were forced
       to break up their camp in order to meet it. They did so with
       success; Leonnatus was slain and his army driven back. But
       meantime Antipater escaped from Lamia, joined the defeated
       troops and retreated into Macedonia. The war thus begun, and
       which took the name of the Lamian War, was continued, not
       unfavorably to the confederates, on the whole, until the
       following summer—August, 322 B. C.—when it was ended by a
       battle fought on the plain of Krannon, in Thessaly. Antipater,
       who had been joined by Kraterus, from Asia, was the victor,
       and Athens with all her allies submitted to the terms which he
       dictated. He established a Macedonian garrison in Munychia,
       and not only suppressed the democratic constitution of Athens,
       but ordered all the poorer citizens—all who possessed less
       than 2,000 drachmæ's worth of property, being 12,000 out of
       the 21,000 who then possessed the Athenian franchise—to be
       driven from the city; thus leaving a selected citizenship of
       9,000 of the richer and more manageable men. The banished or
       deported 12,000 were scattered in Thrace, Illyria, Italy and
       even in northern Africa. The leaders of the anti-Macedonian
       rising were pursued with unrelenting animosity. Demosthenes,
       the great orator, who had been conspicuous among them, was
       dragged from a temple at Kalauria, to which he had fled, and
       took poison to escape the worse death which probably awaited
       him.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 95 (volume 12).

    GREECE: B. C. 323-301.
       Wars of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; and 310-301.

    GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
       The contest for Athens and Peloponnesus, between Cassander and
       Polysperchon.
       Execution of Phocion.
       Restoration of Thebes.

       "Antipater, after the termination of the Lamian war, passed
       over to Asia and took part in the affairs there.

          See MACEDONIA: A. D. 323-316.

       Being appointed guardian to the Kings, as the children and
       relatives of Alexander were called, he returned to Macedonia,
       leading them with him. … Antipater died (Olympiad 115, 3)
       shortly after his return to Macedonia. He directed that
       Polysperchon, his ancient mate in arms, should succeed him in
       his office, while to his son Cassander he left only the second
       place. But Cassander, an ambitious youth, looked upon his
       father's authority as his inheritance; and relying on the aid
       of the aristocratic party in the Grecian states, of Ptolemæus,
       who ruled in Egypt, and of Antigonus, the most powerful
       general in Asia, he resolved to dispute it with Polysperchon.
    {1600}
       Under pretext of going a-hunting, he escaped out of Macedonia,
       and passed over to Asia to concert matters with Antigonus.
       Polysperchon, seeing war inevitable, resolved to detach
       Greece, if possible, from Cassander. Knowing that the
       oligarchies established in the different states by Antipater
       would be likely to espouse the cause of his son, he issued a
       pompous edict, in the name of the Kings, restoring the
       democracies. … At Athens (Olympiad 115,4) [B. C. 317],
       Nicanor, who commanded in the Munychia, finding that the
       people were inclined toward Polysperchon, secretly collected
       troops, and seized the Piræeus. The people sent to him
       Phocion, Conon the son of Timotheüs, and Clearchus, men of
       distinction, and his friends; but to no purpose. A letter also
       came to him from Olympias, Alexander's mother, whom
       Polysperchon had recalled from Epeirus, and given the charge
       of her infant grandson, ordering him to surrender both the
       Munychia and the Piræeus; but to as little effect. Finally,
       Polysperchon's son Alexander entered Attica with an army, and
       encamped before the Piræeus. Phocion and other chiefs of the
       aristocracy went to Alexander, and advised him not to give
       these places up to the people, but to hold them himself till
       the contest with Cassander should be terminated. They feared,
       it is evident, for their own safety, and not without reason;
       for the people, ferocious with the recovery of power, soon
       after held an assembly, in which they deposed all the former
       magistrates, appointed the most furious democrats in their
       room, and passed sentences of death, banishment, and
       confiscation of goods on those who had governed under the
       oligarchy. Phocion and his friends fled to Alexander, who
       received them kindly, and sent them with letters in their
       favor to his father, who was now in Phocis. The Athenians also
       despatched an embassy, and, yielding to motives of interest,
       Polysperchon sent his suppliants prisoners to Athens, to stand
       a trial for their lives before the tribunal of an anarchic
       mob. … The prisoners were condemned and led off to prison,
       followed by the tears of their friends and the triumphant
       execrations of their mean-spirited enemies. They drank the
       fatal hemlock-juice, and their bodies were cast unburied
       beyond the confines of Attica. Four days after the death of
       Phocion, Cassander arrived at the Piræeus with 35 ships,
       carrying 4,000 men, given him by Antigonus. Polysperchon
       immediately entered Attica with 20,000 Macedonian foot and
       4,000 of those of the allies, 1,000 horse, and 65 elephants,
       which he had brought from Asia, and encamped near the Piræeus.
       But as the siege was likely to be tedious, and sufficient
       provisions for so large an army could not be had, he left a
       force such as the country could support with his son
       Alexander, and passed with the remainder into Peloponnesus, to
       force the Megalopolitans to submit to the Kings; for they
       alone sided with Cassander, all the rest having obeyed the
       directions to put to death or banish his adherents. The whole
       serviceable population of Megalopolis, slaves included,
       amounted to 15,000 men; and under the directions of one Damis,
       who had served in Asia under Alexander, they prepared for a
       vigorous defence. Polysperchon sat down before the town, and
       his miners in a short time succeeded in throwing down three
       towers and a part of the wall. He attempted a storm, but was
       obliged to draw off his men, after an obstinate conflict. …
       The Athenians meantime saw themselves excluded from the sea,
       and from all their sources of profit and enjoyment, while
       little aid was to be expected from Polysperchon, who had been
       forced to raise the siege of Megalopolis, and whose fleet had
       just now been destroyed by Antigonus in the Hellespont. A
       citizen of some consideration ventured at length to propose in
       the assembly an arrangement with Cassander. The ordinary
       tumult at first was raised, but the sense of interest finally
       prevailed. Peace was procured, on the conditions of the
       Munychia remaining in Cassander's hands till the end of the
       present contest; political privileges being restricted to
       those possessed of ten minas and upwards of property, and a
       person appointed by Cassander being at the head of the
       government. The person selected for this office was Demetrius
       of Phaleron, a distinguished Athenian citizen; and under his
       mild and equitable rule the people were far happier than they
       could have been under a democracy, for which they had proved
       themselves no longer fit. Cassander then passed over into
       Peloponnesus, and laid siege to Tegea. While here, he heard
       that Olympias had put to death several of his friends in
       Macedonia; among the rest, Philip Aridæus and his wife
       Eurydice, members of the royal family. He at once (Olympiad
       116, 1) [B. C. 316] set out for Macedonia; and, as the pass of
       Pylæ was occupied by the Ætolians, he embarked his troops in
       Locris, and landed them in Thessaly. He besieged Olympias in
       Pydna, forced her to surrender, and put her to death.
       Macedonia submitted to him, and he then set forth for
       Peloponnesus, where Polysperchon's son Alexander was at the
       head of an army. He forced a passage through Pylæ, and coming
       into Bœotia, announced his intention of restoring Thebes,
       which had now lain desolate for twenty years. The scattered
       Thebans were collected; the towns of Bœotia and other parts of
       Greece (Athens in particular), and even of Italy and Sicily,
       aided to raise the walls and to supply the wants of the
       returning exiles, and Thebes was once more numbered among the
       cities of Greece. As Alexander guarded the Isthmus, Cassander
       passed to Megara, where he embarked his troops and elephants,
       and crossed over to Epidaurus. He made Argos and Messene come
       over to his side, and then returned to Macedonia. In the
       conflict of interests which prevailed in this anarchic period,
       Antigonus was ere long among the enemies of Cassander. He sent
       one of his generals to Laconia, who, having obtained
       permission from the Spartans to recruit in Peloponnesus,
       raised 8,000 men. The command in Peloponnesus was given to
       Polysperchon, whose son Alexander was summoned over to Asia to
       accuse Cassander of treason before the assembly of the
       Macedonian soldiers. Cassander was proclaimed a public enemy
       unless he submitted to Antigonus; at the same time the Greeks
       were declared independent, Antigonus hoping thus to gain them
       over to his side. He then sent Alexander back with 500
       talents; and when Ptolemæus of Egypt heard what Antigonus had
       done, he also hastened to declare the independence of the
       Greeks; for all the contending generals were anxious to stand
       well with the people of Greece, from which country, exclusive
       of other advantages, they drew their best soldiers.
    {1601}
       … Antigonus, to show the Greeks that he was in earnest in
       his promise to restore them to independence, sent one of his
       generals, named Telesphorus, with a fleet and army to
       Peloponnesus, who expelled Cassander's garrisons from most of
       the towns. The following year (Olympiad 117, 1) [B. C. 312] he
       sent an officer, named Ptolemæus, with another fleet and army
       to Greece. Ptolemæus landed in Bœotia, and being joined by
       2,200 foot, and 1,300 horse of the Bœotians, he passed over to
       Eubœa; where having expelled the Macedonian garrison from
       Chalcis (the only town there which Cassander held), he left it
       without any foreign garrison, as a proof that Antigonus meant
       fairly. He then took Orôpus, and gave it to the Bœotians; he
       entered Attica, and the people forced Demetrius Phalereus to
       make a truce with him, and to send to Antigonus to treat of an
       alliance. Ptolemæus returned to Bœotia, expelled the garrison
       from the Cadmeia, and liberated Thebes."

          T. Keightley,
          History of Greece,
          part 3, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 58 (volume 7).

    GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
       Demetrius and the Antigonids.

       In the spring of the year 307 B. C. Athens was surprised by an
       expedition sent from Ephesus by Antigonus, under his
       adventurous son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

       The city had then been for ten years subject to Cassander, the
       ruling chief in Macedonia for the time, and appears to have
       been mildly governed by Cassander's lieutenant, Demetrius the
       Phalerian. The coming of the other Demetrius offered nothing
       to the Athenians but a change of masters, but they welcomed
       him with extravagant demonstrations. Their degeneracy was
       shown in proceedings of Asiatic servility. They deified
       Demetrius and his father Antigonus, erected altars to them and
       appointed ministering priests. After some months spent at
       Athens in the enjoyment of these adulations, Demetrius
       returned to Asia, to take part in the war which Antigonus was
       waging with Ptolemy of Egypt and Lysimachus of Thrace, two of
       his former partners in the partition of the empire of
       Alexander. He was absent three years, and then returned, at
       the call of the Athenians, to save them from falling again
       into the hands of Cassander. He now made Athens his capital,
       as it were, for something more than a year, while he acquired
       control of Corinth, Argos, Sicyon, Chalcis in Eubœa and other
       important places, greatly reducing the dominion of the
       Macedonian, Cassander. His treatment at Athens, during this
       period, was marked by the same impious and disgraceful
       servility as before. He was called the guest of the goddess
       Athene and lodged in the Parthenon, which he polluted with
       intolerable debaucheries. But in the summer of 301 B. C. this
       clever adventurer was summoned again to Asia, to aid his
       father in the last great struggle, which decided the partition
       of the empire of Alexander between his self-constituted heirs.
       At the battle of Ipsus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301),
       Antigonus perished and Demetrius was stripped of the kingdom
       he expected to inherit. He turned to Athens for consolation,
       and the fickle city refused to admit him within her walls. But
       after some period of wanderings and adventures the
       unconquerable prince got together a force with which he
       compelled the Athenians to receive him, on more definite terms
       of submission on their part and of mastery on his. Moreover,
       he established his rule in the greater part of Peloponnesus,
       and finally, on the death of Cassander (B. C. 297), he
       acquired the crown of Macedonia. Not satisfied with what
       fortune had thus given him, he attempted to recover the
       Asiatic kingdom of his father, and died, B. C. 283, a captive
       in the hands of the Syrian monarch, Seleucus. His Macedonian
       kingdom had meantime been seized by Pyrrhus of Epirus; but it
       was ultimately recovered by the eldest legitimate son of
       Demetrius, called Antigonus Gonatus. From that time, for a
       century, until the Romans came, not only Macedonia, but Greece
       at large, Athens included, was ruled or dominated by this king
       and his descendants, known as the Antigonid kings.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 59-60 (volumes 7-8).

    GREECE: B. C. 297-280.
       Death of Cassander.
       Intrigues and murders of Ptolemy Keraunos and his strange
       acquisition of the Macedonian throne.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

    GREECE: B. C. 280-279.
       Invasion by the Gauls.

          See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

    GREECE: B. C. 280-275.
       Campaigns of Pyrrhus in Italy and Sicily.

          See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

    GREECE: B. C. 3d Century.
       The Hellenistic world.

       As the result of the conquests of Alexander and the wars of
       his successors, there were, in the third century before
       Christ, three great Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt,
       Syria, which lasted, each under its own dynasty, till Rome
       swallowed them up. The first of these, which was the poorest,
       and the smallest, but historically the most important,
       included the ancestral possessions of Philip and Alexander—
       Macedonia, most of Thrace, 'Thessaly, the mountainous centre
       of the peninsula, as well as a protectorate more or less
       definite and absolute over Greece proper, the Cyclades, and
       certain tracts of Caria. … Next came Egypt, including Cyrene
       and Cyprus, and a general protectorate over the sea-coast
       cities of Asia Minor up to the Black Sea, together with claims
       often asserted with success on Syria, and on the coast lands
       of Southern Asia Minor. … Thirdly came what was now called
       Syria, on account of the policy of the house of Seleucus, who
       built there its capital, and determined to make the Greek or
       Hellenistic end of its vast dominions its political centre of
       gravity. The Kingdom of Syria owned the south and south-east
       of Asia Minor, Syria, and generally Palestine, Mesopotamia,
       and the mountain provinces adjoining it on the East, with
       vague claims further east when there was no king like
       Sandracottus to hold India and the Punjaub with a strong hand.
       There was still a large element of Hellenism in these remote
       parts. The kingdom of Bactria was ruled by a dynasty of kings
       with Greek names—Euthydemus is the chief—who coined in Greek
       style, and must therefore have regarded themselves as
       successors to Alexander. There are many exceptions and
       limitations to this general description, and many secondary
       and semi-independent kingdoms, which make the picture of
       Hellenism infinitely various and complicated. There was, in
       fact, a chain of independent kingdoms reaching from Media to
       Sparta, all of which asserted their complete freedom, and
       generally attained it by balancing the great powers one
       against the other.
    {1602}
       Here they are in their order. Atropatene was the kingdom in
       the northern and western parts of the province of Media, by
       Atropates, the satrap of Alexander, who claimed descent from
       the seven Persian chiefs who put Darius I. on the throne. Next
       came Armenia, hardly conquered by Alexander, and now
       established under a dynasty of its own. Then Cappadocia, the
       land in the heart of Asia Minor, where it narrows between
       Cilicia and Pontus, ruled by sovereigns also claiming royal
       Persian descent. … Fourthly, Pontus, under its equally
       Persian dynast Mithridates—a kingdom which makes a great
       figure in Eastern history under the later Roman Republic.
       There was moreover a dynast of Bithynia, set up and supported
       by the robber state of the Celtic Galatians, which had just
       been founded, and was a source of strength and of danger to
       all its neighbours. Then Pergamum, just being founded and
       strengthened by the first Attalid, Philetærus, an officer of
       Lysimachus, and presently to become one of the leading
       exponents of Hellenism. … Almost all these second-rate
       states (and with them the free Greek cities of Heracleia,
       Cyzicus, Byzantium, &c.) were fragments of the shuttered
       kingdom of Lysimachus. … We have taken no account of a very
       peculiar feature extending all through even the Greek
       kingdoms, especially that of the Selucids—the number of large
       Hellenistic cities founded as special centres of culture, or
       points of defence, and organized as such with a certain local
       independence. These cities, most of which we only know by
       name, were the real backbone of Hellenism in the world.
       Alexander had founded seventy of them, all called by his name.
       Many were upon great trade lines, like the Alexandria which
       still exists. Many were intended as garrison towns in the
       centre of remote provinces, like Candahar—a corruption of
       Iskanderieh, Iskendar being the Oriental form for Alexander.
       Some were mere outposts, where Macedonian soldiers were forced
       to settle, and guard the frontiers against the barbarians,
       like the Alexandria on the Iaxartes. … As regards Seleucus
       … we have a remarkable statement from Appian that he founded
       cities through the length and breadth of his kingdom, viz.,
       sixteen Antiochs called after his father, five Laodiceas after
       his mother, nine Seleucias after himself, three Apameias and
       one Stratoniceia after his wives. … All through Syria and
       Upper Asia there are many towns bearing Greek and Macedonian
       names—Berea, Edessa, Perinthos, Aclæa, Pella, &c. The number
       of these, which have been enumerated in a special catalogue by
       Droysen, the learned historian of Hellenism, is enormous, and
       the first question which arises in our mind is this: where
       were Greek-speaking people found to fill them? It is indeed
       true that Greece proper about this time became depopulated,
       and that it never has recovered from this decay. … Yet …
       the whole population of Greece would never have sufficed for
       one tithe of the cities—the great cities—founded all over
       Asia by the Diadochi. We are therefore driven to the
       conclusion that but a small fraction, the soldiers and
       officials of the new cities, were Greeks—Macedonians, when
       founded by Alexander himself—generally broken down veterans,
       mutinous and discontented troops, and camp followers. To these
       were associated people from the surrounding country, it being
       Alexander's fixed idea to discountenance sporadic country life
       in villages and encourage town communities. The towns
       accordingly received considerable privileges. … The Greek
       language and political habits were thus the one bond of union
       among them, and the extraordinary colonizing genius of the
       Greek once more proved itself."

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          The Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapter 10.

          See, also,
          HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

    GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
       The Achaian League.
       Its rise and fall.
       Destruction of Sparta.
       Supremacy of Rome.

       The Achaian League, which bore a leading part in the affairs
       of Greece during the last half of the third and first half of
       the second century before Christ, was in some sense the
       revival of a more ancient confederacy among the cities of
       Achaia in Peloponnesus. The older League, however, was
       confined to twelve cities of Achaia and had little weight,
       apparently, in general Hellenic politics. The revived League
       grew beyond the territorial boundaries which were indicated by
       its name, and embraced the larger part of Peloponnesus. It
       began about 280 B. C. by the forming of a union between the
       two Achaian cities of Patrai and Dyme. One by one their
       neighbors joined them, until ten cities were confederated and
       acting as one. "The first years of the growth of the Achaian
       League are contemporary with the invasion of Macedonia and
       Greece by the Gauls and with the wars between Pyrrhos and
       Antigonos Gonatas.

          See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

       Pyrrhos, for a moment, expelled Antigonos from the Macedonian
       throne, which Antigonos recovered while' Pyrrhos was warring
       in Peloponnesos. By the time that Pyrrhos was dead, and
       Antigonos again firmly fixed in Macedonia, the League had
       grown up to maturity as far as regarded the cities of the old
       Achaia. … Thus far, then, circumstances had favoured the
       quiet and peaceful growth of the League." It had had the
       opportunity to grow firm enough and strong enough, on the
       small scale, to offer some lessons to its disunited and
       tyrannized neighbors and to exercise an attractive influence
       upon them. One of the nearest of these neighbors was Sikyon,
       which groaned under a tyranny that had been fastened upon it
       by Macedonian influence. Among the exiles from Sikyon was a
       remarkable young man named Aratos, or Aratus, to whom the
       successful working of the small Achaian League suggested some
       broader extension of the same political organism. In B. C.
       251, Aratos succeeded in delivering his native city from its
       tyrant and in bringing about the annexation of Sikyon to the
       Achaian League. Eight years later, having meantime been
       elected to the chief office of the League, Aratos accomplished
       the expulsion of the Macedonians and their agents from
       Corinth, Megara, Troizen and Epidauros, and persuaded those
       four cities to unite themselves with the Achaians. During the
       next ten years he made similar progress in Arkadia, winning
       town after town to the federation, until the Arkadian federal
       capital, Megalopolis, was enrolled in the list of members, and
       gave to the League its greatest acquisition of energy and
       brain. In 229 B. C. the skill of Aratos and the prestige of
       the League, taking advantage of disturbances in Macedonia,
       effected the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrisons from
       Athens and the liberation of that city, which did not become
       confederated with its liberators, but entered into alliance
       with them. Argos was emancipated and annexed, B. C. 228, and
       "the League was now the greatest power of Greece.
    {1603}
       A Federation of equal cities, democratically governed,
       embraced the whole of old Achaia, the whole of the Argolic
       peninsula, the greater part of Arkadia, together with Phlious,
       Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, and the island of Aigina." The one
       rival of the Achaian League in Peloponnesus was Sparta, which
       looked with jealousy upon its growing power, and would not be
       confederated with it. The consequences of that jealous rivalry
       were fatal to the hopes for Greece which the Achaian union had
       seemed to revive. Unfortunately, rather than otherwise, the
       Lacedæmonian throne came to be occupied at this time by the
       last of the hero-kings of the Herakleid race—Kleomenes. When
       the inevitable collision of war between Sparta and the League
       occurred (B. C. 227-221), the personal figure of Kleomenes
       loomed so large in the conflict that it took the name of the
       Kleomenic War. Aratos was the worst of generals, Kleomenes one
       of the greatest, and the Achaians were steadily beaten in the
       field. Driven to sore straits at last, they abandoned the
       whole original purpose of their federation, by inviting the
       king of Macedonia to help them crush the independence of
       Sparta. To win his aid they gave up Corinth to him, and under
       his leadership they achieved the shameful victory of Sellasia
       (B. C. 221), where all that is worthy in Lacedæmonian history
       came to an end. The League was now scarcely more than a
       dependency of the Macedonian kingdom, and figured as such in
       the so-called Social War with the Ætolian League, B. C.
       219-217. The wars of Rome with Macedonia which followed
       renewed its political importance considerably for a time.
       Becoming the ally of Rome, it was able to maintain a certain
       dignity and influence until the supremacy of the Roman arms
       had been securely proved, and then it sank to the helpless
       insignificance which all Roman alliances led to in the end. It
       was in that state when, on some complaint from Rome (B. C.
       167), a thousand of the chief citizens of Achaia were sent as
       prisoners to Italy and detained there until less than 300
       survived to return to their homes. Among them was the
       historian Polybios. A little later (B. C. 146) there was a
       wild revolt from the Roman yoke, in which Corinth took the
       lead. A few months of war ensued, ending in a decisive battle
       at Leukopetra. Then Corinth was sacked and destroyed by the
       Roman army and the Achaian League disappeared from history.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapters 5-9.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 61-66 (volume 8).

          Polybius,
          History.

    GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
       The Roman conquest.

       The series of wars in which the Romans made themselves masters
       of Greece were known in their annals as the Macedonian Wars.
       At the beginning, they were innocent of aggression. A young
       and ambitious but unprincipled king of Macedonia—Philip, who
       succeeded the able Antigonos Doson—had put himself in
       alliance with the Carthaginians and assailed the Romans in the
       midst of their desperate conflict with Hannibal. For the time
       they were unable to do more than trouble Philip so far as to
       prevent his bringing effective reinforcements to the enemy at
       their doors, and this they accomplished in part by a treaty
       with the Ætolians, which enlisted that unscrupulous league
       upon their side. The first Macedonian war, which began B. C.
       214, was terminated by the Peace of Dyrrachium, B. C. 205. The
       Peace was of five years duration, and Philip employed it in
       reckless undertakings against Pergamus, against Rhodes,
       against Athens, everyone of which carried complaints to Rome,
       the rising arbiter of the Mediterranean world, whose hostility
       Philip lost no opportunity to provoke. On the Ides of March,
       B. C. 200, the Roman senate declared war. In the spring of B.
       C. 197 this second Macedonian War was ended at the battle of
       Cynoscephalæ—so called from the name of a range of hills
       known as the Dog-heads—where the Macedonian army was
       annihilated by the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus. At the next
       assembly of the Greeks for the Isthmian Games, a crier made
       proclamation in the arena that the Roman Senate and T.
       Quinctius the General, having conquered King Philip and the
       Macedonians, declared all the Greeks who had been subject to
       the king free and independent. Henceforth, whatever freedom
       and independence the states of Greece enjoyed were according
       to the will of Rome. An interval of twenty-five years, broken
       by the invasion of Antiochus and his defeat by the Romans at
       Thermopylæ (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187), was followed by a
       third Macedonian War. Philip was now dead and succeeded by his
       son Perseus, known to be hostile to Rome and accused of
       intrigues with her enemies. The Roman Senate forestalled his
       intentions by declaring war. The war which opened B. C. 171
       was closed by the battle of Pydna, fought June 22, B. C. 168,
       where 20,000 Macedonians were slain and 11,000 taken
       prisoners, while the Romans lost scarcely 100 men. Perseus
       attempted flight, but was soon driven to give himself up and
       was sent to Rome. The Macedonian kingdom was then extinguished
       and its territory divided between four nominal republics,
       tributary to Rome. Twenty years after, there was an attempt
       made by a pretender to re-establish the Macedonian throne, and
       a fourth Macedonian War occurred; but it was soon finished (B.
       C. 146—see above, B. C. 280-146). The four republics then
       gave way, to form a Roman province of Macedonia and Epirus,
       while the remainder of Greece, in turn, became the Roman
       province of Achaia.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 64-66 (volume 8).

          ALSO IN:
          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 39, 43 and 45.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapters 8-9.

          Polybius,
          General History.

    GREECE: B. C. 191.
       War of Antiochus of Syria and the Romans.

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

    GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.
       Under the Romans, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
       Sufferings in the Mithridatic war and revolt,
       and in the Roman civil wars.
       Treatment by the emperors.
       Munificence of Herodes Atticus.

       "It was some time [after the Roman conquest] before the Greeks
       had great reason to regret their fortune. A combination of
       causes, which could hardly have entered into the calculations
       of any politician, enabled them to preserve their national
       institutions, and to exercise all their former social
       influence, even after the annihilation of their political
       existence. Their vanity was flattered by their admitted
       superiority in arts and literature, and by the respect paid to
       their usages and prejudices by the Romans. Their political
       subjection was at first not very burdensome; and a
       considerable portion of the nation was allowed to retain the
       appearance of independence.
    {1604}
       Athens and Sparta were honoured with the title of allies of
       Rome. [Athens retained this independent existence, partaking
       something of the position of Hamburg in the Germanic body,
       until the time of Caracalla, when its citizens were absorbed
       into the Roman empire.—Footnote.] The nationality of the
       Greeks was so interwoven with their municipal institutions,
       that the Romans found it impossible to abolish the local
       administration; and an imperfect attempt made at the time of
       the conquest of Achaia was soon abandoned. … The Roman
       senate was evidently not without great jealousy and some fear
       of the Greeks; and great prudence was displayed in adopting a
       number of measures by which they were gradually weakened, and
       cautiously broken to the yoke of their conquerors. … It was
       not until after the time of Augustus, when the conquest of
       every portion of the Greek nation had been completed, that the
       Romans began to view the Greeks in the contemptible light in
       which they are represented by the writers of the capital.
       Crete was not reduced into the form of a province until about
       eight years after the subjection of Achaia, and its conquest
       was not effected without difficulty, after a war of three
       years, by the presence of a consular army. The resistance it
       offered was so obstinate that it was almost depopulated ere
       the Romans could complete its conquest. … The Roman
       government … soon adopted measures tending to diminish the
       resources of the Greek states when received as allies of the
       republic. … If we could place implicit faith in the
       testimony of so firm and partial an adherent of the Romans as
       Polybius, we must believe that the Roman administration was at
       first characterised by a love of justice, and that the Roman
       magistrates were far less venal than the Greeks. … Less than
       a century of irresponsible power effected a wonderful change
       in the conduct of the Roman magistrates. Cicero declares that
       the senate made a traffic of justice to the provincials. …
       But as the government of Rome grew more oppressive, and the
       amount of the taxes levied on the provinces was more severely
       exacted, the increased power of the republic rendered any
       rebellion of the Greeks utterly hopeless. … For sixty years
       after the conquest of Achaia, the Greeks remained docile
       subjects of Rome. … The number of Roman usurers increased,
       and the exactions of Roman publicans in collecting the taxes
       became more oppressive, so that when the army of Mithridates
       invaded Greece, B. C. 86, while Rome appeared plunged in
       anarchy by the civil broils of the partisans of Marius and
       Sylla, the Greeks in office conceived the vain hope of
       recovering their independence. …

          See MITHRIDATIC WARS;
          and ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.

       Both parties, during the Mithridatic war, inflicted severe
       injuries on Greece. … Many of the losses were never
       repaired. The foundations of national prosperity were
       undermined, and it henceforward became impossible to save from
       the annual consumption of the inhabitants the sums necessary
       to replace the accumulated capital of ages, which this short
       war had annihilated."

          G. Finlay,
          Greece under the Romans,
          chapter 1.

       "Scarcely had the storm of Roman war passed by, when the
       Cilician pirates, finding the coasts of Greece peculiarly
       favorable for their marauding incursions, and tempted by the
       wealth accumulated in the cities and temples, commenced their
       depredations on so gigantic a scale that Rome felt obliged to
       put forth all her military forces for their suppression. The
       exploits of Pompey the Great, who was clothed with autocratic
       power to destroy this gigantic evil, fill the brightest
       chapter in the history of that celebrated but too unfortunate
       commander. …

          See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

       The civil wars in which the great Republic expired had the
       fields of Greece for their theatre. Under the tramp of
       contending armies, her fertile plains were desolated, and
       Roman blood, in a cause not her own; again and again moistened
       her soil.

          See ROME: B. C. 48, 44-42, and 31.

       But at length the civil wars have come to an end, and the
       Empire introduces, for the first time in the melancholy
       history of man, a state of universal peace. Greece still
       maintains her pre-eminence in literature and art, and her
       schools are frequented by the sons of the Roman aristocracy.
       Her elder poets serve as models to the literary genius of the
       Augustan age. … The historians form themselves on Attic
       prototypes, and the philosophers of Rome divide themselves
       among the Grecian sects, while in Athens the Platonists, the
       Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans still haunt the
       scenes with which the names of their masters were inseparably
       associated. … The establishment of the Empire made but
       little change in the administration of Greece. Augustus,
       indeed, showed no great solicitude, except to maintain the
       country in subjection by his military colonies,—especially
       those of Patræ and Nicopolis. He even deprived Athens of the
       privileges she had enjoyed under the Republic, and broke down
       the remaining power of Sparta, by declaring the independence
       of her subject towns. Some of his successors treated the
       country with favor, and endeavored, by a clement use of
       authority, to mitigate the sufferings of its decline. Even
       Nero, the amiable fiddler of Rome, was proud to display the
       extent of his musical abilities in their theatres. … The
       noble Trajan allowed the Greeks to retain their former local
       privileges, and did much to improve their condition by his
       wise and just administration. Hadrian was a passionate lover
       of Greek art and literature. Athens especially received the
       amplest benefits from his taste and wealth. He finished the
       temple of Olympian Zeus; established a public library; built a
       pantheon and a gymnasium; rebuilt the temple of Apollo at
       Megara; improved the old roads of Greece and made new ones.
       … Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius showed good will to Greece.
       The latter rebuilt the temple at Eleusis, and improved the
       Athenian schools, raising the salaries of the teachers, and in
       various ways contributing to make Athens, as it had been
       before, the most illustrious seat of learning in the world. It
       was in the reign of this Emperor, in the second century of our
       era, that one of the greatest benefactors of Athens and all
       Greece lived,--Herodes Atticus, distinguished alike for
       wealth, learning, and eloquence. Born at Marathon, …
       educated at Athens by the best teachers his father's wealth
       could procure, he became on going to Rome, in early life, the
       rhetorical teacher of Marcus Aurelius himself. Antoninus Pius
       bestowed on him the honor of the consulship; but he preferred
       the career of a teacher at Athens to the highest political
       dignities … , and he was followed thither by young men of
       the most eminent Roman families, from the Emperor's down. …
    {1605}
       At Athens, south of the Ilissus, he built the stadium … and
       the theatre of Regilla. … At Corinth he built a theatre; at
       Olympia, an aqueduct; at Delphi, a race-course; and at
       Thermopylæ, a hospital. Peloponnesus, Eubœa, Bœotia, and
       Epeirus experienced his bounty, and even Italy was not
       forgotten in the lavish distribution of his wealth. He died in
       A. D. 180."

          C. C. Felton,
          Greece, Ancient and Modern, 4th course,
          lecture 3 (volume 2).

       On the influence which Greek genius and culture exercised upon
       the Romans,

          See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome: The Provinces,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          The Greek World under Roman Sway.

          See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.

    GREECE: B. C. 48.
       Cæsar's campaign against Pompeius.
       Pharsalia.

          See ROME: B. C. 48.

    GREECE: A. D. 258-395.
       Gothic invasions.

          See GOTHS.

    GREECE: A. D. 330.
       Transference of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium
       (Constantinople).

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

    GREECE: A. D. 394-395.
       Final division of the Roman Empire between the sons of
       Theodosius.
       Definite organization of the Eastern Empire under Arcadius.

          See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

    GREECE: A. D. 425.
       Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

          See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

    GREECE: A. D. 446.
       Devastating invasion of the Huns.

          See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

    GREECE: A. D. 527-567.
       The reign of Justinian at Constantinople.
       His recovery of Italy and Africa.

          See ROME: A. D. 527-567, and 535-553.

    GREECE: 7th Century.
       Slavonic occupation of the Peninsula.

          See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

    GREECE: A. D. 717-1205.
       The Byzantine Empire to its fall.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717, to 1204-1205.

    GREECE: A. D. 1205-1261.
       Overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders.
       The Latin Empire of Romania.
       The Greek Empire of Nicæa.
       The dukedoms of Athens and Naxos;
       The principality of Achaia.

          See ROMANIA; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
          ATHENS: A. D.1205;
          ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387;
          and NAXOS.

    GREECE: A. D. 1261-1453.
       The restored Byzantine or Greek Empire.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE; A. D. 1261-1453;
          and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.

    GREECE: A. D. 1453-1479.
       The Turkish Conquest.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;
          CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453, and 1453-1481;
          and ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

    GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
       War of Turks and Venetians in the Peninsula.
       Siege of Corinth.
       Sack of Athens.
       Massacres at Negropont and Croia.

       "The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the captivity
       of the Venetians settled in Pera, threatened [the power of
       Venice] … in the East; and she felt no repugnance to enter
       into a treaty with the enemies of her religion. After a year's
       negotiation, terms were concluded [1454] between the Sultan
       and Venice; by which her possessions were secured to her, and
       her trade guaranteed throughout the empire. In virtue of this
       treaty she continued to occupy Modon, Coron, Napoli di
       Romania, Argos, and other cities on the borders of the
       Peninsula, together with Eubœa (Negropont) and some of the
       smaller islands. But this good understanding was interrupted
       in 1463, when the Turks contrived an excuse for attacking the
       Venetian territory. Under pretence of resenting the asylum
       afforded to a Turkish refugee, the Pasha of the Morea besieged
       and captured Argos; and the Republic felt itself compelled
       immediately to resent the aggression. A re-inforcement was
       sent from Venice to Napoli, and Argos was quickly recaptured.
       Corinth was next besieged, and the project of fortifying the
       isthmus was once more renewed. … The labour of 30,000
       workmen accomplished the work in 15 days; a stone wall of more
       than 12 feet high, defended by a ditch and flanked by 136
       towers, was drawn across the isthmus. … But the approach
       of the Turks, whose numbers were probably exaggerated by
       report, threw the Venetians into distrust and consternation;
       and, unwilling to confide in the strength of their rampart,
       they abandoned the siege of Corinth, and retreated to Napoli,
       from which the infidels were repulsed with the loss of 5,000
       men. The Peloponnesus was now exposed to the predatory
       retaliations of the Turks and Venetians; and the Christians
       appeared anxious to rival or surpass the Mahomedans in the
       refinement of their barbarous inflictions. … In the year
       1465, Sigismondo Malatesta landed in the Morea with a
       re-inforcement of 1,000 men; and, without effecting the
       reduction of the citadel, captured and burned Misitra [near
       the ruins of ancient Sparta]. In the following year, Vittore
       Cappello, with the Venetian fleet, arrived in the straits of
       Euripus; and landing at Aulis marched into Attica. After
       making himself master of the Piræus, he laid siege to Athens;
       her walls were overthrown; her inhabitants plundered; and the
       Venetians retreated with the spoil to the opposite shores of
       Eubœa. The victorious career of Matthias Corvinus, King of
       Hungary, for a time diverted the Sultan from the war in the
       Morea; but … in the beginning of the year 1470 a fleet of
       108 gallies, besides a number of smaller vessels, manned by a
       force 70,000 strong, issued from the harbour of
       Constantinople, and sailed for the straits of Euripus. … The
       army landed without molestation on the island, which they
       united to the mainland by a bridge of boats, and immediately
       proceeded to lay siege to the city of Negropont. … The hopes
       of the besieged were now centred in the Venetian fleet, which,
       under the command of Nicolo Canale, lay at anchor in the
       Saronic Gulf. But that admiral, whilst he awaited a
       re-inforcement, let slip the favourable opportunity of
       preventing the debarcation of the enemy, or of shutting up the
       Turks in the island by the destruction of their half-deserted
       fleet and bridge of boats. By an unaccountable inactivity, he
       suffered the city to be attacked, which, after a vigorous
       resistance of nearly a month, was carried by assault [July 12,
       1470]; and all the inhabitants, who did not escape into the
       citadel, were put to the sword. At length that fortress was
       also taken; and the barbarous conqueror, who had promised to
       respect the head of the intrepid governor, deemed it no
       violation of his word to saw his victim in halves. After this
       decisive blow, which reduced the whole island, Mahomed led
       back his conquering army to Constantinople. … This success
       encouraged the Turks to attack the Venetians in their Italian
       territory; and the Pasha of Bosnia invaded Istria and Friuli,
       and carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Udine.
    {1606}
       In the following year [1474], however, the Turks were baffled
       in their attempt to reduce Scutari in Albania, which had been
       delivered by the gallant Scanderbeg to the guardian care of
       Venice. Some abortive negotiations for peace suspended
       hostilities until 1477, when the troops of Mahomed laid siege
       to Croia in Albania, which they reduced to the severest
       distress. But a new incursion into Friuli struck a panic into
       the inhabitants of Venice, who beheld, from the tops of their
       churches and towers, the raging flames which devoured the
       neighbouring villages." The Turks, however, withdrew into
       Albania, where the siege of Croia was terminated by its
       surrender and the massacre of its inhabitants, and the Sultan,
       in person, renewed the attack on Scutari. The stubborn
       garrison of that stronghold, however, resisted, with fearful
       slaughter, a continuous assault made upon their walls during
       two days and a night. Mahomed was forced to convert the siege
       into a blockade, and his troops reappeared in Friuli. "These
       repeated aggressions on her territories made Venice every day
       more anxious to conclude a peace with the Sultan," and a
       treaty was signed in April, 1479. "It was agreed that the
       islands of Negropont and Mitylene, with the cities of Croia
       and Scutari in Albania, and of Tenaro in the Morea, should be
       consigned to the Turk; whilst other conquests were to be
       reciprocally restored to their former owners. A tribute of
       10,000 ducats was imposed upon Venice, and the inhabitants of
       Scutari [now reduced to 500 men and 150 women] were to be
       permitted to evacuate the city."

          Sir R. Comyn,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapter 31 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 5.

    GREECE: A. D. 1645-1669.
       The war of Candia.
       Surrender of Crete to the Turks by the Venetians.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

    GREECE: A. D. 1684-1696.
       Conquests by the Venetians from the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

    GREECE: A. D. 1699.
       Cession of part of the Morea to Venice by the Turks.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

    GREECE: A. D. 1714-1718.
       The Venetians expelled again from the Morea by the Turks.
       Corfu defended.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

    GREECE: A. D. 1770-1772.
       Revolt against the Turkish rule.
       Russian encouragement and desertion.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

    GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
       Overthrow of Turkish rule.
       Intervention of Russia, England and France.
       Battle of Navarino.
       Establishment of national independence.

       "The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827],
       which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples,
       Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout
       Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821.
       Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been
       preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years
       there had been a general movement in the direction of
       independence. … There had been many insurrections against
       the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed
       without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek
       blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by
       the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did
       not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or
       carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a
       Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of
       the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of
       the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted
       nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years
       before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns
       (for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. …
       In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to
       the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme
       conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the
       Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A
       great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere,
       not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople,
       Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a
       Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were
       occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the
       Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions
       gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished
       Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek
       by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the
       Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the
       Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or
       grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose
       names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member
       of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists
       looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of
       their community of religion, and partly because of the
       fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the
       Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the
       excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia,
       January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his
       successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the
       government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined
       to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and
       Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a
       lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of
       Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's
       Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation,
       and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that
       in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command.
       Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the
       capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an
       officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in
       which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the
       news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a
       general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian
       minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to
       do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of
       Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing
       the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation
       the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially
       that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army
       list, and that his act was one for which he alone was
       responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the
       insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of
       Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp
       fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against
       them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection
       in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the
       insurrection on the Danube.
    {1607}
       Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the
       war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that
       of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set
       by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish
       government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was
       by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory,
       Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years
       of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from
       the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and
       hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the
       shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours,
       the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged
       it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was
       recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some
       weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great
       ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the
       part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the
       insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and
       character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say
       that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of
       revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it
       was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks
       were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his
       ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the
       Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople,
       descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago.
       Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek
       citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property
       stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the
       15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen
       were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and
       transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the
       town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran
       down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great
       towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were
       the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to
       restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the
       governors or other officials, and met the approval of the
       Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by
       thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of
       Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the
       island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and
       thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island
       into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several
       thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased,
       and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into
       Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the
       Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence
       of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the
       fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as
       well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of
       coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting
       pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the
       land, battle followed battle in different parts of the
       country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection
       would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821,
       the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them
       to proclaim their independence, which was done in January,
       1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the
       following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio),
       ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants,
       the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the
       Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month
       Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April,
       1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the
       victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June,
       and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish
       camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part
       in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of
       the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in
       England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in
       the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated
       at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional
       government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became
       almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In
       February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army
       from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in
       June of the same year. In July, the provisional government
       invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826),
       Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence
       [for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha
       captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had
       felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for
       which they had been led to look before the revolution. The
       death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in
       December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British
       government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg
       ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the
       throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to
       Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke
       of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may
       be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of
       this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between
       England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that
       those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and
       Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a
       nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a
       fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to
       the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for
       a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case
       of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from
       Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two
       84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was
       despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached
       Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers
       had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of
       mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet
       under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under
       Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly
       afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden.
       … The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to
       notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of
       plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their
       inhabitants.
    {1608}
       But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to
       show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of
       his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi
       and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those
       waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there.
       This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily
       absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without
       difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster
       of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington,
       Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet
       mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian
       fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of
       guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were
       all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point
       in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of
       which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. …
       The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock
       on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four
       hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had
       ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed;
       the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and
       Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which
       were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated
       that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was
       fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were
       destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English
       fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them
       to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the
       voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197
       wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was
       43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported.
       … It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino
       reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that
       city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great
       danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the
       Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of
       August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive,
       absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that
       the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding
       the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them
       even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded
       compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and
       satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should
       abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The
       reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of
       July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no
       claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The
       ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon
       afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President
       of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring
       that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after
       three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of
       Greece established. There was little fighting after the events
       of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim
       Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for
       evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and
       autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively
       surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the
       Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829,
       and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year
       the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was
       henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

          T. W. Knox,
          Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 2, chapter 4.

          S. G. Howe,
          Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution.

          T. Gordon,
          History of the Greek Revolution.

          Lord Byron,
          Letters and Journals, 1823-4 (volume 2).

          E. J. Trelawny,
          Records of Shelley, Byron, etc.,
          chapters 19-20 (volume 2).

          S. Walpole,
          History of England,
          chapters 9 and 11 (volume 2).

    GREECE: A. D. 1822-1823.
       The Congress of Verona.

          See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
       The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria.
       Its unsatisfactoriness.
       Dethronement of King Otho.
       Election of Prince George of Denmark.

       "On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted
       Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month
       Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered
       to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour;
       giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a
       Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to
       be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830,
       stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the
       Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of
       Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family
       of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the
       popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827,
       to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected
       Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince
       Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France,
       Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the
       Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun.
       But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the
       Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to
       the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about
       £460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000
       francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made;
       and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of
       the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was
       governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count
       Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was
       removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of
       the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as
       president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time
       appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest
       benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was
       the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of
       the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an
       unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole
       administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and
       customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate
       and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money
       were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an
       unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so
       that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities
       before anything had been done to develope her resources. …
    {1609}
       No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to
       conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed,
       personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by
       Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished,
       and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been
       expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens.
       … In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of
       brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular
       insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere.
       One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the
       cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835
       to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was
       overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner,
       sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and
       securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa.
       Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return
       again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. …
       In the absence of a strong and active organization of the
       national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable
       institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed
       until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people,
       and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were
       breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged
       on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a
       Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of
       the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very
       strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and
       Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England
       respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms
       which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of
       1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the
       15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the
       troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by
       the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way,
       and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The
       Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made
       Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution
       was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest,
       Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The
       Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did
       not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it
       only partially modified the system of centralization, from
       which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a
       great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties
       which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led
       up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that
       their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey
       in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are
       concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The
       Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations
       were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The
       temper of the whole country was such that England and France
       deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an
       alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an
       Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it
       remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to
       bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it.
       … The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation
       weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the
       unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder.
       … From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself
       apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to
       have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France
       and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution
       of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the
       Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862,
       the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed;
       and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the
       Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out
       into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was
       nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and
       when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were
       refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were
       appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after
       wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios
       never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in
       Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the
       agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the
       kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the
       reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus,
       although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical
       unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his
       acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily
       fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the
       Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to
       regret the selection. … From this time forward the history
       of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

          L. Sergeant,
          Greece,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          L. Sergeant,
          New Greece,
          part 2, chapter 8-10.

    GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.
       Rude enforcement of English claims.
       The Don Pacifico Affair.

       "Greek independence had been established under the joint
       guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional
       government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly
       delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon
       the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported
       by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own
       influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists,
       leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The
       Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any
       demands raised by the English against the Government—and the
       bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for
       dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King,
       supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such
       questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British
       subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's
       ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of
       English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were
       trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a
       Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a
       Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and
       the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it
       refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of
       Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference
       on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for
       ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain
       papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful
       claim against the Portuguese Government.
    {1610}
       Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been
       made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no
       trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct
       national claim upon the Government. For several years, on
       various pretences, the settlement of the question had been
       postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he
       should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek
       Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at
       the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral
       Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr.
       Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were
       again formally laid before the King, and upon their being
       declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy
       captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material
       guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were
       indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians
       threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted.
       The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at
       London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the
       matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek
       Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh
       pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his
       claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister
       from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused
       the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical
       instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign
       Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the
       Government."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 4, pages 200-203.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Walpole,
          History of England, from 1815,
          chapter 22 (volume 4).

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 19 (volume 2).

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.

    GREECE: A. D. 1862.
       Annexation of the Ionian Islands.

          See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

    GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
       The Cretan struggle and defeat.
       The Greek question in the Berlin Congress.
       Small cession of territory by Turkey.

       "The annexation of the Heptannesos [the seven (Ionian)
       islands] was a great benefit to Hellas. It was not only a
       piece of good fortune for the present but an earnest of the
       future. … There still remained the delusion of the Integrity
       of the Turkish Empire; but the Christians of the East really
       cannot believe in the sincerity of all the Powers who proclaim
       and sustain this extraordinary figment, any more than they are
       able to fall a prey to the hallucination itself. The reunion
       of the Heptannesos with the rest of Hellas was therefore
       regarded as marking the beginning of another and better era—a
       sanction to the hopes of other re-unions in the future. The
       first of the Hellenes who endeavoured to gain for themselves
       the same good fortune which had fallen upon the Ionians were
       again the Cretans. They defied Turkey for three years,
       1866-7-8. With the exception of certain fortresses, the whole
       island was free. Acts of heroism and sacrifice such as those
       which had rendered glorious the first War of Independence,
       again challenged the attention of the world. Volunteers from
       the West recalled the Philhellenic enthusiasm of old days. The
       Hellenes of the mainland did not leave their brethren alone in
       the hour of danger; they hastened to fight at their side,
       while they opened in their own homes a place of refuge for the
       women and children of the island. Nearly 60,000 fugitives
       found protection there. For a while there was room for
       believing that the deliverance of Crete was at last
       accomplished. Russia and France were favourably disposed.
       Unhappily the good-will of these two Powers could not overcome
       the opposition of England, strongly supported by Austria.
       Diplomacy fought for the enslavement of the Cretans with as
       much persistence and more success than those with which it had
       opposed the deliverance of Greece. Freedom has not yet come
       for Crete. The islanders obtained by their struggle nothing
       but a doubtful amelioration of their condition by means of a
       sort of charter which was extracted from the unwillingness of
       the Porte in 1868, under the name of the 'Organic Regulation.'
       This edict has never been honestly put in force. However, even
       if it had been carried out, it would not have been a
       settlement of the Cretan question. The Cretans have never
       concealed what they want, or ceased to proclaim their
       intention of demanding it until they obtain it. At the time of
       the Congress of Berlin they thought once more that they would
       succeed. They got nothing but another promise from the Porte
       'to enforce scrupulously the Organic Regulation of 1868, with
       such modifications as might be judged equitable.' … The
       history of the Greek Question at the Congress of Berlin and
       the conferences which followed it, is not to be treated in
       detail here. The time is not come for knowing all that took
       place. … We do not know why Hellas herself remained so long
       with her sword undrawn during the Russo-Turkish War—what
       promises or what threats held her back from moving when the
       armies of Russia, checked before Plevna, would have welcomed a
       diversion in the West, and when the Hellenic people both
       within and without the Kingdom were chafing at the do-nothing
       attitude of the Government of Athens. Everyone in Greece felt
       that the moment was come. The measures taken by hordes of
       Bashi-Bazooks were hardly sufficient to repress the
       insurrection which was ready in all quarters, and which at
       length broke out in the mountains of Thessaly. … It was only
       at the last moment, when the war was on the point of being
       closed by the treaty which victorious Russia compelled Turkey
       to grant at San Stefano, that the Greek Government, under the
       Presidency of Koumoundouros, yielded tardily to the pressure
       of the nation, and allowed the army to cross the frontier. It
       was too late for the diversion to be of any use to Russia, and
       it could look for no support from any other Government in
       Europe. This fact was realized at Athens, but men felt, at the
       same time, that it was needful to remind the world at any
       price that there is a Greek Question connected with the
       Eastern Question. The step was taken, but it was taken with a
       hesitation which betrayed itself in act as well as in word.
       … Diplomacy saw the danger of the fresh conflagration which
       the armed intervention of Greece was capable of kindling.
    {1611}
       The utmost possible amount of pressure was therefore brought
       to bear upon the Government of Athens in order to induce it to
       retrace the step, and in the result an order was obtained to the
       Greek Commander-in-Chief to recross the frontier, upon the
       solemn assurance of the great Powers 'that the national
       aspirations and interests of the Greek populations should be
       the subject of the deliberations of the approaching Congress.'
       … On July 5, 1878, the Congress accepted the resolution
       proposed by the French plenipotentiary, 'inviting the Porte to
       come to an understanding with Greece for a rectification of
       the frontiers in Thessaly and Epiros, a rectification which
       may follow the valley of the Peneus upon the Eastern side, and
       that of the Thyamis (or Kalamas) upon the Western.' In other
       words, they assign to Hellas the whole of Thessaly and a large
       part of Epiros. Notwithstanding the abandonment of the island
       of Crete, this was some satisfaction for the wrongs which she
       had suffered at the delimitation of the Kingdom. … But the
       scheme suggested by the Congress and sanctioned by the
       Conference of Berlin on July 1, 1880, was not carried out.
       When Turkey found that she was not confronted by an Europe
       determined to be obeyed, she refused to submit. And then the
       Powers, whose main anxiety was peace at any price, instead of
       insisting upon her compliance, put upon Hellas all the
       pressure which they were able to exercise, to induce her to
       submit the question of the frontiers to a fresh arbitration.
       … Hellas had to yield, and on July 2, 1881, three years
       after the signing of the famous Protocol of Berlin, she signed
       the convention by which Turkey ceded to her the flat part of
       Thessaly and a small scrap of Epiros."

          D. Bikelas,
          Seven Essays on Christian Greece,
          essay 6.

    GREECE: A. D. 1864-1893.
       Government under the later constitution.

       A new constitution, framed by the National Assembly, "was
       ratified by the King on November 21, 1864. Abolishing the old
       Senate, it established a Representative Chamber of 150
       deputies, since increased to 190, and again to 307, elected by
       ballot by all males over the age of twenty-one, from equal
       electoral districts (they were afterwards elected by
       nomarchies; the system now is by eparchies). Mr. Sergeant
       gives the number of electors (in 1879) at 311 per 1,000, but I
       do not know what he does with the women and minors, who must
       be about 75 per cent of the population. The present [1893]
       number of electors is 450,000, or 205 per 1,000. The King has
       considerable power: he is irresponsible; he appoints and
       dismisses his ministers and all officers and officials; and he
       can prorogue or suspend Parliament. Nor is his power merely
       nominal. In 1866 the Chamber behaved illegally, and the King
       promptly dissolved it; in 1875 again the King successfully
       steered his country out of a whirlpool of corruption; and,
       lastly, in 1892, his Majesty, finding M. Deleyannes obstinate
       in his financial dilatoriness, dismissed him. … Before King
       Otho there were 4 administrations; under his rule 24 (13
       before the Constitution was granted and 11 after), 10 in the
       interregnum, and 42 under King George. This gives 70
       administrations in 62 years, or about one every 10½ months,
       or, deducting the two kingless periods, 56 administrations in
       60 years—that is, with an average duration of nearly 13
       months. This compares for stability very well with the
       duration of French Ministries, 28 of which have lasted 22
       years, or about 9½ months each. It should also be stated that
       there has been a distinct tendency to greater Ministerial
       longevity of late years in Greece. Under King Otho there were
       seven Parliaments in 18 years, which allows 2 years and 7
       months for each Parliamentary period. Under King George there
       have been 13 in 28 years, or with a life of 2 years and 2
       months each. However, we know that Parliament had not the same
       free play under the first King that it has had under the
       second; and, besides, the present Parliament, considering the
       Prime Minister's enormous majority, is likely to continue some
       time, and bring up the Georgian average. … There have been
       no notable changes of the Greek Constitution since its first
       promulgation, though there has been a natural expansion,
       especially in the judicial section. This very fact is of
       itself a vindication of Hellenic national stability."

          R. A. H. Bickford-Smith,
          Greece under King George,
          chapter 18.

       ----------GREECE: End----------

    GREEK, Origin of the name.

          See HELLAS.

    GREEK CHURCH, The.

          See CHRISTIANLY: A. D. 330-1054.

    GREEK EDUCATION.

          See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

    GREEK EMPIRE, called Byzantine: A.D. 700-1204.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

    GREEK EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE (A. D. 1261-1453).

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

    GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261.

       The conquest of Constantinople by the Venetians and the
       Crusaders, in 1204, broke the Byzantine Empire into many
       fragments, some of which were secured by the conquerors and
       loosely bound together in the feudal empire of Romania, while
       others were snatched from the ruin and preserved by the
       Greeks, themselves. For the sovereignty of these latter
       numerous claimants made haste to contend. Three fugitive
       emperors were wandering in the outer territories of the
       shattered realm. One was that Alexius III., whose deposition
       of Isaac Angelos had afforded a pretext for the crusading
       conquest, and who had fled when Isaac was restored. A second
       was Alexius V. (Murtzuphlos), who pushed Isaac Angelos and his
       son Alexius IV. from the shaking throne when Constantinople
       resolved to defend itself against the Christians of the West,
       but who abandoned the city in the last hours of the siege. The
       third was Theodore Lascaris, son-in-law of Alexius III., who
       was elected to the imperial office as soon as the flight of
       Alexius V. became known—even after the besiegers had entered
       the city—and who, then, could do nothing but follow his
       fugitive predecessors. This last was the only one of the three
       who found a piece of defensible territory on which to set up
       his throne. He established himself in Bithynia, associating
       his claims with those of his worthless father-in-law, and
       contenting himself with the title of Despot, at first. But the
       convenient though objectionable father-in-law was not
       permitted to enjoy any share of the sovereignty which he
       acquired. Theodore, in fact, managed his affairs with great
       vigor and skill. The district in which his authority was
       recognized widened rapidly and the city of Nicæa became his
       capital. There, in 1206, he received the imperial crown, more
       formally and solemnly, anew, and rallied the Greek resistance
       which was destined to triumph, a little more than half a
       century later, over the insolent aggression of the Latin West.
    {1612}
       The small empire of Nicæa had to contend, not merely with the
       Latins in Constantinople and Greece, and with the Turkish
       Sultan of Iconium, but also with another ambitious fragment of
       Greek empire at Trebizond, which showed itself persistently
       hostile. His successors, moreover, were in conflict with a
       third such fragment in Europe, at Thessalonica. But, ten years
       after the flight of Theodore from Constantinople, his empire
       of Nicæa "extended from Heracleia on the Black Sea to the head
       of the Gulf of Nicomedia; from thence it embraced the coast of
       the Opsikian theme as far as Cyzicus; and then descending to
       the south, included Pergamus, and joined the coast of the
       Ægean. Theodore had already extended his power over the
       valleys of the Hermus, the Caister, and the Mæander." Theodore
       Lascaris died in 1222, leaving no son, and John Dukas
       Vatatzes, or Vataces as his name is written by some
       historians, a man of eminent abilities and high qualities, who
       had married Theodore's daughter, was elected to the vacant
       throne. He was saluted as John III.—assuming a continuity
       from the Byzantine to the Nicæan series of emperors. In a
       reign of thirty-three years, this prudent and capable emperor,
       as Gibbon expresses the fact, "rescued the provinces from
       national and foreign usurpers, till he pressed on all sides
       the imperial city [Constantinople], a leafless and sapless
       trunk, which must fall at the first stroke of the axe." He did
       not live to apply that blow nor to witness the fall of the
       coveted capital of the East. But the event occurred only six
       years after his death, and owed nothing to the energy or the
       capability of his successors. His son, Theodore II., reigned
       but four years, and left at his death, in 1258, a son, John
       IV., only eight years old. The appointed regent and tutor of
       this youth was soon assassinated, and Michael Paleologos, an
       able officer, who had some of the blood of the imperial
       Angelos family in his veins, was made in the first instance
       tutor to the young emperor, and soon afterwards raised to the
       throne with him as a colleague. In 1260 the new emperor made
       an attack on Constantinople and was repulsed. But on the 25th
       of July in the next year the city was taken by a sudden
       surprise, while 6,000 soldiers of its garrison were absent on
       an expedition against Daphnusia in the Black Sea. It was
       acquired almost without resistance, the Latin emperor, Baldwin
       II., taking promptly to flight. The destruction of life was
       slight; but the surprising party fired a considerable part of
       the city, to cover the smallness of its numbers, and
       Constantinople suffered once more from a disastrous
       conflagration. On the recovery of its ancient capital, the
       Greek empire ceased to bear the name of Nicæa, and its history
       is continued under the more imposing appellation of the Greek
       empire of Constantinople.

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
          from 716 to 1453,
          book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 62.

    GREEK EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND.

          See TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.

    GREEK FIRE.

       "The important secret of compounding and directing this
       artificial flame was imparted [in the later part of the
       seventh century to the Greeks, or Byzantines, at
       Constantinople] by Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis, in
       Syria, who deserted from the service of the caliph to that of
       the emperor. The skill of a chemist and engineer was
       equivalent to the succour of fleets and armies; and this
       discovery or improvement of the military art was fortunately
       reserved for the distressful period when the degenerate Romans
       of the East were incapable of contending with the warlike
       enthusiasm and youthful vigour of the Saracens. The historian
       who presumes to analyze this extraordinary composition should
       suspect his own ignorance and that of his Byzantine guides, so
       prone to the marvellous, so careless, and, in this instance,
       so jealous of the truth. From their obscure, and perhaps
       fallacious hints, it should seem that the principal ingredient
       of the Greek fire was the naphtha, or liquid bitumen, a light,
       tenacious, and inflammable oil, which springs from the earth.
       … The naphtha was mingled, I know not by what methods or in
       what proportions, with sulphur and with the pitch that is
       extracted from evergreen firs. From this mixture, which
       produced a thick smoke and a loud explosion, proceeded a
       fierce and obstinate flame … ; instead of being extinguished
       it was nourished and quickened by the element of water; and
       sand, urine, or vinegar were the only remedies that could damp
       the fury of this powerful agent. … It was either poured from
       the ramparts [of a besieged town] in large boilers, or
       launched in red-hot balls of stone and iron, or darted in
       arrows and javelins, twisted round with flax and tow, which
       had deeply imbibed the inflammable oil; sometimes it was
       deposited in fire-ships … and was most commonly blown
       through long tubes of copper, which were planted on the prow
       of a galley, and fancifully shaped into the mouths of savage
       monsters, that seemed to vomit a stream of liquid and
       consuming fire. This important art was preserved at
       Constantinople, as the palladium of the state. … The secret
       was confined, above 400 years, to the Romans of the East. …
       It was at length either discovered or stolen by the
       Mahometans; and, in the holy wars of Syria and Egypt, they
       retorted an invention, contrived against themselves, on the
       heads of the Christians. … The use of the Greek, or, as it
       might now be called, the Saracen fire, was continued to the
       middle of the fourteenth century."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 52.

    GREEK GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

          See HELLENIC GENIUS, &c.

    GREELEY, Horace,
       The Peace Conference at Niagara.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

       Presidential candidacy and defeat.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

    GREEN, Duff, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

    GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS.

          See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

    GREENBACK PARTY, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

    GREENE, General Nathaniel, and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;
          and 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

       ----------GREENLAND: Start--------

    GREENLAND: A D.876-984.
       Discovery and settlement by the Northmen.

          See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-984.

    GREENLAND: A. D. 1450-1585.
       The lost Icelandic colony, absorbed by Eskimo. Rediscovery of
       the country.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

       ----------GREENLAND: End----------

    {1613}

    GREENS, Roman Faction of the.

          See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

    GREENVILLE TREATY WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

    GREGORIAN CALENDAR.—GREGORIAN ERA.

          See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

    GREGORY I. (called The Great), Pope, A. D. 590-604.
       Gregory II., Pope, 715-731.
       Gregory III., Pope, 731-741.
       Gregory IV., Pope, 827-844.
       Gregory V., Pope, 996-999.
       Gregory VI., Pope, 1044-1046.
       Gregory VII., Pope, 1075-1085.
       Gregory VIII., Pope, 1187, October to December.
       Gregory IX., Pope, 1227-1241.
       Gregory X., Pope, 1271-1276.
       Gregory XI., Pope, 1371-1378.
       Gregory XII., Pope, 1406-1415.
       Gregory XIII., Pope, 1572-1585.
       Gregory XIV., Pope, 1590-1591.
       Gregory XV., Pope, 1621-162.
       Gregory XVI., Pope, 1831-1846.

    GRENVILLE MINISTRY, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763; and 1765-1768.

    GRÉVY, Jules, President of the French Republic, 1879-1887.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

    GREY, Earl, The Ministry of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832; and 1834-1837.

    GREY FRIARS.

          See MENDICANT ORDERS.

    GREY LEAGUES, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

    GREYS, OR BIGI, of Florence, The.

          See BIGI.

    GRIERSON'S RAID.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

    GRIQUAS.—GRIQUALAND.

       "The Griquas or Baastards, a mixed race sprung from the
       intercourse of the 'Boers' [of South Africa] with their
       Hottentot slaves," migrated from Cape Colony after the
       Emancipation Act of 1833, "and, under the chiefs Waterboer and
       Adam Kok, settled in the country north of the confluence of
       the Orange and Vaal, the present Griqualand West.
       Subsequently, in 1852, Adam Kok's section of the Griquas again
       migrated to the territory then called No Man's Land, between
       Kafraria and southern Natal, now known as Griqualand East, or
       New Griqualand. … In consequence of the discovery of
       diamonds in the Griqua country in 1867, and the rush thither
       of thousands of Europeans from all the surrounding states, as
       well as from Europe, America, and Australia, the chief
       Waterboer ceded his rights to the British Government, and this
       region was annexed to the Cape Colony as the
       Lieutenant-Governorship of Griqualand West in 1871."

          Hellwald-Johnston,
          Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
          chapter 23, section 5.

       ----------GRISONS: Start--------

    GRISONS, The.
       Achievement of democratic independence.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

    GRISONS: The Valtelline revolt and war.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

       ----------GRISONS: End----------

    GROCHOW, Battles of (1831).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

    GROL, Capture of (1627).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

    GRONENBURG: A. D. 1593.
       Capture by Prince Maurice.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

    GROS VENTRE INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA,
          and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    GROSS BEEREN, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

    GROSS GÖRSCHEN, OR LUTZEN, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).

    GROSSE RATH, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

    GROSSWARDEIN, Treaty of.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

    GROTIUS, HUGO, Imprisonment and escape of.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

    GROVETON, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    GRUTHUNGI, The.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

    GRÜTLI, OR RÜTLI, The Meadow of.

          See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

    GRYNEUM, The Oracle of.

          See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

    GUADACELITO OR SALADO, Battle of (1340).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

    GUADALETE, Battle of the.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

    GUADALOUPE HIDALGO, Treaty of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

    GUADALUPES.

          See GACHUPINES.

    GUAICARUS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    GUAJIRA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

    GUANAJUATO, Battles of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

    GUANAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    GUANCHES, The.

          See LIBYANS.

    GUARANI, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

    GUASTALLA, Battle of (1734).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

       ----------GUATEMALA: Start--------

    GUATEMALA:
       The name.

       "According to Fuentes y Guzman, derived from 'Coctecmalan'
       —that is to say 'Palo de leche,' milk-tree, commonly called
       'Yerba mala,' found in the neighborhood of Antigua Guatemala.
       … In the Mexican tongue, if we may believe Vasquez, it was
       called 'Quauhtimali,' rotten-tree. … Others derive it from
       'Uhatezmalha,' signifying 'the hill which discharges water';
       and Juarros suggests that it may be from Juitemal, the first
       king of Guatemala."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, page 620, foot-note.

    GUATEMALA:
       Aboriginal inhabitants, and ruins of Ancient Civilization.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;
          also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.

    GUATEMALA: A. D. 1524.
       Conquest by Alvarado, the lieutenant of Cortes.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

    GUATEMALA: A. D. 1821-1871.
       Separation from Spain.
       Brief annexation to Mexico.
       Resistance to Central American Federation.
       The wars of the states.

          See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

       ----------GUATEMALA: End----------

    GUAYANAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    {1614}

    GUCK OR COCO TRIBES.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

       ----------GUELDERLAND: Start--------

    GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.
       Under the House of Nassau.
       Acquisition by the Duke of Burgundy.

       "The arable extent of Guelderland, its central position, and
       the number of its ancient towns, rendered it at all times of
       great importance. The men of Zutphen and Arnheim were foremost
       among the claimants of civic freedom; and at Tiel and Bommel
       industry struck early root, and struggled bravely to maturity
       through countless storms of feudal violence and rapine.
       Guelderland was constituted a county, or earldom, by Henry
       III. [Emperor, A. D. 1079], and bestowed on Otho, count of
       Nassau; and thus originated the influence of that celebrated
       family in the affairs of the Netherlands. Three centuries
       later the province was created a duchy of the empire. Vigour
       and ability continued to distinguish the house of Nassau, and
       they were destined to become eventually the most popular and
       powerful family in the nation. Apart from their influence,
       however, Guelderland hardly occupies as important a place in
       the general history of the country as Utrecht or Holland." In
       1473, when the House of Burgundy had acquired sovereignty over
       most of the Netherland states, Charles the Bold availed
       himself of a domestic quarrel between the reigning prince of
       Guelderland and his heir "to purchase the duchy from the
       former for 92,000 crowns of gold. The old duke died before the
       pecuniary portion of the bargain was actually completed; and,
       the rightful heir being detained in prison, the grasping lord
       of Burgundy entered into possession of his purchase, for which
       no part of the price was ever paid."

          W. T. McCullagh,
          Industrial History of Free Nations,
          chapters 8 and 10 (volume 2).

    GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1713.
       The Spanish province ceded to Prussia.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

       ----------GUELDERLAND: End----------

    GUELF PARTY, Captains of the.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

    GUELF PARTY:
       Guelfic origin of the House of Hanover, or Brunswick-Lüneburg.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714;
          also, GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
          and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

       ----------GUELFS: Start--------

    GUELFS, OR GUELPHS, AND GHIBELLINES:
       German origin of these Factions and their feuds.

       On the death (A. D. 1125) of Henry V., the last of the
       Franconian dynasty of Germanic emperors, Lothaire, Duke of
       Saxony, was elected emperor, in rather a tumultuous and
       irregular manner. Lothaire, and the Saxons generally, were
       embittered in enmity against the house of Franconia, and
       against the new family—the Suabiau or Hohenstauffen—which
       succeeded by inheritance, through the female line, to the
       Franconian claims. It was the object of his reign, moreover,
       to pass the imperial crown from his own head to that of his
       son-in-law, Henry the Proud. Hence arose a persecution of the
       Suabian family, under Lothaire, which stirred deep passions.
       Henry the Proud, for whose succession Lothaire labored, but
       vainly, united in himself several ancient streams of noble
       blood. He "was fourth in descent from Welf [or Guelf], son of
       Azon marquis of Este, by Cunegonda, heiress of a distinguished
       family, the Welfs of Altorf in Suabia." His ancestor, Welf,
       had been invested with the duchy of Bavaria. He himself
       represented, by right of his mother, the ancient ducal house
       of Saxony; and, by favor of his imperial father-in-law, the
       two powerful duchies, Bavaria and Saxony, were both conferred
       on him. He also received Hanover and Brunswick as the dowry of
       his wife. "On the death of Lothaire in 1138 the partisans of
       the house of Suabia made a hasty and irregular election of
       Conrad [one of the Hohenstauffen princes], in which the Saxon
       faction found itself obliged to acquiesce. The new emperor
       availed himself of the jealousy which Henry the Proud's
       aggrandizement had excited. Under pretence that two duchies
       could not legally be held by the same person, Henry was
       summoned to resign one of them, and on his refusal, the diet
       pronounced that he had incurred a forfeiture of both. Henry
       made but little resistance, and before his death, which
       happened soon afterwards, saw himself stripped of all his
       hereditary as well as acquired possessions. Upon this occasion
       the famous names of Guelf [or Guelph] and Ghibelin were first
       heard, which were destined to keep alive the flame of civil
       dissension in far distant countries, and after their meaning
       had been forgotten. The Guelfs, or Welfs, were, as I have
       said, the ancestors of Henry, and the name has become a sort
       of patronymic in his family. The word Ghibelin is derived from
       Wibelung, a town in Franconia, whence the emperors of that
       line are said to have sprung. The house of Suabia were
       considered in Germany as representing that of Franconia; as
       the Guelfs may, without much impropriety, be deemed to
       represent the Saxon line."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 5 (volume 2).

       Sir Andrew Halliday, in his "Annals of the House of Hanover,"
       traces the genealogy of the Guelfs with great minuteness and
       precision—with more minuteness, perhaps, in some remote
       particulars, and more precision, than seems consistent with
       entire credibility. He carries the line back to Edico, king or
       prince of the Heruli, or Rugii, or Scyrii,—the stock from
       which came Odoacer, who overturned the Western Roman Empire
       and made himself the first king of Italy. Edico, who was
       subject to Attila, and the favorite adviser of the king of the
       Huns, is thought to have had a son or brother named Guelf or
       Welf, who fell in battle with the Ostrogoths. It is to him
       that Sir Andrew is disposed to assign the honor of being the
       historical chief of the great family of the Guelfs. If not
       from this shadowy Guelf, it is from another of like name in
       the next generation—a brother of Odoacer—that he sees the
       family spring, and the story of its wide-branching and
       many-rooted growth, in Friuli, Altdorf, Bavaria, old Saxony,
       Brunswick, Hanover,—and thence, more royally than ever, in
       England,—is as interesting as a narrative of highly
       complicated genealogy can be.

          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover.

       From the Guelf uncertainly indicated above were descended two
       Marquesses of Este, "successively known in German and Italian
       story as the first and second of that name. … Azo, the
       second Marquess of Este in Italy (born A. D. 995, died 1097),
       the head of the Italian (junior) branch of Guelphs [see ESTE],
       married Cunigunda, the sole heiress of the German Guelphs of
       Altdorf, thus uniting in his family the blood, wealth, and
       power of both branches of the old Guelphs, and becoming the
       common father of the later German and Italian princes of the
       name of Guelph.
    {1615}
       No wonder, then, that he was elected by the Emperor, Henry
       III., as his representative in Italy. … Cunigunda, the first
       wife of Azo II., bore him one son, Guelph, who was known in
       German history as Guelph VI. He succeeded to his mother's
       titles and vast estates on her death, A. D. 1055, and to those
       of his father, A. D. 1097. … Henry IV. invested him with the
       Duchy of Bavaria, A. D. 1071—a title first assumed 170 years
       before (A. D. 900) by his almost mythological ancestor, Henry
       of the Golden Chariot." This Guelph VI. was the grandfather of
       Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, referred to
       above.

          P. M. Thornton,
          The Brunswick Accession,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          O. Browning,
          Guelfs and Ghibellines.

          See, also,
          SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
          and, also, ESTE, HOUSE OF.

    GUELFS:
       The outcrop of the contention in Italy.
       Its beginnings, causes, course and meaning.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1215;
          and FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

       ----------GUELFS: End----------

    GUÉLFS. White and Black (Bianchi and Neri).

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300;
          and 1301-1313.

    GUELPHS OF HANOVER, The Order of the.

       "The Hanoverian troops having much distinguished themselves at
       the battle of Waterloo, George IV. (then prince regent)
       determined to found an order of merit which might, with
       especial propriety, be conferred upon such of them as deserved
       the distinction, and the 12th of August, 1815, was fixed upon
       as the date of its foundation. By the second statute, the
       Order is inseparably annexed to the possession of the
       Hanoverian crown, by vesting the grand-mastership in the
       sovereign of that country for the time being."

          C. R. Dodd,
          Manual of Dignities,
          part 3.

    GUERANDE. Treaty of.

          See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

    GUERNSEY, The Isle of.

          See JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.

    GUERRA DOS CABANOS.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

    GUERRILLAS.

       A term of Spanish origin, derived from 'guerilla', signifying
       little or petty warfare, and applied to small, irregular bands
       of troops, carrying on war against an enemy by harassing,
       destructive raids.

    GUEUX OF THE NETHERLAND REVOLT.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

       ----------GUIANA: Start--------

    GUIANA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

    GUIANA: 16th Century.
       The search for El Dorado.

          See EL DORADO.

    GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.
       Dutch, French and English settlements and conquests.

       "There was one European nation which was not likely to hunt
       for a golden city, when gold was to be earned by plain and
       matter of fact commerce. The Dutch had as early as 1542
       established a systematic if contraband trade with the Spanish
       Main; and in 1580 they began to settle in Guiana by planting a
       depot on the river Pomeroon, in what is now the county of
       Essequibo. In 1599 they built two forts at the mouth of the
       Amazon, but were driven out by the Portuguese; and about 1613
       they established a colony on the Essequibo, building the fort
       of 'Kyk over al', 'Look over all,' on an island where the
       Massaruni flows into the Essequibo. The colony was founded by
       Zeeland merchants, was known as Nova Zeelandia, and came under
       the control of the Netherlands West India Company, which was
       incorporated in 1621. Shortly afterwards colonisation began
       further to the east on the Berbice river. The founder was a
       Flushing merchant, Van Peere by name; he founded his
       settlement about 1624, and he held his rights under contract
       with the Chamber of Zeeland. … Thus was the present province
       of British Guiana colonised by Dutchmen. … While English
       discovery was attracted to the west and Orinoco, the first
       attempts at English settlement were far to the east on the
       Wyapoco or Oyapok river. Here, in 1604, while Ralegh was in
       prison, Captain Charles Leigh founded a colony at the mouth of
       the river. … In 1609 Robert Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt in
       Oxfordshire took up the work in which Leigh had failed. … In
       1613 he obtained from King James a grant of 'all that part of
       Guiana or continent of America lying between the river of
       Amazones and the river of Dessequebe,' which was not actually
       possessed or inhabited by any Christian power in friendship
       with England. … In 1619 a scheme was started for an Amazon
       Company, the leading spirit in which was Captain Roger North.
       … The company was fortunate enough to secure the powerful
       patronage of the Duke of Buckingham. Harcourt threw in his lot
       with them, and on the 19th of May 1627 a royal grant was made
       to the Duke of Buckingham and 55 other adventurers, including
       the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who were incorporated
       under the title of 'the governor and company of noblemen and
       gentlemen of England for the plantation of Guiana.' The Duke
       of Buckingham was Governor, North was Deputy-Governor, and the
       grant included the 'royal' river of the Amazon. For about two
       years the company did some solid work, sending out four ships
       and 200 colonists; an attempt was then made in 1629 to bring
       the territory covered by their grant immediately under royal
       protection, and upon its failure their efforts at colonisation
       appear to have gradually died away. The English were not the
       only Europeans who tried their hand at settlement in the east
       of Guiana. … In 1613, 160 French families settled in
       Cayenne. The first colony failed, but in 1624 and 1626 fresh
       attempts were made a little to the west on the rivers Sinamari
       and Cananama; and in 1643 a Rouen Company, incorporated under
       the name of the Cape North Company, sent out three or four
       hundred men to Cayenne under the Sieur de Bretigny. Bretigny
       ruined the scheme by savage ill-treatment of Indians and
       colonists alike, and the remains of the settlement were
       absorbed by a new and more powerful Normandy Company." This
       failed in its turn, and gave way to a "French Equinoctial
       Company," organized under the auspices of Colbert, which sent
       out 1,200 colonists and fairly established them at Cayenne.
       Colbert, in 1665, placed the colony, "with all the other
       French possessions in the West Indies, under one strong West
       India Company. Such were the beginnings of colonisation in the
       west and east of Guiana. Between them lies the district now
       known as Dutch Guiana or Surinam." The first settlement in
       this was made in 1630 by 60 English colonists, under a Captain
       Marshall.
    {1616}
       The colony failed, and was revived in 1650 by Lord Willoughby,
       then representing the fugitive King Charles II., as Governor
       of Barbadoes. In 1663, after the Restoration, Lord Willoughby,
       in conjunction with Lawrence Hyde, second son of the Earl of
       Clarendon, received Letters Patent "constituting them lords
       and proprietors of the district between the Copenam and the
       Maroni (which included the Surinam river) under the name of
       Willoughby Land." Soon afterwards "war broke out with the
       Dutch, and in March 1667 the colony capitulated to the Dutch
       admiral Crynsenn. The peace of Breda between Great Britain and
       the Netherlands, which was signed in the following July,
       provided that either nation should retain the conquests which
       it had made by the preceding 10th of May, and under this
       arrangement Surinam was ceded to the Netherlands, while New
       York became a British possession. … Thus ended for many long
       years all British connexion with Guiana. … When at length
       the English returned [in 1796 and 1803, during the subjection
       of the Dutch to Napoleon, and while they were forced to take
       part in his wars], they came as conquerors rather than as
       settlers, and by a strange perversity of history, the original
       Dutch colonies on the Berbice and Essequibo became a British
       dependency, while the Netherlanders retain to this day the
       part of Guiana which Lord Willoughby marked out for his own."
       These arrangements were settled in the convention between
       Great Britain and the Netherlands signed at London in 1814.

          C. P. Lucas,
          History Geography of the British Colonies,
          volume 2, section 2, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          H. G. Dalton,
          History of British Guiana.

       ----------GUIANA: End--------

    GUIENNE, OR GUYENNE.

       A corruption of the name of Aquitaine, which came into use,
       apparently, about the 13th century.

          See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

    GUILDS, OR GILDS, Mediæval.

       "The history of the Gild Merchant begins with the Norman
       Conquest. The latter widened the horizon of the English
       merchant even more than that of the English annalist. The
       close union between England and Normandy led to an increase in
       foreign commerce, which in turn must have greatly stimulated
       internal trade and industry. Moreover, the greatly enhanced
       power of the English crown tempered feudal turbulence,
       affording a measure of security to traders in England that was
       as yet unknown on the continent. … With this expansion of
       trade the mercantile element would become a more potent factor
       in town life, and would soon feel the need of joint action to
       guard its nascent prosperity against encroachments. Not until
       there was something of importance to protect, not until trade
       and industry began to predominate over agriculture within the
       borough, would a protective union like the Gild Merchant come
       into being. Its existence, in short, presupposes a greater
       mercantile and industrial development than that which
       prevailed in England in the tenth century. This circumstance
       and the absence of all mention of the Gild Merchant in the
       records of the Anglo-Saxon period render it probable that this
       fraternity first appeared in England soon after the Conqueror
       had established his sway and restored order in the land.
       Whether it was merely a reorganization of older gilds, a
       spontaneous adaptation of the gild idea to the newly-begotten
       trade interests, or a new institution directly transplanted
       from Normandy, we have no means of determining with certainty.
       The last-mentioned view is strongly favoured by the
       circumstance that, at the time of the Conquest, the Gild
       Merchant doubtless existed in Northern France and Flanders.
       From the Frenchmen who became burgesses of English towns, and
       from the Norman merchants who thronged the marts of England
       after the Conquest, the English would soon ascertain the
       advantages of formal trade organization. The earliest distinct
       references to the Gild Merchant occur in a charter granted by
       Robert Fitz-Hamon to the burgesses of Burford (1087-1107), and
       in a document drawn up while Anselm was Archbishop of
       Canterbury (1093-1109). … Whether we place the inception of
       the fraternity immediately before or after the Norman
       Conquest, whether we make it a continuation of older
       Anglo-Saxon gilds, or a derivative from Normandy, or a wholly
       new and spontaneous growth, it was doubtless at first merely a
       private society, unconnected with the town government, having
       for its object the protection of its members, the tradesmen of
       the borough, and the maintenance of the newly invigorated
       trade interests. During the twelfth century it gradually
       became a recognised part of the town constitution, thus
       entering upon its second stage of development. How this came
       to pass can be easily realised from the later history of
       English gilds in general. For in the fourteenth and fifteenth
       centuries … a simple social-religious gild at times
       attained such power in a community that it came to be regarded
       as an important constituent element of the civic
       administration. Quite similar must have been the growth of the
       Gild Merchant, which from the outset was doubtless composed of
       the most influential burgesses, and which, as the exponent of
       the mercantile interests, must always have been greatly
       concerned in the increase of the privileges and prosperity of
       the borough in general. It was very natural that the town
       authorities should use such a society for public purposes,
       entrusting to it the surveillance of the trade monopoly, in
       which its members were particularly interested,—allowing it
       to gradually become an important part of the civic
       administrative machinery. … The beginning of this third and
       final stage of development cannot be definitely fixed; for in
       some places it was of an earlier date than in others. The
       fourteenth century may in general be called the period of
       gradual transition. In the fifteenth century the
       transformation was completed. In this and the following
       centuries the term 'Gilda Mercatoria' became less and less
       frequent. In many places it soon wholly disappeared. Where it
       continued to subsist, the Gild no longer had an individuality
       of its own. Its alderman and other peculiar officers, its
       whole organization as a distinctive entity, had vanished. It
       had merged its identity in that of the general municipal
       organism. The head of the fraternity was now the head of the
       town; borough and Gild, burgesses and gildsmen were now
       identical. What had once been a distinct integral part of the
       civic body politic became vaguely blended with the whole of it.
    {1617}
       The old Gild Merchant was now rarely mentioned in connection
       with the municipal trade restrictions and regulations, the
       latter being commonly applied to burgesses, craftsmen,
       freemen, or 'foreigners.' The exegesis of this transformation
       … was due mainly to three causes: (1) the expansion of trade
       and the multiplication of the craft and mercantile
       fraternities, which absorbed the ancient functions of the Gild
       Merchant and rendered it superfluous; (2) the growth of the
       select governing body, which usurped most of the privileges of
       the old burghers at large, and hence tended to obliterate the
       distinction between them, or their less privileged successors,
       and the ancient gildsmen, leaving both only certain trade
       immunities; (3) the decay of the leet—the rallying point of
       the old burghers as distinguished from that of the
       gildsmen—the functions of which passed, in part, to the crafts,
       but mainly to the select body and to the justices of the
       peace. But even after the Gild Merchant and the borough had
       thus become identical, the old dual idea did not completely
       disappear, the Gild being often regarded as a particular phase
       or function of the town, namely, the municipality in its
       character of a trade monopoly. Hence the modern survivals of
       the Gild Merchant help to elucidate its actual functions in
       ancient times. In a few boroughs the select governing body of
       the town—the narrow civic corporation, in distinction from
       the burgesses or freemen at large—succeeded to the name and
       traditions of the Gild Merchant. In some of these cases the
       signification of the latter gradually dwindled down to a
       periodical civic feast of the privileged few. … In the
       eighteenth century we meet the word much less frequently than
       in the seventeenth; and toward the beginning of the present
       century it became very rare. The Municipal Corporations
       Commission, in 1835, found it still used in only a few
       boroughs. The remnants of the Gild Merchant and of the craft
       fraternities were rapidly vanishing before the new ideas of a
       more liberal age,—the age of laissez faire. The onerous,
       self-destructive restrictions of gilds were now being
       superseded by the stimulating measures of Chambers of
       Commerce. More than six centuries elapsed before the enactment
       of Magna Carta that all merchants 'may go through England, by
       land and water, to buy and sell, free from all unjust
       imposts,' became a realised fact throughout the realm. The
       Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 provided that 'every person
       in any borough may keep any shop for the sale of all lawful
       wares and merchandizes by wholesale or retail, and use every
       lawful trade, occupation, mystery, and handicraft, for hire,
       gain, sale, or otherwise, within any borough.' In a single
       town of England the Gild Merchant still subsists, but only as
       the shadow of its former self—a spectre from the distant
       past. At Preston the Gild Merchant has been 'celebrated'
       regularly once every twenty years for more than three
       centuries, on which occasions the burgesses renew their
       freedom and indulge in all the festivities of a civic
       carnival. The last Gild Merchant was held in 1882. There was
       then much feasting and dancing, there were gay processions of
       townsmen, and much talk of the glories of the past. And yet
       how few even of the scholars and noblemen there assembled from
       various parts of Great Britain knew what an important role the
       Gild Merchant had played in the annals of English municipal
       history, what strange vicissitudes it had undergone, what a
       remarkable transformation the centuries had wrought in it."

          C. Gross,
          The Gild Merchant,
          chapters 1 and 9 (volume 1).

       "The rise of the craft gilds is, roughly speaking, a century
       later [than the rise of the merchant gilds]; isolated examples
       occur early in the twelfth century, they become more numerous
       as the century advances, and in the thirteenth century they
       appear in all branches of manufacture and in every industrial
       centre. Craft gilds were associations of all the artisans
       engaged in a particular industry in a particular town, for
       certain common purposes. … Their appearance marks the second
       stage in the history of industry, the transition from the
       family system to the artisan (or gild) system. In the former
       there was no class of artisans properly so called; no class,
       that is to say, of men whose time was entirely or chiefly
       devoted to a particular manufacture; and this because all the
       needs of a family or other domestic group, whether of
       monastery or manor-house, were satisfied by the labours of the
       members of the group itself. The latter, on the contrary, is
       marked by the presence of a body of men each of whom was
       occupied more or less completely in one particular
       manufacture. The very growth from the one to the other system,
       therefore, is an example of 'division of labour,' or, to use a
       better phrase, of 'division of employments.' … When the
       place of the young manufactures of the twelfth century in the
       development of mediæval society is thus conceived, the
       discussion as to a possible Roman 'origin' of the gilds loses
       much of its interest. No doubt modern historians have
       exaggerated the breach in continuity between the Roman and the
       barbarian world; no doubt the artisans in the later Roman
       Empire had an organization somewhat like that of the later
       gilds. Moreover, it is possible that in one or two places in
       Gaul certain artisan corporations may have had a continuous
       existence from the fifth to the twelfth century. It is even
       possible that Roman regulations may have served as models for
       the organization of servile artisans on the lands of
       monasteries and great nobles,—from which, on the continent,
       some of the later craft gilds doubtless sprang. But when we
       see that the growth of an artisan class, as distinguished from
       isolated artisans here and there, was impossible till the
       twelfth century, because society had not yet reached the stage
       in which it was profitable or safe for a considerable number
       of men to confine themselves to any occupation except
       agriculture; and that the ideas which governed the craft gilds
       were not peculiar to themselves but common to the whole
       society of the time; then the elements of organization which
       may conceivably have been derived from or suggested by the
       Roman artisan corporations become of quite secondary
       importance. There is, as we have said, little doubt that some
       of the craft gilds of France and Germany were originally
       organizations of artisan serfs on the manors of great lay or
       ecclesiastical lords. This may also have been the case in some
       places in England, but no evidence has yet been adduced to
       show that it was so. … The relation of the craft gilds to
       the merchant gild is a still more difficult question. In many
       of the towns of Germany and the Netherlands a desperate
       struggle took place during the thirteenth and fourteenth
       centuries between a burgher oligarchy, who monopolized the
       municipal government, and were still further strengthened in
       many cases by union in a merchant gild, and the artisans
       organized in their craft gilds; the craftsmen fighting first
       for the right of having gilds of their own, and then for a
       share in the government of the town.
    {1618}
       These facts have been easily fitted into a symmetrical theory
       of industrial development; the merchant gilds, it is said,
       were first formed for protection against feudal lords, but
       became exclusive, and so rendered necessary the formation of
       craft gilds; and in the same way the craft gilds became
       exclusive afterwards, and the journeymen were compelled to
       form societies of their own for protection against the
       masters. … The very neatness of such a theory, the readiness
       with which it has been accepted by popular writers in spite of
       the paucity of English evidence, have perhaps led some
       historians to treat it with scant consideration. … At the
       end of the reign of Edward III. there were in London
       forty-eight companies or crafts, each with a separate
       organization and officers of its own, a number which had
       increased to at least sixty before the close of the century."

          W. J. Ashley,
          An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

       "The unions known by the names of mystery, faculty, trade,
       fellowship, or (from the fact of possessing particular
       costumes) livery company, existed in large numbers throughout
       the realm, and were frequently divided into two or three
       categories. Thus in London the principal crafts were the
       twelve 'substantial companies' or 'livery companies' [Mercers,
       Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Skinners, Merchant
       Tailors, Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers, Vintners,
       Cloth-workers]. … A perfect acquaintance with the details of
       the trade and the desire as well as the ability to produce
       good work were in all cases preliminary requisites [of
       membership]. In fact the main provisions of the craft, the
       very soul of its constitution, were the regulations intended
       to ensure the excellence of the products and the capacity of
       the workman. … The whole character of the craft guild is
       explained by these regulations, designed to prevent fraud and
       deception of the public."

          E. R. A. Seligman,
          Mediæval Guilds of England
          (American Economics Association,
          volume 2, number 5), part 2, section 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 11.

          W. Herbert,
          History of Twelve Great Livery Companies.

          See, also, COMMUNE.

    GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

       "In the course of the tenth century Bruges had waxed great and
       wealthy through its trade with England, while the Ghent people
       constructed a port at the junction of their two rivers. The
       Flemings, nevertheless, were still noted for the boorishness
       of their demeanour, their addiction to intemperance, and their
       excessive turbulence. Their pagan ancestors had been
       accustomed to form associations for their mutual protection
       against accidents by fire or water, and similar misadventures.
       These unions were called 'Minne,' or Friendships—an idea
       reproduced in the 'Amicitiæ,' to which allusion is so
       frequently made in the deeds of ancient corporations. …
       After a time the name of 'Minne' came to be supplanted by that
       of 'Ghilde,' meaning a feast at the common expense. Each
       ghilde was placed under the tutelage of a departed hero, or
       demigod, and was managed by officers elected by the members—
       social equality being the foundation of each fraternity.
       Subsequent to the introduction of Christianity the demigod was
       replaced by a saint, while the members were enjoined to
       practise works of piety. … The Ghildes were the base of the
       municipal administration, and gradually assumed the government
       of the town, but took another form and appellation. The word
       was thenceforward applied, in its restricted sense of Guild,
       as referring to trade corporations, while the previous
       organisation came to be described in French and Latin
       documents as Commune or Communia, and embraced all who were
       entitled to gather together in the cauter, or public place,
       when the bell rang out the summons from the town belfry. In
       Flanders the Communes grew out of popular institutions of
       ancient date, and, though, no doubt, their influence was
       sensibly increased by their confirmation at the hands of King
       or Count, they did not owe their origin to royal or
       seigniorial charters."

          J. Hutton,
          James and Philip Van Arteveld,
          part 1, chapter 1.

    GUILDS OF FLORENCE.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

    GUILFORD COURT HOUSE, Battle of (1781).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

    GUILLOTINE, The origin of the.

       "It was during these winter months [of the session of the
       French National Assembly, 1790] that Dr. Guillotin read his
       long discourse upon the reformation of the penal code; of
       which the 'Moniteur' has not preserved a single word. This
       discourse attracts our attention on two accounts:—First, it
       proposed a decree that there should be but one kind of
       punishment for capital crimes; secondly, that the arm of the
       executioner should be replaced by the action of a machine,
       which Dr. Guillotin had invented. 'With the aid of my
       machine,' said the glib doctor, 'I will make your head spring
       off in the twinkling of an eye, and you will suffer nothing.'
       Bursts of laughter met this declaration; nevertheless, the
       Assembly listened with attention, and adopted the proposal."

          G. H. Lewes,
          Life of Robespierre,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Everitt,
          Guillotine the Great and her Successors.

          J. W. Croker,
          History of the Guillotine.

       ----------GUINEGATE: Start--------

    GUINEGATE, Battle of (1478).

       A bloody but indecisive battle, fought between the French, on
       one side, and Flemish and Burgundian troops on the other, in
       the war produced by the attempt of Louis XI. to rob Mary of
       Burgundy of her heritage. It was followed by a long truce, and
       a final treaty.

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 17.

    GUINEGATE: Battle of (1513).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

       ----------GUINEGATE: End----------

    GUINES, Treaty of (1547).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    GUISCARD, Robert, and Roger and the Norman conquest of Southern
    Italy and Sicily.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090; and 1081-1194.

    GUISE, Duke of, Assassination.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

    GUISES, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    GUIZOT'S MINISTRY.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

    GUJERAT, Battle of (1849).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    GUNDEBERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 662-672.

    {1619}

    GUNPOWDER PLOT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

    GURKHAS, OR GOORKAS, The.

          See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    GURU, OR GOOROO.

          See SIKHS.

    GUSTAVUS (I.) Vasa, King of Sweden, A. D. 1523-1560.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527, and 1523-1604.

       Gustavus (II.) Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1611-1632.

       Campaigns and death in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, to 1631-1632.

       Gustavus III., King of Sweden, 1771-1792.

       Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1792-1809.

    GUTBORM, King of Norway, A. D. 1204-1205.

    GUTENBERG, and the invention of Printing.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

    GUTSTADT, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

    GUTHRIE, The founding of the city of.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

    GUTTONES, The.

          See PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

    GUUCHIES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    GUY FAWKES' DAY.

       November 5, the anniversary of the day on which the
       conspirators of the "Gunpowder Plot" intended to blow up King
       and Parliament, in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

    GWENT.

          See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

    GWLEDIG.

       A Welsh title, signifying ruler, or prince, which was taken by
       the native leader in Britain after the Romans left. He was the
       successor of the Roman Duke of Britain.

          J. Rhys,
          Celtic Britain,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, ARTHUR, KING.

    GWYNEDD.

          See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

    GYLIPPUS, and the defense of Syracuse.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

    GYMNASIA, German.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN:
          EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—PRUSSIA: A. D. 1874.

    GYMNASIA, Greek.

       "Amongst public buildings [of the ancient Greeks] we mentioned
       first the gymnasia, which, originating in the requirements of
       single persons, soon became centre-points of Greek life.
       Corporeal exercise was of great importance amongst the Greeks,
       and the games and competitions in the various kinds of bodily
       skill … formed a chief feature of their religious feasts.
       This circumstance reacted on both sculpture and architecture,
       in supplying the former with models of ideal beauty, and in
       setting the task to the latter of providing suitable places
       for these games to be celebrated. For purposes of this kind
       (as far as public exhibition was not concerned) the palæstrai
       and gymnasia served. In earlier times these two must be
       distinguished. In the palæstra … young men practised
       wrestling and boxing. As these arts were gradually developed,
       larger establishments with separate compartments became
       necessary. Originally such places were, like the schools of
       the grammarians, kept by private persons; sometimes they
       consisted only of open spaces, if possible near a brook and
       surrounded by trees. Soon, however, regular
       buildings—gymnasia—became necessary. At first they
       consisted of an uncovered, court surrounded by colonnades,
       adjoining which lay covered spaces, the former being used for
       running and jumping, the latter for wrestling. In the same
       degree as these exercises became more developed, and as
       grown-up men began to take an interest in these youthful
       sports, and spent a great part of their day at the gymnasia,
       these grew in size and splendour. They soon became a necessary
       of life, and no town could be without them, larger cities
       often containing several."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 25.

       Of gymnasia "there were many at Athens; though three only,
       those of the Academy, Lyceum, and Cynosarges, have acquired
       celebrity: The site of the first of these gymnasia being low
       and marshy was in ancient times infested with malaria, but
       having been drained by Cimon and planted with trees it became
       a favourite promenade and place of exercise. Here, in walks
       shaded by the sacred olive, might be seen young men with
       crowns of rushes in flower upon their heads, enjoying the
       sweet odour of the smilax and the white poplar, while the
       platanos and the elm mingled their murmurs in the breeze of
       spring. The meadows of the Academy, according to Aristophanes
       the grammarian, were planted with the Apragmosune, a sort of
       flower so called as though it smelt of all kind of fragrance
       and safety, like our heart's-ease or flower of the Trinity.
       This place is supposed to have derived its name from Ecadamos,
       a public-spirited man who bequeathed his property for the
       purpose of keeping it in order. … The name of the Lyceum,
       sometimes derived from Lycus, son of Pandion, probably owed
       its origin to the temenos of Lycian Apollo there situated. It
       lay near the banks of the Ilissos, and was adorned with
       stately edifices, fountains and groves. … In this place
       anciently the Polemarch held his court and the forces of the
       republic were exercised before they went forth to war.
       Appended to the name of the Cynosarges, or third gymnasium
       surrounded with groves, was a legend which related that when
       Diomos was sacrificing to Hestia, a white dog snatched away a
       part of the victim from the altar, and running straightway out
       of the city deposited it on the spot where this gymnasium was
       afterwards erected."

          J. A. St. John,
          The Hellenes,
          book 2, chapter 5.

       "The name of that most illustrious of the Athenian gymnasia,
       the Academy, has been preserved through the dark ages, and
       exactly in the situation indicated by ancient testimony. We
       are informed that the Academy was six or eight stades distant
       from a gate in the wall of the asty named Dipylum, and that
       the road from thence to the Academy led through that part of
       the outer Cerameicus, in which it was a custom to bury the
       Athenian citizens who had fallen in battle on important
       occasions. Dipylum was the gate from whence began the Sacred
       Way from Athens to Eleusis. … It appears also that the
       Academy lay between the Sacred Way and the Colonus Hippius, a
       height near the Cephissus, sacred to Neptune, and the scene of
       the Œdipus Coloneus of Sophocles; for the Academy was not far
       from Colonus, and the latter was ten stades distant from the
       city. That part of the plain which is near the olive-groves,
       on the northeastern side of Athens, and is now called
       Akadhimia, is entirely in conformity with these data. It is on
       the lowest level, where some water-courses from the ridges of
       Lycabettus are consumed in gardens and olive plantations."

          W. M. Leake,
          Topography of Athens,
          section 2.

          See, also,
          EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.

    {1620}

    GYMNASIARCH.

          See LITURGIES.

    GYPSIES, The.

       "Having in various and distant countries lived in habits of
       intimacy with these people, I have come to the following
       conclusions respecting them: that wherever they are found,
       their manners and customs are virtually the same, though
       somewhat modified by circumstances, and that the language they
       speak amongst themselves, and of which they are particularly
       anxious to keep others in ignorance, is in all countries one
       and the same, but has been subjected more or less to
       modification; and lastly, that their countenances exhibit a
       decided family resemblance, but are darker or fairer according
       to the temperature of the climate, but invariably darker, at
       least in Europe, than the natives of the countries in which
       they dwell, for example, England and Russia, Germany and
       Spain. The names by which they are known differ with the
       country, though, with one or two exceptions, not materially;
       for example, they are styled in Russia, Zigani; in Turkey and
       Persia, Zingarri; and in Germany, Zigeuner; all which words
       apparently spring from the same etymon, which there is no
       improbability in supposing to be 'Zincali,' a term by which
       these people, especially those of Spain, sometimes designate
       themselves, and the meaning of which is believed to be, 'The
       black men of Zend or Ind.' In England and Spain they are
       commonly known as Gypsies and Gitanos, from a general belief
       that they were originally Egyptians, to which the two words
       are tantamount; and in France as Bohemians, from the
       circumstance that Bohemia was the first country in civilized
       Europe where they made their appearance; though there is
       reason for supposing that they had been wandering in the
       remote regions of Sclavonia for a considerable time previous,
       as their language abounds with words of Sclavonic origin,
       which could not have been adopted in a hasty passage through a
       wild and half populated country. But they generally style
       themselves and the language which they speak, Rommany. This
       word … is of Sanscrit origin, and signifies, 'The Husbands,'
       or that which pertaineth unto them. From whatever motive this
       appellation may have originated, it is perhaps more applicable
       than any other to a sect or caste like them, who have no love
       and no affection beyond their own race; who are capable of
       making great sacrifices for each other, and who gladly prey
       upon all the rest of the human species, whom they detest, and
       by whom they are hated and despised. It will perhaps not be
       out of place to observe here, that there is no reason for
       supposing that the word Roma or Rommany is derived from the
       Arabic word which signifies Greece or Grecians, as some people
       not much acquainted with the language of the race in question
       have imagined. … Scholars have asserted that the language
       which they speak proves them to be of Indian stock, and
       undoubtedly a great number of their words are Sanscrit. …
       There is scarcely a part of the habitable world where they are
       not to be found; their tents are alike pitched on the heaths
       of Brazil and the ridges of the Himalayan hills, and their
       language is heard at Moscow and Madrid, in the streets of
       London and Stamboul."

          G. Borrow,
          The Zincali,
          volume 1, pages 2-5.

       "One day, 450 years ago, or thereabouts, there knocked at the
       gates of the city of Lüneburg, on the Elbe, as strange a
       rabble rout as had ever been seen by German burgher. There
       were 300 of them, men and women, accompanied by an
       extraordinary number of children. They were dusky of skin,
       with jet-black hair and eyes; they wore strange garments; they
       were unwashed and dirty even beyond the liberal limits
       tolerated by the cold-water-fearing citizens of Lüneburg; they
       had with them horses, donkeys, and carts; they were led by two
       men whom they described as Duke and Count. … All the
       Lüneburgers turned out to gaze open-mouthed at these pilgrims,
       while the Duke and the Count told the authorities their tale,
       which was wild and romantic. … Many years before, they
       explained, while the tears of penitence stood in the eyes of
       all but the youngest children, they had been a Christian
       community, living in orthodoxy, and therefore happiness, in a
       far-off country known as Egypt. … They were then a happy
       Christian flock. To their valley came the Saracens, an
       execrable race, worshipping Mahound. Yielding, in an evil
       hour, to the threats and persecutions of their conquerors,
       they—here they turned their faces and wept aloud—they
       abjured Christ. But thereafter they had no rest or peace, and
       a remorse so deep fell upon their souls that they were fain to
       arise, leave their homes, and journey to Rome in hope of
       getting reconciliation with the Church, They were graciously
       received by the Pope, who promised to admit them back into the
       fold after seven years of penitential wandering. They had
       letters of credit from King Sigismund—would the Lüneburgers
       kindly look at them?—granting safe conduct and recommending
       them to the protection of all honest people. The Lüneburg folk
       were touched at the recital of so much suffering in a cause so
       good; they granted the request of the strangers. They allowed
       them to encamp, … The next day the strangers visited the
       town. In the evening a good many things were missed,
       especially those unconsidered trifles which a housewife may
       leave about her doorway. Poultry became suddenly scarce; eggs
       doubled in price; it was rumoured that purses had been lost
       while their owners gazed at the strangers; cherished cups of
       silver were not to be found. … While the Lüneburgers took
       counsel, in their leisurely way, how to meet a case so
       uncommon, the pilgrims suddenly decamped, leaving nothing
       behind them but the ashes of their fires and the picked bones
       of the purloined poultry. … This was the first historical
       appearance of Gipsies. It was a curious place to appear in.
       The mouth of the Elbe is a long way from Egypt, even if you
       travel by sea, which does not appear to have been the case;
       and a journey on laud not only would have been infinitely more
       fatiguing, but would, one would think, have led to some notice
       on the road before reaching Lüneburg. There, however, the
       Gipsies certainly are first heard of, and henceforth history
       has plenty to say about their doings. From Lüneburg they went
       to Hamburg, Lübeck, Rostock, Griefswald, travelling in an
       easterly direction. They are mentioned as having appeared in
       Saxony, where they were driven away, as at Lüneburg, for their
       thievish propensities. They travelled through Switzerland,
       headed by their great Duke Michael, and pretending to have
       been expelled from Egypt by the Turks, Their story in these
       early years, though it varied in particulars, remained the
       same in essentials.
    {1621}
       In Provence they called themselves Saracens; in Swabia they
       were Egyptians doomed to everlasting wanderings for having
       refused hospitality to the Virgin and Joseph; at Bâle, where
       they exhibited letters of safe conduct from the Pope, they
       were also Egyptians. Always the Land of the Nile; always the
       same pretence, or it may be reminiscence, of sojourn in Egypt;
       always, to soothe the suspicions of priests, faithful and
       submissive sons of the Church. From the very first their real
       character was apparent. They lie, cheat, and steal at
       Lüneburg; they lie and steal everywhere; they tell fortunes
       and cut purses, they buy and sell horses, they poison pigs,
       they rob and plunder, they wander and they will not work. They
       first came to Paris in the year 1427, when more people went to
       see them, we are told, than ever crowded to the Fair of
       Laudet. … They remained at St. Denis for a month, when they
       received peremptory orders to quit for the usual reason. …
       In the 16th century trouble began for the Roman folk. By this
       time their character was perfectly well known. They were
       called Bohemians, Heathen, Gitanos, Pharaohites, Robbers,
       Tartars, and Zigeuner. They had abandoned the old lying story
       of the penitential wanderings; they were outcasts; their hand
       was against every man's hand; their customs were the same then
       as they are described now by Leland or Borrow."

          Gipsies and their Friends
          (Temple Bar, volume 47), pages 65-67.

       "Since the publication of Pott's book upon the gypsies [Die
       Zigeuner in Europa und Asien]—about 30 years ago—we have
       come to regard the origin of this singular people with
       considerable unanimity of opinion. Almost nobody doubts now
       that they are Indians; and the assumption that all the gypsies
       scattered throughout Europe are descended from one parent
       stock meets with little contradiction. Both of these beliefs
       are the outcome of the investigation of their language. …
       Pott, in the introduction to his book, and quoting from the
       'Shah-Name' of Firdousi, informs us that, during the 5th
       century of our era, the Persian monarch, Behram Gour, received
       from an Indian king 12,000 musicians of both sexes, who were
       known as Luris. Now, as this is the name by which the gypsies
       of Persia are known even at the present day, and as, moreover,
       the author of the Persian work 'Modjmal at-tawarikh'
       emphatically says that the Luris or Lulis of modern Persia are
       the descendants of these same 12,000 musicians, there is no
       hazard in the assumption that we have here the first recorded
       gypsy migration. Confirmation of this is afforded by the
       Arabian historian, Hamza of Ispahan, who wrote half a century
       before Firdousi, and who was well versed in the history of the
       Sassasinides. It is related by this author that Behram Gour
       caused 12,000 musicians, called Zott, to be sent from India
       for the benefit of his subjects. And 'Zott' is the name by
       which the gypsies were known to the Arabs, and which they even
       bear in Damascus at the present day. In the Arabic dictionary
       'al-Kamus' this entry occurs: 'Zott, arabicized from Jatt, a
       people of Indian origin. The word might be pronounced Zatt
       with equal correctness.' … For the fatherland of these Zott,
       or Jatt, we have not long to seek. Istakhri and Ibn-Haukal,
       the celebrated 10th-century geographers, recount as follows:—
       'Between al-Mansura and Mokran the waters of the Indus have
       formed marshes, the borders of which are inhabited by certain
       Indian tribes, called Zott; those of them who dwell near the
       river live in huts, like the huts of the Berbers, and subsist
       chiefly on fish and water-fowl; while those occupying the
       level country further inland live like the Kurds, supporting
       themselves on milk, cheese, and maize.' In these same regions
       there are yet two more tribes placed by these geographers,
       namely, the Bodha and the Meid. The former are properly,
       according to Ibn-Haukal, a subdivision of the Zott. … In
       course of time the Meds (to adopt the spelling favoured by Sir
       Henry Elliott) overcame the Zotts, whom they treated with such
       severity that they had to leave the country. The Zotts then
       established themselves on the river Pehen, where they soon
       became skilful sailors"; while those living farther to the
       north, known as Kikan, became famed as breeders of horses and
       herders of buffalos. When the Arabs, in their career of
       conquest, came in contact with the Zotts, the latter joined
       them, and large colonies of them were removed, for some
       reason, to western Asia, and settled with their herds on the
       lower Euphrates and Tigris, and in Syria. The Zotts on the
       Tigris became strong and troublesome in time, and in 834 the
       khalif Motacem, after subjugating them by force, removed them
       from the country, to the number of 27,000, sending them to
       Ainzarba, on the northern frontier of Syria. In 855, Ainzarba
       was captured by the Byzantines, who carried off the Zotts,
       with all their buffalo herds. "Here, then, we have the first
       band of gypsies brought into the Greek Empire. … As regards
       the destinies of the Zotts after they had been brought to Asia
       Minor from Ainzarba, in the year 855, I have been unable—in
       the course of a hurried search—to discover anything. But, now
       that we know the year in which they entered Byzantine
       territory, others may be more successful. Whether the name
       Zott, or rather its Indian form Jatt (or Jaut), has also been
       brought with them into Europe, I am, of course, as little able
       to say."

          M. J. de Goeje,
          A Contribution to the History of the Gypsies
          (In "Accounts of the Gypsies of India,"
          edited by D. MacRitchie).

       "Students of the gipsies, and especially those who have
       interested themselves in the history of the race, will have
       read with regret the announcement of the death, at Paris, on
       March 1st, of the veteran 'tsiganologue,' M. Paul Bataillard.
       For the last half century he had devoted his leisure time to
       the study of the early notices of the presence of gipsies in
       Europe. … It was his opinion that there have been gipsies in
       Eastern Europe since prehistoric times, and that it is to them
       Europe owes its knowledge of metallurgy. Heterodox although
       this opinion may be, it has recently been observed by Mr. F.
       H. Groome that 'Bataillard's theory is gaining favour with
       foreign archæologists, among whom MM. Mortillet, Chantre, and
       Burnouf had arrived independently at similar conclusions.'"

          The Athenæum,
          March 31, 1894.

          ALSO IN:
          C. G. Leland,
          English Gipsies,
          chapters 8-10.

          W. Simson.
          History of the Gipsies.

    GYRWAS.

       "Fen-folk"—the name taken by a body of Engle freebooters who
       occupied the islands in the Fen district of England for a long
       time before they were able to possess the Roman-British towns
       and country on its border.

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          chapter 2.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    {1622}

    H

    HAARLEM: A. D. 1572-1573.
       Siege and capture by Alva's Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

    HABEAS CORPUS, Act and Writ of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY).

    HABSBURG, or HAPSBURG, Origin of the House of.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

    HABSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    HACKINSACKS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    HADI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 786-809.

    HADRIAN,
       Roman Emperor, A. D. 117-138.
       Hadrian I., Pope, 772-795.
       Hadrian II., Pope, 867-872.
       Hadrian III., Pope, 884-885.
       Hadrian IV., Pope, 1154-1159.
       Hadrian V., Pope, 1276, July to August.

    HADRIANOPLE.

          See ADRIANOPLE.

    HADRIAN'S MAUSOLEUM.

          See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

    HADRIAN'S WALL.

          See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

    HADRUMETUM, OR ADRUMETUM.

          See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

    HÆDUI, The.

          See ÆDUI.

    HÆMUS, Mount.

       The ancient name of the Balkan chain of mountains.

    HÆRRED, The.

          See HUNDRED, THE.

    HAGENAU, Treaty of (1330).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

    HAGUE, The:
       Origin and Name.

       "Unlike other Dutch cities, the Hague owed its importance, not
       to commerce or manufactures, but to having early been made the
       seat of government of the United Provinces, and to the
       constant presence of the officers of state and the foreign
       ministers accredited to the republic. For four centuries the
       abode of the counts of Holland, it derives its name from the
       'Haeg 'or hedge encircling the magnificent park which formed
       their ancient hunting ground, and the majestic trees in which,
       at this day, attract the admiration of Europe."

          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of the State of New York,
          volume 1, page 61.

    HAGUENAU: Cession to France.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    HAIDAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

    HAIDERABAD, OR HYDERABAD, The Nizam of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.

    HAINAULT.

       Hainault, the region of the Netherlands occupied anciently by
       the Nervii, became a county under hereditary lords in the 9th
       century. In the 11th century it was joined by marriage to the
       territories of the counts of Flanders, and so remained, until
       the beginning of the 14th century. In 1300 Hainault and
       Holland became joined under the same family of counts.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 922-1345.

    HAITI.

          See HAYTI.

    HAKO, OR HAKON I. (called the Good),
       King of Norway, A. D. 940-963.
       Hako II. (Jarl), King of Norway, 977-995.
       Hako III., King of Norway, 1202-1204.
       Hako IV., King of Norway, 1207-1263.
       Hako V., King of Norway, 1299-1319.
       Hako VI., King of Norway, 1343-1380.

    HALF-BREEDS.

          See STALWARTS.

    HALFWAY COVENANT, The.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

    HALIARTUS, Battle of (B. C. 395).

          See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

    HALICARNASSUS.

          See CARIANS;
          and ASIA MINOR;
          THE GREEK COLONIES;
          also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

    HALIDON HILL, Battle of (1333).

          See BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333;
          and SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

    HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.
       The founding of the city.

       "In the year [1749] after the peace [of Aix-la-Chapelle] the
       land forces in Great Britain were reduced to little more than
       18,000 men; those in Minorca, Gibraltar, and the American
       plantations, to 10,000; while the sailors retained in the
       Royal Navy were under 17,000. From the large number both of
       soldiers and seamen suddenly discharged, it was feared that
       they might be either driven to distress or tempted to
       depredation. Thus, both for their own comfort and for the
       quiet of the remaining community, emigration seemed to afford
       a safe and excellent resource. The province of Nova Scotia was
       pitched upon for this experiment, and the freehold of fifty
       acres was offered to each settler, with ten acres more for
       every child brought with him, besides a free passage, and an
       exemption from all taxes during a term of ten years. Allured
       by such advantages, above 4,000 persons, with their families,
       embarked under the command of Colonel Cornwallis, and landed
       at the harbour of Chebuetow. The new town which soon arose
       from their labours received its name from the Earl of Halifax,
       who presided at the Board of Trade, and who had the principal
       share in the foundation of this colony. In the first winter
       there were but 300 huts of wood, surrounded by a palisade."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 31 (volume 4).

          See, also,
          NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.

    HALIFAX CURRENCY.

        "For many years Canada used what was called 'Halifax
        currency,' in which the nomenclature of sterling money was
        that employed, but having a pound of this currency valued at
        four dollars."

          G. Bryce,
          Short History of the Canadian People,
          page 433.

    HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD.

          See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

    HALLECK, General Henry W. Command in Missouri.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

       Command in the Valley of the Mississippi.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);
         (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI);
         (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

       Command of all the armies.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

    HAMADAN.

       The capital city of ancient Media.

    HAMATH, Kingdom of.

       "It is impossible to doubt that the Hamathites are identical
       with the Canaanitish tribe that was settled in the town of
       Hamath, afterwards called Epiphania, on the Orontes, between
       the Hittites and the Amorites of Kadesh. After the time of
       David they were succeeded in that town by the Arimæans."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History of the East,
          book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    {1623}

       ----------HAMBURG: Start----------

    HAMBURG:
       The origin of the city, its freedom and commercial rise.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.
       One of six Free Cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1806.
       Occupied and oppressed by the French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1810.
       Annexation to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1810-1815.
       Loss and recovery of the autonomy of a Free City.

          See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1813.
       Expulsion of the French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1813.
       Defense by Marshal Davoust.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1815.
       Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic
       Confederation.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    HAMBURG: A. D. 1888.
       Surrender of free privileges.
       Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

       ----------HAMBURG: End----------

    HAMILCAR BARCA, and the First Punic War.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    HAMILTON, Alexander,
       The framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

    HAMILTON, Alexander:
       Financial organization of the United States Government.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
          also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES):
          A. D. 1789-1791.

    HAMILTON, Alexander:
       The Federal Party.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792,
          and 1797-1799.

    HAMILTON, Alexander:
       Fatal duel with Aaron Burr.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

    HAMITES.—HAMITIC LANGUAGES.

       The name Hamites, as now used among ethnologists, is
       restricted more closely than it once was to certain African
       races, whose languages are found to be related. The languages
       classed as Hamitic are those of the ancient Egyptians and the
       modern Copts, most of the Abyssinian tribes, the Gallas and
       the Berbers. Some of the older writers, Lenormant, for
       example, embraced the Phœnicians and all their Canaanite
       neighbors among the Hamites; but this is not now an accepted
       view. It was undoubtedly formed under the influence of the
       theory from which the name Hamites came, namely that the
       people so designated were descendants of Ham; and it sought to
       adjust a division of the Hamitic family to four lines of
       descent, indicated by the Biblical account of the four sons of
       Ham,—Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. This hypothesis
       identified the Cushites with the Ethiopians (modern
       Abyssinians and Nubians), the descendants of Mizraim with the
       Egyptians, those of Phut with the Libyans, and those of Canaan
       with the Canaanites, including the Phœnicians. Some held that
       the Hamites occupied originally a great part of western and
       southern Asia; that they were the primitive inhabitants of
       southern Mesopotamia, or Chaldea, southern Persia, and
       southern Arabia, and were displaced by the Semites; also that
       they once inhabited the most of Asia Minor, and that the
       Carians were a surviving remnant of them. But the more
       conservative sense in which the term Hamite is now used
       restricts it, as stated above, to certain races which are
       grouped together by a relationship in their languages. Whether
       or not the Hamitic tongues have an affinity to the Semitic
       seems still an open question; and, in fact, the whole subject
       is in an undetermined state, as may be inferred from the
       following extract: "The so-called Hamitic or sub-Semitic
       languages of Northern Africa … exhibit resemblances to the
       language of ancient Egypt as well as to those of the Semitic
       family. In the Libyan dialects we find the same double verbal
       form employed with the same double function as in Assyrian,
       and throughout the 'Hamitic' languages the causative is
       denoted by a prefixed sibilant as it was in the parent Semitic
       speech. We cannot argue, however, from language to race, …
       and the Libyans have ethnologically no connection with the
       Semites or the Egyptians. Moreover, in several instances the
       Hamitic' dialects are spoken by tribes of negro or Nubian
       origin, while the physiological characteristics of the
       Egyptians are very different from those of the Semite."

          A. H. Sayce,
          The Races of the Old Testament,
          chapter 4.

    HAMPDEN, John.

       See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637; 1640-1641;
       1642 (JANUARY), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
       and 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    HAMPDEN CLUBS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

    HAMPTON ROADS PEACE CONFERENCE.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY).

    HANAU, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    HANCOCK, John, and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); and 1776 (JULY).

    HANDVESTS.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.

    HANES.

       An ancient Egyptian city, once mentioned in the Bible by that
       name (Isaiah xxx. 4). Its ruins have been identified, about 70
       miles above Cairo, on the western bank of the Nile. The
       Egyptian name of the city was Chenensu; the Greek name
       Heracleopolis.

          R. S. Poole,
          Cities of Egypt,
          chapter 3.

    HANNIBAL, The war of, with Rome.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

       ----------HANOVER: Start--------

    HANOVER, OR BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG:
       Origin of the Kingdom and House.

          See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY,
          and A. D. 1178-1183.

    HANOVER:
       The Guelf connection.

          See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
          and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1529.
       The Duke joins in the Protest which gave origin to the name
       Protestants.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1546.
       Final separation from the Wolfenbüttel branch of the House.

       The two principalities of Brunswick and Lüneburg, which had
       been divided, were reunited by Ernest, called the Confessor.
       On his death, in 1546, they were again divided, the heir of
       his elder son taking Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, or Brunswick, and
       the younger receiving Brunswick-Lüneburg, or Hanover. From the
       latter branch sprang the Electoral House of Hanover, and the
       present royal family of England; from the former descended the
       Ducal Brunswick family.

          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover,
          book 9 (volume 2).

    {1624}

    HANOVER: A. D. 1648.
       Losses and acquisitions in the Peace of Westphalia.
       The alternating Bishopric.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1692.
       Rise to Electoral rank.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705; and 1125-1152.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1694-1696.
       The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

          See FRANCE: A.D. 1694; and 1695-1696.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1701.
       Settlement of the Succession of the Brunswick-Lüneberg line to
       the English Crown.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1714.
       Succession of the Elector to the British Crown.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1720.
       Acquisition of the duchies of Bremen and Verden by the
       Elector.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1741.
       The War of the Austrian Succession: Neutrality declared.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

    HANOVER: A. D. 1745.
       The English-Hanoverian defeat at Fontenoy.

          See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1757-1762.
       French attack and British defense of the electorate in the
       Seven Years War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), to 1761-1762.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1763.
       The Peace of Paris, ending the Seven Years War.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1776.
       Troops hired to Great Britain for service in the American War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
         A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

    HANOVER: A. D. 1801-1803.
       Annexation of Osnabruck.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1803-1806.
       Seizure by the French.
       Cession to Prussia.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803;
          and GERMANY: 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

    HANOVER: A. D. 1807.
       Absorbed in the kingdom of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

    HANOVER: A. D. 1810.
       Northern part annexed to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

    HANOVER: A. D. 1813.
       Deliverance from Napoleon.
       Restoration to the King of England.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    HANOVER: A. D. 1815.
       Raised to the rank of a kingdom, with territorial enlargement.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1837,
       Separation of the Crown from that of Great Britain.

       "From the hour that the Crown of these kingdoms [Great Britain
       and Ireland] devolved upon Queen Victoria, dates a change
       which was a real blessing in the relations of the Sovereign to
       the Continent of Europe. Hanover was at that instant wholly
       separated from Great Britain. By the law of that country a
       female could not reign except in default of heirs male in the
       Royal family. But in addition to the great advantage of
       separating the policy of England wholly from the intrigues and
       complications of a petty German State, it was an immediate
       happiness that the most hated and in some respects the most
       dangerous man in these islands was removed to a sphere where
       his political system might be worked out with less danger to
       the good of society than amongst a people where his influence
       was associated with the grossest follies of Toryism and the
       darkest designs of Orangeism. On the 24th of June the duke of
       Cumberland, now become Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, left
       London. On the 28th he made a solemn entrance into the capital
       of his states, and at once exhibited to his new subjects his
       character and disposition by refusing to receive a deputation
       of the Chambers, who came to offer him their homage and their
       congratulations. By a proclamation of the 5th of July he
       announced his intention to abolish the representative
       constitution, which he had previously refused to recognize by
       the customary oath. We shall have little further occasion to
       notice the course of this worst disciple of the old school of
       intolerance and irresponsible government, and we may therefore
       at once state that he succeeded in depriving Hanover of the
       forms of freedom under which she had begun to live; ejected
       from their offices and banished some of the ablest professors
       of the University of Gottingen, who had ventured to think that
       letters would flourish best in a free soil; and reached the
       height of his ambition in becoming the representative of
       whatever in sovereign power was most repugnant to the spirit
       of the age."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 23.

    HANOVER: A. D. 1866.
       Extinction of the kingdom.
       Absorption by Prussia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

       ----------HANOVER: End--------

    HANOVER, The Alliance of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    HANOVER JUNCTION, Engagement at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
         A. D. 18112 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    HANSA TOWNS, The.

       "In consequence of the liberty and security enjoyed by the
       inhabitants of the free towns [of Germany—see CITIES:
       IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY], while the rest of the country
       was a prey to all the evils of feudal anarchy and oppression,
       they made a comparatively rapid progress in wealth and
       population. Nuremberg, Augsburg, Worms, Spires, Frankfort, and
       other cities, became at an early period celebrated alike for
       the extent of their commerce, the magnificence of their
       buildings, and the opulence of their citizens. … The
       commercial spirit awakened in the north about the same time as
       in the south of Germany. Hamburgh was founded by Charlemagne
       in the beginning of the ninth century, in the intention of
       serving as a fort to bridle the Saxons, who had been
       subjugated by the emperor. Its favourable situation on the
       Elbe necessarily rendered it a commercial emporium. Towards
       the close of the twelfth century, the inhabitants, who had
       already been extensively engaged in naval enterprizes, began
       to form the design of emancipating themselves from the
       authority of their counts, and of becoming a sovereign and
       independent state; and in 1189 they obtained an Imperial
       charter which gave them various privileges, including among
       others the power of electing councillors, or aldermen, to
       whom, in conjunction with the deputy of the count, the
       government of the town was to be entrusted. Not long after
       Hamburgh became entirely free. In 1224 the citizens purchased
       from Count Albert the renunciation of all his rights, whether
       real or pretended, to any property in or sovereignty over the
       town, and its immediate vicinity. And the government was thus
       early placed on that liberal footing on which it has ever
       since remained. Lubeck, situated on the Trave, was founded
       about the middle of the twelfth century. It rapidly grew to be
       a place of great trade.
    {1625}
       It became the principal emporium for the commerce of the
       Baltic, and its merchants extended their dealings to Italy and
       the Levant. At a period when navigation was still imperfect,
       and when the seas were infested with pirates, it was of great
       importance to be able to maintain a safe intercourse by land
       between Lubeck and Hamburgh, as by that means the difficult
       and dangerous navigation of the Sound was avoided. And it is
       said by some, that the first political union between these
       cities had the protection of merchandize carried between them
       by land for its sole object. But this is contradicted by
       Lambec in his 'Origines Hamburgenses' (lib. xi., pa. 26). …
       But whatever may have been the motives which led to the
       alliance between these two cities, it was the origin of the
       famous Hanseatic League, so called from the German word
       'hansa,' signifying a corporation. There is no very distinct
       evidence as to the time when the alliance in question was
       established; but the more general opinion seems to be that it
       dates from the year 1241. … From the beginning of the
       twelfth century, the progress of commerce and navigation in
       the north was exceedingly rapid. The countries which stretch
       along the bottom of the Baltic from Holstein to Russia, and
       which had been occupied by barbarous tribes of Sclavonic
       origin, were then subjugated by the Kings of Denmark, the
       Dukes of Saxony, and other princes. The greater part of the
       inhabitants being exterminated, their place was filled by
       German colonists, who founded the towns of Stralsund, Rostock,
       Wismar, etc. Prussia and Poland were afterwards subjugated by
       the Christian princes, and the Knights of the Teutonic order.
       So that in a comparatively short period, the foundations of
       civilization and the arts were laid in countries whose
       barbarism had ever remained impervious to the Roman power. The
       cities that were established along the coasts of the Baltic,
       and even in the interior of the countries bordering upon it,
       eagerly joined the Hanseatic confederation. They were indebted
       to the merchants of Lubeck for supplies of the commodities
       produced in more civilized countries, and they looked up to
       them for protection against the barbarians by whom they were
       surrounded. The progress of the league was in consequence
       singularly rapid. Previously to the end of the thirteenth
       century it embraced every considerable city in all those vast
       countries extending from Livonia to Holland; and was a match
       for the most powerful monarchs. The Hanseatic confederacy was
       at its highest degree of power and splendour during the
       fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It then comprised from
       sixty to eighty cities, which were distributed into four
       classes or circles. Lubeck was at the head of the first
       circle, and had under it Hamburgh, Bremen, Rostock, Wismar,
       etc. Cologne was at the head of the second circle, with
       twenty-nine towns under it. Brunswick was at the head of the
       third circle, consisting of thirteen towns. Dantzic was at the
       head of the fourth circle, having under it eight towns in its
       vicinity, besides several that were more remote. The supreme
       authority of the League was vested in the deputies of the
       different towns assembled in Congress. In it they discussed
       all their measures; decided upon the sum that each city should
       contribute to the common fund; and upon the questions that
       arose between the confederacy and other powers, as well as
       those that frequently arose between the different members of
       the confederacy. The place for the meeting of Congress was not
       fixed, but it was most frequently held at Lubeck, which was
       considered as the capital of the League, and there its
       archives were kept. … Besides the towns already mentioned,
       there were others that were denominated confederated cities,
       or allies. … The Golden Bull proscribed all sorts of leagues
       and associations, as contrary to the fundamental laws of the
       empire, and to the subordination due to the emperor and the
       different princes. But Charles IV., the author of this famous
       edict, judged it expedient to conciliate the Hanseatic League;
       and his successors seem generally to have followed his
       example. As the power of the confederated cities was increased
       and consolidated, they became more ambitious. Instead of
       limiting their efforts to the mere advancement of commerce and
       their own protection, they endeavoured to acquire the monopoly
       of the trade of the North, and to exercise the same sort of
       dominion over the Baltic that the Venetians exercised over the
       Adriatic. For this purpose they succeeded in obtaining, partly
       in return for loans of money, and partly by force, various
       privileges and immunities from the Northern sovereigns which
       secured to them almost the whole foreign commerce of
       Scandinavia, Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Russia, etc. They
       exclusively carried on the herring-fishery of the Sound, at
       the same time that they endeavoured to obstruct and hinder the
       navigation of foreign vessels in the Baltic. … The Kings of
       Denmark, Sweden and Norway were frequently engaged in
       hostilities with the Hanse towns. They regarded, and it must
       be admitted not without pretty good reason, the privileges
       acquired by the League in their kingdoms as so many
       usurpations. But their efforts to abolish these privileges
       served, for more than two centuries, only to augment and
       extend them. … Waldemar III., who ascended the Danish throne
       in 1340, engaged in a furious contest with the League. Success
       seemed at first rather to incline to his arms. Ultimately,
       however, he was completely defeated by the forces of the
       League and its allies, and was even obliged to fly from his
       kingdom. In his exile he prevailed on the Emperor and the Pope
       to interpose in his favour. But neither the imperial rescripts
       nor the thunders of the Vatican were able to divert the
       confederated cities from their purposes. At length, in 1370,
       the regents, to whom the government of Denmark had been
       intrusted during the absence of the monarch, concluded a peace
       with the League on the conditions dictated by the latter; one
       of which was that most of the strong places in the kingdom
       should be given up to the League for fifteen years, in
       security for the faithful performance of the treaty. Waldemar
       having assented to these humiliating terms, returned soon
       after to Denmark. In the early part of the fifteenth century
       the Hanse towns having espoused the side of the Count of
       Holstein, who was at war with Eric X., King of Denmark, sent
       an armament of upwards of 200 ships, having more than 12,000
       troops on board, to the assistance of their ally. This
       powerful aid decided the contest in his favour. Nearly at the
       same time the League raised their ally, Albert of
       Mecklenburgh, to the throne of Norway, who confirmed to them
       several important commercial privileges.
    {1626}
       In their contests with Sweden, during the fourteenth and
       fifteenth centuries, the League were equally successful. Such,
       indeed, was their ascendancy in that kingdom, that they were
       authorized to nominate some of the principal magistrates in
       most of the Swedish maritime towns of any importance! … The
       town of Wisby, situated on the west coast of the island of
       Gothland, became, during the ascendancy of the League, one of
       its principal depots, and also one of the best frequented
       emporiums of the North. But Wisby is chiefly famous from its
       name having become identified with the code of maritime laws
       that was long of paramount authority in the Baltic. … The
       principal Northern jurists and historians regard the Wisby
       code, or compilation, as anterior to the code, or compilation,
       denominated the Rules or Judgments of Oleron, and as being in
       fact the most ancient monument of the maritime laws of the
       middle ages. But no learning or ingenuity can give
       plausibility to so improbable a theory. … In order to
       facilitate and extend their commercial transactions, the
       League established various factories in foreign countries, the
       principal of which were at Novogorod in Russia, London in
       England, Bruges in the Netherlands, and Bergen in Norway.
       Novogorod, situated at the confluence of the Volkof with the
       Imler Lake, was, for a lengthened period, the most renowned
       emporium in the north-eastern parts of Europe. … The
       merchants of the Hanse towns, or Hansards, as they were then
       commonly termed, were established in London at a very early
       period, and their factory here was of considerable magnitude
       and importance. They enjoyed various privileges and
       immunities; they were permitted to govern themselves by their
       own laws and regulations; the custody of one of the gates of
       the city (Bishopsgate) was committed to their care; and the
       duties on various sorts of imported commodities were
       considerably reduced in their favour. These privileges
       necessarily excited the ill-will and animosity of the English
       merchants. … The League exerted themselves vigorously in
       defence of their privileges; and having declared war against
       England, they succeeded in excluding our vessels from the
       Baltic, and acted with such energy, that Edward IV. was glad
       to come to an accommodation with them, on terms which were
       anything but honourable to the English. In the treaty for this
       purpose, negotiated in 1474, the privileges of the merchants
       of the Hanse towns were renewed, and the king assigned to
       them, in absolute property, a large space of ground, with the
       buildings upon it, in Thames Street, denominated the Steel
       Yard, whence the Hanse merchants have been commonly
       denominated the Association of the Steel Yard. … In 1498,
       all direct commerce with the Netherlands being suspended, the
       trade fell into the hands of the Hanse merchants, whose
       commerce was in consequence very greatly extended. But,
       according as the spirit of commercial enterprise awakened in
       the nation, and as the benefits resulting from the prosecution
       of foreign trade came to be better known, the privileges of
       the Hanse merchants became more and more obnoxious. They were
       in consequence considerably modified in the reigns of Henry
       VII. and Henry VIII., and were at length wholly abolished in
       1597. The different individuals belonging to the factory in
       London, as well as those belonging to the other factories of
       the League, lived together at a common table, and were
       enjoined to observe the strictest celibacy. … By means of
       their factory at Bergen, and of the privileges which had been
       either granted to or usurped by them, the League enjoyed for a
       lengthened period the monopoly of the commerce of Norway. But
       the principal factory of the League was at Bruges in the
       Netherlands. Bruges became, at a very early period, one of the
       first commercial cities of Europe, and the centre of the most
       extensive trade carried on to the north of Italy. The art of
       navigation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was so
       imperfect, that a voyage from Italy to the Baltic and back
       again could not be performed in a single season, and hence,
       for the sake of their mutual convenience, the Italian and
       Hanseatic merchants determined on establishing a magazine or
       store-house of their respective products in some intermediate
       situation. Bruges was fixed upon for this purpose, a
       distinction which it seems to have owed as much to the freedom
       enjoyed by the inhabitants, and the liberality of the
       government of the Low Countries, as to the conveniency of its
       situation. In consequence of this preference, Bruges speedily
       rose to the very highest rank among commercial cities, and
       became a place of vast wealth. … From the middle of the
       fifteenth century the power of the confederacy, though still
       very formidable, began to decline. This was not owing to any
       misconduct on the part of its leaders, but to the progress of
       that improvement it had done so much to promote. … Lubeck,
       Hamburgh, Bremen, and the towns in their vicinity, were
       latterly the only ones that had any interest in its
       maintenance. The cities in Zealand and Holland joined it,
       chiefly because they would otherwise have been excluded from
       the commerce of the Baltic; and those of Prussia, Poland and
       Russia did the same, because, had they not belonged to it,
       they would have been shut out from all intercourse with
       strangers. When, however, the Zealanders and Hollanders became
       sufficiently powerful at sea to be able to vindicate their
       right to the free navigation of the Baltic by force of arms,
       they immediately seceded from the League; and no sooner had
       the ships of the Dutch, the English, etc., begun to trade
       directly with the Polish and Prussian Hanse Towns, than these
       nations also embraced the first opportunity of withdrawing
       from it. … At the middle of the seventeenth century the
       cities of Lubeck, Hamburgh, and Bremen were all that continued
       to acknowledge the authority of the League."

          History of the Hanseatic League
          (Foreign Quarterly Review, January, 1831).

          ALSO IN:
          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          book 1, chapter 4 (volume 2).

          C. Walford,
          Outline History of the Hanseatic League
          (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 9).

          H. Zimmern,
          The Hansa Towns
          (Stories of the Nations).

          J. Yeats,
          The Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce.

          See, also,
          CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
          and SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

    HANSE OF LONDON, The Flemish.

          See FLANDERS: 13TH CENTURY.

    HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    HAOMA.

          See SOMA.

    HAPSBURG, OR HABSBURG,
       Origin and rise of the House of.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

    {1627}

    HAPSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

          See AUSTRIA; A. D. 1745 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    HARALD IV.,
       King of Norway, A. D. 1134-1136.

       Harald Blaatand, King of Denmark, 941-991.

       Harald Graafield, King of Norway, 963-977.

       Harald Hardrade, King of Norway, 1047-1066.

       Harald Harfager, King of Norway, 863-934.

       Harald Sweynson, King of Denmark, 1076-1080.

    HARAN.

       "From Ur, Abraham's father had migrated to Haran, in the
       northern part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from
       Babylonia and Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should
       have migrated to so distant a city has been a great puzzle,
       and has tempted scholars to place both Ur and Haran in wrong
       localities; but here, again, the cuneiform inscriptions have
       at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the Accadian
       epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the
       rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of
       the empire, commanding at once the highway into the west and
       the fords of the Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian
       one, signifying 'the road.'"

         A. H. Sayce,
         Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
         chapter 2.

       The site of Haran is generally identified with that of the
       later city of Carrhæ.

    HARD-SHELL DEMOCRATS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    HARDENBURG'S REFORM MEASURES IN PRUSSIA.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

    HARDICANUTE, OR HARTHACNUT,
       King of Denmark, A. D. 1035-1042;
       King of England, A. D. 1040-1042.

    HARDINGE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    HARFLEUR.
       Capture by Henry V.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

    HARGREAVE'S SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of.

          See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

    HARII, OR ARII, The.

          See LYGIANS.

    HARLAW, Battle of (1411).

       A very memorable battle in Scottish history, fought July 24,
       1411, between the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the country.
       Donald, Lord of the Isles, was then practically an independent
       sovereign of the western Highlands of Scotland, as well as the
       islands opposite their shore. He claimed still larger domains
       and invaded the lowland districts to make his claim good. The
       defeat inflicted upon him, at heavy cost to the victors, was
       felt, says Mr. Benton in his "History of Scotland," as a more
       memorable deliverance even than that of Bannockburn. The
       independence of the Lord of the Isle was not extinguished
       until sixty years later. "The battle of Harlaw and its
       consequences were of the highest importance, since they might
       be said to decide the superiority of the more civilized
       regions of Scotland over those inhabited by the Celtic tribes,
       who remained almost as savage as their forefathers the
       Dalriads."

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 17.

    HARLEM.

          See HAARLEM.

    HARMAR'S EXPEDITION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

    HARMOSTS.

          See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

    HAROLD (the Dane),
       King of England, A. D. 1037-1040.
       Harold (the Saxon), King of England, 1066.

    HAROUN AL RASCHID, Caliph, A. D. 786-809.

       ----------HARPER'S FERRY: Start--------

    HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1859.
       John Brown's invasion.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

    HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Arsenal destroyed and abandoned by the Federal garrison.
       Occupied by the Rebels.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

    HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1862.
       Capture by the Confederates.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

       ----------HARPER'S FERRY: End--------

    HARRISON, General Benjamin,
       Presidential election and administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888, to 1892.

    HARRISON, General William Henry:
       Indian campaign and battle of Tippecanoe.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

       In the War of 1812.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

       Presidency for one month.
       Death.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.

    HARRISON'S LANDING,
       The Army of the Potomac at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),
          and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

    HARROW SCHOOL.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.-ENGLAND.

       ----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: Start--------

    HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
       The beginnings of the city.

          See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1631; and 1634-1637.

    HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
       The Treaty with the Dutch of New Netherland.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

    HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1687.
       The hiding of the Charter.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

       ----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: End--------

    HARTFORD CONVENTION, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

    HARTHACNUT.

          See HARDICANUTE.

    HARUSPICES, The.

       "The haruspices, nearly related to the augures, were of
       Etruscan origin. Under the [Roman] Republic they were
       consulted only in a few individual cases: under the emperors
       they gained more importance, remaining, however, inferior to
       the other priestly colleges. They also expounded and procured
       lightnings and 'prodigies,' and moreover examined the
       intestines of sacrificed animals. … Heart, liver and lungs
       were carefully examined, every anomaly being explained in a
       favourable or unfavourable sense."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 103.

    HARVARD ANNEX.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

    HARVARD COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635, and 1636.

    HASHEM, Caliph: A. D. 724-743.

    HASMONEANS, OR ASMONEANS.

          See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

    HASSAN, Caliph: A. D. 661.

    HASSIDIN, The.

       A sect of Jewish mystics which rose during the 17th century in
       Podolia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Hungary and neighboring regions.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 3, book 28.

    HASTATI.

          See LEGION, ROMAN.

    HASTENBACK, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    {1628}

    HASTING, The Northman.

          See Normans: A. D. 849-860.

    HASTINGS, Marquis of (Lord Moira).
       The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    HASTINGS, Warren:
       His administration in India.
       His impeachment and Trial.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785; and 1785-1795.

    HASTINGS, OR SENLAC, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).

    HATFIELD CHASE.
       A vast swamp in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 180,000
       acres in extent, which was sold by the crown in the reign of
       Charles I. to a Hollander who drained and reclaimed it. It had
       been a forest in early times and was the scene of a great
       battle between Penda, King of Mercia, and Edwin of
       Northumberland.

          J. C. Brown,
          Forests of England,
          part 1, chapter. 2, section 2.

    HATRA.

       "Hatra [in central Mesopotamia] became known as a place of
       importance in the early part of the second century after
       Christ. It successfully resisted Trajan in A. D. 116, and
       Severus in A. D. 198. It is then described as a large and
       populous city, defended by strong and extensive walls, and
       containing within it a temple of the Sun, celebrated for the
       great value of its offerings. It enjoyed its own kings at this
       time, who were regarded as of Arabian stock, and were among
       the more important of the Parthian tributary monarchs. By the
       year A. D. 363 Hatra had gone to ruin, and is then described
       as 'long since deserted.' Its flourishing period thus belongs
       to the space between A. D. 100 and A. D. 300." The ruins of
       Hatra, now called El-Hadhr, were "visited by Mr. Layard in
       1846, and described at length by Mr. Ross in the ninth volume
       of the 'Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,' as well as
       by Mr. Fergusson, in his 'History of Architecture.'"

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 22.

    HATS AND CAPS, Parties of the.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

    HATTERAS EXPEDITION, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

    HATUNTAQUI, Battle of.

          See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

    HAVANA.

          See CUBA: A. D.1514-1851.

    HAVELOCK'S CAMPAIGN IN INDIA.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

    HAVRE: A. D. 1563-1564.
       Occupation by the English.
       Siege and recovery by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

    HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, The.

       The Hawaiian or Sandwich Archipelago, in the North Pacific
       ocean, "consists of the seven large and inhabited volcanic
       islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
       Hawaii, and the four bare and rocky islets of Kaula, Lehua,
       Kahoolawe, and Molokini, with a total area of 8,000 square
       miles, and a population of scarcely more than 50,000 souls.
       … The Kanakas, as the natives are called, are amongst the
       finest and most intelligent races of the Pacific, and have
       become thoroughly 'Europeanised,' or, perhaps rather,
       'Americanised.' … The Hawaiians, like all other Polynesians,
       are visibly decreasing in a constantly increasing ratio."

          Stanford's Compendium of Geography: Australasia,
          chapter 24.

       "Gaetano discovered one of the Sandwich [Hawaiian] Islands in
       1542; and, following him, Quiros found Tahiti and the New
       Hebrides. Sea voyages in the Pacific multiplied, but that sea
       long continued the exclusive theatre of the enterprises of the
       Spaniards and Portuguese. … Native traditions refer to the
       arrival of strangers a long time before Cook's appearance. In
       the seventeenth century Spanish merchantmen were crossing the
       Pacific, and might have refreshed at these islands. The
       buccaneers, too, may have found the small harbour a convenient
       place of concealment."

          M. Hopkins,
          Hawaii: The Past, Present and Future of the Island Kingdom,
          pages 83, 87.

       "It is about a century since His Majesty's ships 'Resolution'
       and 'Adventure,' Captains Cook and Clerke, turned back from
       Behring Strait after an unsuccessful attempt to discover the
       North-West Passage. But the adventurers were destined to light
       upon fairer lands than those which they had failed to find. On
       the 18th of January, 1778, whilst sailing through the Pacific,
       the look-out man reported land ahead, and in the evening they
       anchored on the shores of that lovely group of twelve islands,
       which they named in honour of the then First Lord of the
       Admiralty—Lord Sandwich—better known to the satirists of his
       day as 'Jemmy Tickler,' one of the greatest of statesmen and
       most abandoned of men. The natives received the strangers
       gladly; but on the 14th of February, 1779, in an altercation
       consequent on the theft of a boat, Captain Cook was killed in
       Kealakcakua or Karakakoa Bay, in the Island of Hawaii, or
       Owhyhee, from which the official name of the country—the
       kingdom of Hawaii—takes its name."

          R. Brown,
          The Countries of the World,
          volume 4, page 22.

       The several islands of the Hawaiian group were politically
       independent of each other and ruled by different chiefs at the
       time of Captain Cook's visit; but a few years later a chief
       named Kaméhaméha, of remarkable qualities and capabilities,
       succeeded to the sovereignty in the Island of Hawaii, and made
       himself master in time of the whole group. Dying in 1819, he
       left a consolidated kingdom to his son Liholiho, or Kaméhaméha
       II., in whose reign "tabu" and idolatry were abolished and
       Christian missionaries began their labors. The dynasty founded
       by Kaméhaméha held the throne until 1872. In 1840 a
       constitution was proclaimed, which created a legislative body,
       composed of hereditary nobles and seven representatives
       informally elected by the people. In 1842 the United States,
       by an official letter from Daniel Webster, then Secretary of
       State, "recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom,
       and declared, 'as the sense of the government of the United
       States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to
       be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the
       islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of
       colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue
       control over the existing government, or any exclusive
       privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.'" The
       following year, France and England formally recognized "the
       existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of
       providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign
       nations," and agreed "never to take possession, either
       directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any
       other form, of any part of the territory of which they are
       composed." In 1852 the constitution was revised. The
       legislature, formerly sitting in one body, was now divided
       into two houses and both enlarged.
    {1629}
       In 1864, however, King Kaméhaméha V. forced the adoption of a
       new constitution which reversed this bicameral arrangement and
       restored the single chamber. A double qualification of the
       suffrage, by property and by education, was also introduced.
       With the death of Kaméhaméha V., in 1872, his line ended. His
       successor, Lunalilo, was elected by the legislature, and the
       choice ratified by a popular vote. The reign of Lunalilo
       lasted but two years. His successor, David Kalakaua, was
       raised to the throne by election. In the year after his
       accession, Kalakaua visited the United States, and soon
       afterwards, in 1875, a treaty of reciprocity between the two
       countries was negotiated. This was renewed and enlarged in
       1887. In 1881 the King made a tour of the world. In the fall
       of 1890 he came to California for his health; in January,
       1891, he died at San Francisco. His sister, Liliuokulani,
       widow of an American resident, succeeded him.

          W. D. Alexander,
          Brief History of the Hawaiian People.

       In 1887 a new constitution had been adopted. "This new
       constitution was not framed by the king but by the people
       through their own appointed citizens and members of the
       courts. The legislative powers of the crown which had been
       abridged by the constitution of 1864 were now entirely removed
       and vested in the representatives of the people. By this the
       crown became an executive. In addition to this provision there
       was one making the ministry a responsible body and depriving
       the king of the right to nominate members of the house of
       nobles. … The legislature consists of a House of Nobles
       composed of twenty-four members, who are elected for a term of
       six years, and a House of Representatives consisting of from
       twenty-four to forty-two members elected for two years. The
       Houses sit in joint session. In addition to these public
       officers there is a cabinet composed of four ministers
       appointed by the sovereign holding executive power and who may
       be removed upon sufficient cause by the legislature. Such was
       the form of government in vogue up to the time of the recent
       revolution which has excited the interest of the American
       government. On the 15th of January (1893) … Queen
       Liliuokalani made the attempt to promulgate a new
       constitution, obviously for the purpose of increasing her
       power in the government. It has been hinted that the queen
       desired to benefit in a pecuniary way by granting concessions
       for the establishment of a lottery, and the importation of
       opium into the kingdom, both of which had until a year ago
       been prohibited. It is best, however, to adhere to fact. The
       queen desired more power. This new constitution, as framed by
       her, deprived foreigners of the right of franchise, abrogated
       the House of Nobles, and gave to the queen herself the power
       to appoint a new House. This blow aimed directly at the
       foreigners, who are the largest property holders in the
       kingdom, stirred them to prompt action. The queen's own
       ministry were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade her
       from the attempt to put the new constitution into effect. The
       resolve was not to be shaken, however, and her determination
       to carry out her plan incited the people, chiefly the
       foreigners, to oppose the measure. The outcome was a
       revolution in which not a single life was sacrificed."

          A. A. Black,
          The Hawaiian Islands
          (Chautauquan, April, 1893, pages 54-57).

       A provisional government set up by the revolutionists was
       immediately recognized by the United States Minister, Mr.
       Stevens, and commissioners were sent to Washington to apply
       for the annexation of the islands to the United States. On the
       16th of February, 1893, the President of the United States,
       Mr. Harrison, sent a message to the Senate, submitting an
       annexation treaty and recommending its ratification. Meantime,
       at Honolulu, on the 9th of February, the United States
       Minister, acting without instructions, had established a
       protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands, in the name of the
       United States. On the 4th of March, a change in the Presidency
       of the United States occurred, Mr. Cleveland succeeding Mr.
       Harrison. One of the earliest acts of President Cleveland was
       to send a message to the Senate, withdrawing the annexation
       treaty of his predecessor. A commissioner, Mr. Blount, was
       then sent to the Hawaiian Islands to examine and report upon
       the circumstances attending the change of government. On the
       18th of the following December the report of Commissioner
       Blount was sent to Congress, with an accompanying message from
       the President, in which latter paper the facts set forth by
       the Commissioner, and the conclusions reached and action taken
       by the United States Government, were summarized partly as
       follows: "On Saturday, January 14, 1893, the Queen of Hawaii,
       who had been contemplating the proclamation of a new
       constitution, had, in deference to the wishes and
       remonstrances of her Cabinet, renounced it for the present at
       least. Taking this relinquished purpose as a basis of action,
       citizens of Honolulu, numbering from fifty to one hundred,
       mostly resident aliens, met in a private room and selected a
       so-culled committee of safety composed of thirteen persons,
       nine of whom were foreign subjects, and composed of seven
       Americans, one Englishman, and one German. This committee,
       though its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less
       than annexation to the United States, and between Saturday,
       the 14th, and the following Sunday, the 18th of
       January—though exactly what action was taken may never be
       revealed—they were certainly in communication with the United
       States Minister. On Monday morning the Queen and her Cabinet
       made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially
       served upon the representatives of all foreign governments,
       that any changes in the constitution would be sought only in
       the methods provided by that instrument. Nevertheless, at the
       call and under the auspices of the committee of safety, a mass
       meeting of citizens was held on that day to protest against
       the Queen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and
       purpose. Even at this meeting the committee of safety
       continued to disguise their real purpose and contented
       themselves with procuring the passage of a resolution
       denouncing the Queen and empowering the committee to devise
       ways and means 'to secure the permanent maintenance of law and
       order and the protection of life, liberty, and property in
       Hawaii.' This meeting adjourned between 3 and 4 o'clock in the
       afternoon. On the same day, and immediately after such
       adjournment, the committee, unwilling to take further steps
       without the co-operation of the United States Minister,
       addressed him a note representing that the public safety was
       menaced and that lives and property were in danger, and
       concluded as follows: 'We are unable to protect ourselves
       without aid, and therefore pray for the protection of the
       United States forces.'
    {1630}
       Whatever may be thought of the other contents of this note,
       the absolute truth of this latter statement is incontestable.
       When the note was written and delivered, the committee, so far
       as it appears, had neither a man nor a gun at their command,
       and after its delivery they became so panic-stricken at their
       position that they sent some of their number to interview the
       Minister and request him not to land the United States forces
       till the next morning, but he replied the troops had been
       ordered and whether the committee were ready or not the
       landing should take place. And so it happened that on the 16th
       day of January, 1893, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the
       afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States
       steamship Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at
       Honolulu. The men, upwards of one hundred and sixty in all,
       were supplied with double cartridge belts, filled with
       ammunition, and with haversacks and canteens, and were
       accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical
       supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of
       Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with
       the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide
       purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of the
       citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any
       such consent on the part of the Government of Hawaii, which at
       that time was undisputed, and was both the de facto and the de
       jure Government. In point of fact the Government, instead of
       requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against
       it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces
       landed for the security of American life and property. …
       When these armed men were landed the city of Honolulu was in
       its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no
       symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. … Thus it
       appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United
       States forces without the consent or wish of the Government of
       the Islands, or anybody else so far as known, except the
       United States Minister. Therefore, the military occupation of
       Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly
       without satisfaction, either as an occupation by consent or as
       an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American
       life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way
       and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are
       neither obscure nor far to seek. The United States forces
       being now on the scene and favorably stationed, the committee
       proceeded to carry out their original scheme. They met the
       next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of
       temporary government and fixed upon its principal officers,
       who were drawn from 13 members of the committee of safety.
       Between 1 and 2 o'clock, by squads and by different routes to
       avoid notice, and having first taken the precaution of
       ascertaining whether there was anyone there to oppose them,
       they proceeded to the Government building to proclaim the new
       Government. No sign of opposition was manifest, and thereupon
       an American citizen began to read the proclamation from the
       steps of the Government Building almost entirely without
       auditors. It is said that before the reading was finished
       quite a concourse of persons, variously estimated at from 50
       to 100, some armed and some unarmed, gathered about the
       committee to give them aid and confidence. This statement is
       not important, since the one controlling factor in the whole
       affair was unquestionably the United States marines, who,
       drawn up under arms with artillery in readiness only 76 yards
       distant, dominated the situation. The Provisional Government
       thus proclaimed was by the terms of the proclamation 'to exist
       until terms of the Union with the United States had been
       negotiated and agreed upon.' The United States Minister,
       pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this Government within
       an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and before 5
       o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and
       her Cabinet, announced that he had done so. … Some hours
       after the recognition of the Provisional Government by the
       United States Minister, the barracks and the police station,
       with all the military resources of the country, were delivered
       up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her
       cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while
       protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the
       United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops
       to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support
       the Provisional Government, and that she yielded her authority
       to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life, and
       only until such time as the United States, upon the facts
       being presented to it, should undo the action of its
       representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed
       as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. This
       protest was delivered to the chief of the Provisional
       Government, who indorsed it in his acknowledgment of its
       receipt. … As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face
       to face with the fact that the lawful government of Hawaii was
       overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a
       shot, by a process every step of which, it may safely be
       asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its
       success upon the agency of the United States acting through
       its diplomatic and naval representatives. … Believing,
       therefore, that the United States could not, under the
       circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly
       incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable
       methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to
       the Senate for its consideration, and in the instructions to
       Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this message, I
       have directed him to so inform the Provisional Government. But
       in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end
       with refusing to consummate this questionable transaction. …
       I mistake the American people if they favor the odious
       doctrine that there is no such thing as international
       morality; that there is one law for a strong nation and
       another for a weak one; and that even by indirection a strong
       power may, with impunity, despoil a weak one of its territory.
       … The Queen surrendered, not to the Provisional Government,
       but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and
       permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such
       facts could be considered by the United States. …
    {1631}
       In view of the fact that both the Queen and the Provisional
       Government had at one time apparently acquiesced in a
       reference of the entire case to the United States Government,
       and considering the further fact that, in any event, the
       Provisional Government, by its own declared limitation, was
       only 'to exist until terms of union with the United States of
       America have been negotiated and agreed upon,' I hoped that
       after the assurance to the members of that Government that
       such union could not be consummated, I might compass a
       peaceful adjustment of the difficulty. Actuated by these
       desires and purposes, and not unmindful of the inherent
       perplexities of the situation nor limitations upon my part, I
       instructed Mr. Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters
       of my desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing
       before the lawless landing of the United States forces at
       Honolulu on the 17th of January last, if such restoration
       could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as
       justice to all parties concerned. The conditions suggested
       contemplated a general amnesty to those concerned in setting
       up the Provisional Government and a recognition of all the
       bona fide acts and obligations. In short, they require that
       the past should be buried, and that the restored Government
       should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not
       been interrupted. These conditions have not proved acceptable
       to the Queen, and though she has been informed that they will
       be insisted upon, and that unless acceded to the effort of the
       President to aid in the restoration of her Government will
       cease, I have not thus far learned that she is willing to
       yield them her acquiescence." The refusal of the Queen to
       consent to a general amnesty forbade further thought of her
       restoration; while the project of annexation to the United
       States was extinguished for the time by the just action of
       President Cleveland, sustained by the Senate. The unauthorized
       protectorate assumed by Minister Stevens having been
       withdrawn, the Provisional government remains (March, 1894) in
       control of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and a
       republican constitution is said to be in preparation.

    HAWKINS' FIRST THREE VOYAGES.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

    HAWKWOOD, Sir John, The Free Company of.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

    HAWLEY, Jesse, and the origin of the Erie Canal.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

    HAYES, General Rutherford B.,
       Presidential election and administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877, to 1881.

    HAYNE AND WEBSTER DEBATE, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

       ----------HAYTI: Start--------

    HAYTI, HAITI, OR SAN DOMINGO (Originally called Hispaniola):
       Its names.
       Its beauty.

       "Columbus called the island Hispaniola, and it has also been
       called St. Domingo from the city of that name on its
       southeastern coast; but Hayti or Haiti (the mountainous
       country) was its original Carrib name. The French bestowed
       upon it the deserved name of 'la Reine des Antilles.' All
       descriptions of its magnificence and beauty, even those of
       'Washington Irving in his history of Columbus, fall far short
       of the reality. It seems beyond the power of language to
       exaggerate its beauties, its productiveness, the loveliness of
       its climate, and its desirableness as an abode for man.
       Columbus labored hard to prove to Isabella that he had found
       here the original garden of Eden."

          W. H. Pearson,
          Hayti and the Haitians
          (Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1854).

    HAYTI: A. D. 1492-1505.
       Discovery and occupation by Columbus.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496; and 1498-1505.

    HAYTI: A. D. 1499-1542.
       The enslavement of the natives.
       System of Repartimentos and Encomiendas.
       Introduction of negro slavery.
       Humane and reforming labors of Las Casas.

          See SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS,
          and SLAVERY, NEGRO: ITS BEGINNINGS.

    HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
       Partly possessed France and partly by Spain.
       Revolt of the Slaves and rise of Toussaint L'Ouverture to power.
       Extinction of Slavery.
       Treachery of the French.
       Independence of the island acquired.

       "About 1632 the French took possession of the western shore,
       and increased so rapidly that the Spaniards found it
       impossible to drive them out; and the footing they had gained
       was recognized by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, when the
       western portion of Haiti was confirmed to France. The latter
       nation was fully conscious of the importance of the new
       acquirement, and under French rule it became of great value,
       supplying almost all Europe with cotton and sugar. But the
       larger eastern portion of the island, which still belonged to
       Spain, had no share in this progress, remaining much in the
       same condition as formerly; and thus matters stood—a sluggish
       community side by side with a thriving one—when the French
       Revolution broke out, and plunged the island into a state of
       ferment. In 1790 the population of the western colony
       consisted of half a million, of which number 38,360 were of
       European origin, 28,370 free people of colour, and the whole
       of the remainder negro slaves. The government of the island
       excluded the free people of colour—mostly mulattoes—from
       all political privileges, although they were in many cases
       well-educated men, and themselves the owners of large estates.
       … On the 15th May, 1790, the French National Assembly passed
       a decree declaring that people of colour, born of free
       parents, were entitled to all the privileges of French
       citizens. When this news reached the colony, it set the
       inhabitants in a perfect frenzy, the mulattoes manifesting an
       unbounded joy, whilst the whites boiled at the indignity their
       class had sustained. The representations of the latter caused
       the governor to delay the operation of the decree until the
       home government could be communicated with—a measure that
       aroused the greatest indignation amongst the mulattoes, and
       civil war appeared inevitable, when a third and wholly
       unexpected party stepped into the arena. The slaves rose in
       insurrection on August 23rd, 1791, marching with the body of a
       white infant on a spear-head as a standard, and murdering all
       Europeans indiscriminately. In the utmost consternation the
       whites conceded the required terms to the mulattoes, and,
       together with the help of the military, the rising was
       suppressed, and there seemed a prospect of peace, when the
       Assembly at Paris repealed the decree of the 15th May. The
       mulattoes now flew to arms, and for several years a terrible
       struggle was sustained, the horrors of which were augmented by
       vindictive ferocity on both sides. Commissioners sent from
       France could effect no settlement, for the camp of the whites
       was divided into two hostile sections, royalist and
       republican.
    {1632}
       The English and Spaniards both descended on the island, and
       the blacks, under able chiefs, held impregnable positions in
       the mountains. Apprehensive of a British invasion in force,
       the Commissioners, finding they could not conquer the blacks,
       resolved on conciliating them; and in August, 1793, universal
       freedom was proclaimed—a measure ratified by the National
       Convention early in the following year. Meanwhile the English
       had taken Port-au-Prince, and were besieging the French
       governor in Port de la Paix, when the blacks, relying on the
       recent proclamation, came to his assistance, under the command
       of Toussaint L'Ouverture, and effected his release. …
       François Dominique Toussaint, a negro of pure blood, a slave
       and the offspring of slaves, was born in 1743, and on
       attaining manhood was first employed as a coachman, and
       afterwards held a post of trust in connexion with the sugar
       manufactory of the estate to which he belonged. The overseer
       having taken a fancy to him, he was taught to read and write,
       and even picked up some slight knowledge of Latin and
       mathematics." He was slow to join the rising of the blacks;
       "but at length, after having secured the escape of his master
       and family, he joined the negro army in a medical capacity,"
       but quickly rose to leadership. "At first the blacks fought
       with the Spaniards against the French;" but Toussaint came to
       the conclusion that they had more to hope from the French, and
       persuaded his followers to march to the relief of the French
       governor, Levaux. When the latter heard that Toussaint had won
       the blacks to this alliance, he exclaimed, "'Mais cet homme
       fait ouverture partout,' and from that day the black
       commander-in-chief received the surname of L'Ouverture, by
       which he is best known in history. Acting with wonderful
       energy, Toussaint effected a junction with Levaux, drove the
       English from their positions, took 28 Spanish batteries in
       four days, and finally the British abandoned the island,
       whilst the Spaniards [1797] gave up all claim to its western
       end. Toussaint L'Ouverture—now holding the position of
       commander-in-chief, but virtually dictator—succeeded with
       great skill in combining all the hostile elements of the
       colony. Peace was restored, commerce and agriculture revived,
       the whites were encouraged to reclaim their estates, and by a
       variety of prudent and temperate measures Toussaint showed the
       remarkable administrative abilities that he possessed. At this
       stage he assumed great state in public, being always guarded
       by a chosen body of 1,500 men in brilliant uniform, but in
       private life he was frugal and moderate. In the administration
       of affairs he was assisted by a council of nine, of whom eight
       were white planters. This body drew up a Constitution by which
       L'Ouverture was named president for life, and free trade
       established. The draft of this constitution, together with an
       autograph letter, he forwarded to Bonaparte; but the First
       Consul had no toleration for fellow-upstarts, and replied, 'He
       is a revolted slave whom we must punish; the honour of France
       is outraged.' At this time the whole island of Haiti was under
       Toussaint's sway. As some excuse for Bonaparte it must be
       acknowledged that Toussaint undoubtedly contemplated
       independence. … Anxious to divest his new presidency of even
       nominal subjection to France, he declared the independence of
       the island, with himself as supreme chief, in July 1801. Most
       unfortunately for the Haitian general, hostilities had for the
       moment ceased between Great Britain and France, and the First
       Consul was enabled to bestow his close attention on the former
       French colony. Determined to repossess it, Bonaparte sent out
       an army of 30,000 men, with 66 ships of war, under the command
       of his brother-in-law General Leclerc. … During Toussaint's
       presidency he had abolished slavery, the negroes still working
       the plantations, but as free men, and under the name of
       'cultivators.' … Leclerc now endeavoured by proclamations to
       turn the cultivators against their chief, and also laboured to
       sow dissension in the ranks of the black army, by making the
       officers tempting offers, which they too often believed in and
       accepted. For months a bloody war raged, in which great
       cruelties were inflicted; but the discipline of the French was
       slowly telling in their favour, when Leclerc made a political
       blunder that destroyed the advantages he had gained. Thinking
       that all obstacles were overcome, he threw off the mask, and
       boldly declared the real object of the expedition—the
       re-enslavement of the negro population. This news fell like a
       thunderbolt amongst the blacks, who rallied round Toussaint in
       thousands." Alarmed at the effect, Leclerc recalled his
       proclamation, acknowledged it to be an error, and promised the
       summoning of an assembly representative of all races alike.
       "This specious programme won over Cristophe, Dessalines, and
       other negro generals; and finally, on receiving solemn
       assurances from Leclerc, Toussaint accepted his offers, and
       peace was concluded." Soon afterwards, by an act of the
       blackest treachery, the negro statesman and soldier was lured
       into the hands of his mean enemy, and sent, a prisoner, to
       France. Confined, without trial, or any hearing, in the
       dungeons of the Château Joux, in the department of Doubs, he
       was there allowed to pine away, without warm clothing and
       with insufficient food. … Finally the governor of the prison
       went away for four days, leaving his captive without food or
       drink. On his return Toussaint was dead, and the rats had
       gnawed his feet. It was given out that apoplexy was the cause
       of death. … This breach of faith on the part of the French
       aroused the fury and indignation of the blacks. … Under
       Dessalines, Cristophe, Clerveaux, and others, the fires of
       insurrection blazed out afresh." At the same time yellow fever
       raged and Leclerc was among the victims. General Rochambeau,
       who succeeded him, continued the war with unmeasured
       barbarity, but also with continued defeat and discouragement,
       until he was driven, in 1803, to surrender, and "the power of
       the French was lost on the island."

          C. H. Eden,
          The West Indies,
          chapter 13.

          Toussaint L'Ouverture: A Biography.
          (by J. R. Beard) and an Autobiography.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Martineau,
          The Hour and the Man.

          J. Brown,
          History of St. Domingo.

          H. Adams,
          Historical Essays,
          chapter 4.

    HAYTI: A. D. 1639-1700.
       The Buccaneers.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

    {1633}

    HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
       Massacre of whites.
       The Empire of Dessalines.
       The kingdom of Christophe.
       The Republic of Pétion and Boyer.
       Separation of the independent Republic of San Domingo.
       The Empire of Soulouque.
       The restored Republic of Hayti.

       "In the beginning of 1804 the independence of the negroes
       under Dessalines was sufficiently assured: but they were not
       satisfied until they had completed a general massacre of
       nearly the whole of the whites, including aged men, women and
       children, who remained in the island, numbering, according to
       the lowest estimate, 2,500 souls. Thus did Dessalines, in his
       own savage words, render war for war, crime for crime, and
       outrage for outrage, to the European cannibals who had so long
       preyed upon his unhappy race. The negroes declared Dessalines
       Emperor: and in October 1804 he was crowned at Port-au-Prince
       by the title of James I. Dessalines was at once a brave man
       and a cruel and avaricious tyrant. He acquired great influence
       over the negroes, who long remembered him with affectionate
       regret: but he was not warmly supported by the mulattoes, who
       were by far the most intelligent of the Haytians. He abolished
       the militia, and set up a standing army of 40,000 men, whom he
       found himself unable to pay, from the universal ruin which had
       overtaken the island. The plantation labourers refused to
       work. … Dessalines authorised the landowners to flog them.
       Dessalines was himself a large planter: he had 32 large
       plantations of his own at work, and he forced his labourers to
       work on them at the point of the bayonet. Both he and his
       successor, Christophe, like Mahomed Ali in Egypt, grew rich by
       being the chief merchants in their own dominions. … He
       failed in an expedition against St. Domingo, the Spanish part
       of the island, whence the French general Ferrand still
       threatened him: and at length some sanguinary acts of tyranny
       roused against him an insurrection headed by his old comrade
       Christophe. The insurgents marched on Port-au-Prince, and the
       first black Emperor was shot by an ambuscade at the Pont Rouge
       outside the town. The death of Dessalines delivered up Hayti
       once more to the horrors of civil war. The negroes and
       mulattoes, who had joined cordially enough to exterminate
       their common enemies, would no longer hold together; and ever
       since the death of Dessalines their jealousies and differences
       have been a source of weakness in the black republic. In the
       old times, Hayti, as the French part of the island of Española
       was henceforth called, had been divided into three provinces:
       South, East, and North. After the death of Dessalines each of
       these provinces became for a time a separate state. Christophe
       wished to maintain the unlimited imperialism which Dessalines
       had set up: but the Constituent Assembly, which he summoned at
       Port-au-Prince in 1806, had other views. They resolved upon a
       Republican constitution." Christophe, not contented with the
       offered presidency, "collected an army with the view of
       dispersing the Constituent Assembly: but they collected one of
       their own, under Pétion, and forced him to retire from the
       capital. Christophe maintained himself in Cap François, or, as
       it is now called, Cap Haytien; and here he ruled for 14 years.
       In 1811, despising the imperial title which Dessalines had
       desecrated, he took the royal style by the name of Henry I.
       Christophe, as a man, was nearly as great a monster as
       Dessalines. … Yet Christophe at his best was a man capable
       of great aims, and a sagacious and energetic ruler." In 1820,
       finding himself deserted in the face of a mulatto
       insurrection, he committed suicide. "In a month or two after
       Christophe's suicide the whole island was united under the
       rule of President Boyer." Boyer was the successor of Pétion,
       who had been elected in the North, under the republican
       constitution which Christophe refused submission to. Pétion,
       "a mulatto of the best type," educated at the military academy
       of Paris, and full of European ideas, had ruled the province
       which he controlled ably and well for eleven years. In
       discouragement he then took his own life, and was succeeded,
       in 1818, by his lieutenant, Jean Pierre Boyer, a mulatto. "On
       the suicide of Christophe, the army of the Northern Province,
       weary of the tyranny of one of their own race, declared for
       Boyer. The French part of the island was now once more under a
       single government: and Boyer turned his attention to the much
       larger Spanish territory, with the old capital of St. Domingo,
       where a Spaniard named Muñez de Caceres, with the aid of the
       negroes, had now followed the example in the West, and
       proclaimed an independent government. The Dominicans, however,
       were still afraid of Spain, and were glad to put themselves
       under the wing of Hayti: Boyer was not unwilling to take
       possession of the Spanish colony, and thus it happened that in
       1822 he united the whole island under his Presidency. In the
       same year he was elected President for life under the
       constitution of Pétion, whose general policy he maintained:
       but his government, especially in his later years, was almost
       as despotic as that of Christophe. Boyer was the first Haytian
       who united the blacks and mulattoes under his rule. It was
       mainly through confidence in him that the government of Hayti
       won the recognition of the European powers. … In 1825 its
       independence was formally recognised by France, on a
       compensation of 150,000,000 of francs being guaranteed to the
       exiled planters and to the home government. This vast sum was
       afterwards reduced: but it still weighed heavily on the
       impoverished state, and the discontents which the necessary
       taxation produced led to Boyer's downfall," in 1843, when he
       withdrew to Jamaica, and afterwards to Paris, where he died in
       1850. A singular state of affairs ensued. The eastern, or
       Spanish, part of the island resumed its independence (1844),
       under a republican constitution resembling that of Venezuela,
       and with Pedro Santana for its President, and has been known
       since that time as the Republic of San Domingo, or the
       Dominican Republic. In the Western, or Haytian Republic, large
       numbers of the negroes, "under the names of Piquets and
       Zinglins, now formed themselves into armed bands, and sought
       to obtain a general division of property under some
       communistic monarch of their own race. The mulatto officials
       now cajoled the poor negroes by bribing some old negro, whose
       name was well known to the mass of the people as one of the
       heroes of the war of liberty, to allow himself to be set up as
       President. The Boyerists, as the mulatto oligarchy were
       called, thus succeeded in re-establishing their power," and
       their system (for describing which the word "gerontocracy" has
       been invented) was carried on for some years, until it
       resulted, in 1847, in the election to the Presidency of
       General Faustin Soulouque. "Soulouque was an illiterate negro
       whose recommendations to power were that he was old enough to
       have taken part in the War of Independence, having been a
       lieutenant under Pétion, and that he was popular with the
       negroes, being devotedly attached to the strange mixture of
       freemasonry and fetish worship by which the Haytian blacks
       maintain their political organisation."
    {1634}
       The new President took his elevation more seriously than was
       expected, and proved to be more than a match for the mulattoes
       who thought to make him their puppet. He gathered the reins
       into his own hands, and crushed the mulattoes at
       Port-au-Prince by a general massacre. He then "caused himself
       to be proclaimed Emperor, by the title of Faustinus the First
       (1849)," and established a grotesque imperial court, with a
       fantastic nobility, in which a Duke de Lemonade figured by the
       side of a Prince Tape-à-l'œil. This lasted until December
       1858, when Soulouque was dethroned and sent out of the
       country, to take refuge in Jamaica, and the republic was
       restored, with Fabre Nicholas Geffrard, a mulatto general, at
       its head. Geffrard held the Presidency for eight years, when
       he followed his predecessor into exile in Jamaica, and was
       succeeded by General Salnave, a negro, who tried to
       re-establish the Empire and was shot, 1869. Since that time
       revolutions have been frequent and nothing has been constant
       except the disorder and decline of the country. Meantime, the
       Dominican Republic has suffered scarcely less, from its own
       disorders and the attacks of its Haytian neighbors. In 1861 it
       was surrendered by a provisional government to Spain, but
       recovered independence three years later. Soon afterwards one
       of its parties sought annexation to the United States, and in
       1869 the President of the latter republic, General Grant,
       concluded a treaty with the Dominican government for the
       cession of the peninsula of Samana, and for the placing of San
       Domingo under American protection. But the Senate of the
       United States refused to ratify the treaty.

          E. J. Payne,
          History of European Colonies,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir S. St. John,
          Hayti, or the Black Republic,
          chapter 3.

       ----------HAYTI: End--------

    HEAD-CENTER, Fenian.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

    HEARTS OF OAK BOYS.
    HEARTS OF STEEL BOYS.

          See IRELAND: A. D.1760-1798.

    HEAVENFIELD.
       Battle of the (635).

       Defeat of the Welsh, with the death of Cadwallon, the "last
       great hero of the British race," by the English of Bernicia,
       A.D. 635. "The victory of the Heaven-field indeed is memorable
       as the close of the last rally which the Britons ever made
       against their conquerors."

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          page 275.

          ALSO IN:
          Bede,
          Ecclesiastical History,
          book 3, chapters 1-2.

    HÉBERT AND THE HÉBERTISTS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790; 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),
          (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

    HEBREW, The Name.

          See JEWS: THEIR NATIONAL NAMES.

       ----------HEBRIDES: Start--------

    HEBRIDES OR WESTERN ISLANDS, The.

       "The Hebrides or Western Islands comprise all the numerous
       islands and islets which extend along nearly all the west
       coast of Scotland; and they anciently comprised also the
       peninsula of Cantyre, the islands of the Clyde, the isle of
       Rachlin, and even for some time the isle of Man."

          Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
          volume 3, page 60.

    HEBRIDES: 9th-13th Centuries.
       The dominion of the Northmen.

          See
          NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,
          and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES;
          also, SODOR AND MAN.

    HEBRIDES: A. D. 1266.
       Cession to Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1266.

    HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.
       The Lords of the Isles.

       In 1346, the dominion of most of the Hebrides became
       consolidated under John, son of Ronald or Angus Oig, of Islay,
       and he assumed the title of "Lord of the Isles." The Lords of
       the Isles became substantially independent of the Scottish
       crown until the battle of Harlaw, in 1411 (see HARLAW, BATTLE
       OF). The lordship was extinguished in 1504 (see SCOTLAND: A.
       D. 1502-1504).

          Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
          pages 65-72.

       ----------HEBRIDES: End--------

    HEBRON.

       In the settlement of the tribes of Israel, after the conquest
       of Canaan, Caleb, one of the heroes of Judah, "took possession
       of the territory round the famous old city of Hebron, and
       thereby gained for his tribe a seat held sacred from
       Patriarchal times. … Beginning with Hebron, he acquired for
       himself a considerable territory, which even in David's time
       was named simply Caleb, and was distinguished from the rest of
       Judah as a peculiar district. … Hebron remained till after
       David's time celebrated as the main seat and central point of
       the entire tribe, around which it is evident that all the rest
       of Judah gradually clustered in good order."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 2, section 3, A.

       "Hebron was a Hittite city, the centre of an ancient
       civilization, which to some extent had been inherited by the
       tribe of Judah. It was undoubtedly the capital of Judah, a
       city of the highest religious character full of recollections
       and traditions. It could boast of fine public buildings, good
       water, and a vast and well-kept pool. The unification of
       Israel had just been accomplished there. It was only natural
       that Hebron should become the capital of the new kingdom [of
       David]. … It is not easy to say what induced David to leave
       a city which had such ancient and evident claims for a hamlet
       like Jebus [Jerusalem], which did not yet belong to him. It is
       probable that he found Hebron too exclusively Judahite."

          E. Renan,
          History of the People of Israel,
          book 2, chapter 18.

          See, also, ZOAN;
          and JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

    HECANA, Kingdom of.

       One of the small, short-lived kingdoms of the Angles in early
       England, its territory was in modern Herefordshire.

          N. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 7, section 70.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    HECATOMB

       "Large sacrifices, where a great number of animals were
       slaughtered, [among the ancient Greeks] are called hecatombs."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          page 60.

    HECATOMBÆON, Battle of.

       Fought, B. C. 224, by Cleomenes of Sparta with the forces of
       the Achæan League, over which he won a complete victory. The
       result was the calling in of Antigonus Doson, king of
       Macedonia, to become the ally of the League, and to be aided
       by it in crushing the last independent political life of
       Peloponnesian Greece.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 62.

    {1635}

    HECATOMPEDON, The.

          See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

    HECATOMPYLOS.

       The chief city of Parthia Proper, founded by Alexander the
       Great, and long remaining one of the capitals of the Parthian
       empire.

    HEDGELEY MOOR, Battle of (1464)

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

    HEDWIGA, Queen of Poland, A. D. 1382-1386.

    HEELERS.

          See BOSSISM.

    HEERBAN, The.

       The "heerban" was a military system instituted by Charlemagne,
       which gave way to the feudal system under his successors. "The
       basis of the heerban system was the duty of every fighting man
       to answer directly the call of the king to arms. The freeman,
       not only of the Franks, but of all the subject peoples, owed
       military service to the king alone. This duty is insisted upon
       in the laws of Charlemagne with constant repetition. The
       summons (heerban) was issued at the spring meeting, and sent
       out by the counts or missi. The soldier was obliged to present
       himself at the given time, fully armed and equipped with all
       provision for the campaign, except fire, water, and fodder for
       the horses."

          E. Emerton,
          Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 14.

    HEGEMONY.

       "A hegemony, the political ascendancy of some one city or
       community over a number of subject commonwealths."

          Sir H. S. Maine,
          Dissertations on Early Law and Custom,
          page 131.

    HEGIRA, The.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    HEGIRA, Era of the.

          See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

       ----------HEIDELBERG: Start--------

    HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1622.
       Capture by Tilly.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

    HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1631.
       Burning of the Castle.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1690.
       Final destruction of the Castle.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

       ----------HEIDELBERG: End--------

    HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

    HEILBRONN, Union of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

    HELAM, OR HALAMAH, Battle of.

       A decisive victory won by King David over the Syrians.

          II. Samuel,
          x. 15-19.

    HELENA, Arkansas, The defense of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    HELEPOLIS, The.

          See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

    HELIÆA, The.

       Under Solon's constitution for the government of Athens, "a
       body of 6,000 citizens was every year created by lot to form a
       supreme court, called Heliæa, which was divided into several
       smaller ones, not limited to any precise number of persons.
       The qualifications required for this were the same with those
       which gave admission into the general assembly, except that
       the members of the former might not be under the age of
       thirty. It was, therefore, in fact, a select portion of the
       latter, in which the powers of the larger body were
       concentrated and exercised under a judicial form."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 11.

    HELICON.

          See THESSALY.

    HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1814.
       Acquisition by Great Britain.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.

    HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1890.
       Cession to Germany.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

       ----------HELIOPOLIS: Start--------

    HELIOPOLIS.

          See ON.

    HELIOPOLIS: Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

       ----------HELIOPOLIS: End--------

    HELLAS.
    HELLENES.
    GRAIKOI.
    GREEKS.

       "To the Greek of the historical ages the idea of Hellas was
       not associated with any definite geographical limits. Wherever
       a Greek settlement existed, there for the colonists was
       Hellas. … Of a Hellas lying within certain specified bounds,
       and containing within it only Greek inhabitants, they knew
       nothing."

          G. W. Cox,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 1.

       "Their language was, … from the beginning, the token of
       recognition among the Hellenes. … Where this language was
       spoken—in Asia, in Europe, or in Africa—there was Hellas.
       … A considerable number of the Greek tribes which immigrated
       by land [from Asia] into the European peninsula [of Greece]
       followed the tracks of the Italicans, and, taking a westward
       route through Pæonia and Macedonia, penetrated through Illyria
       into the western half of the Alpine country of Northern
       Greece, which the formation of its hill ranges and valleys
       renders more easily accessible from the north than Thessaly in
       its secluded hollow. The numerous rivers, abounding in water,
       which flow close by one another through long gorges into the
       Ionian Sea, here facilitated an advance into the south; and
       the rich pasture-land invited immigration; so that Epirus
       became the dwelling-place of a dense crowd of population,
       which commenced its civilized career in the fertile lowlands
       of the country. Among them three main tribes were marked out,
       of which the Chaones were regarded as the most ancient. …
       Farther to the south the Thesprotians had settled, and more
       inland, in the direction of Pindus, the Molossians. A more
       ancient appellation than those of this triple division is that
       of the Greeks (Graikoi), which the Hellenes thought the
       earliest designation of their ancestors. The same name of
       Græci (Greeks) the Italicans applied to the whole family of
       peoples with whom they had once dwelt together in these
       districts. This is the first collective name of the Hellenic
       tribes in Europe. … Far away from the coast, in the
       seclusion of the hills, where lie closely together the springs
       of the Thyamis, Aous, Aracthus, and Achelous, extends at the
       base of Tomarus the lake Ioannina, on the thickly wooded banks
       of which, between fields of corn and damp meadows, lay Dodona,
       a chosen seat of the Pelasgian Zeus, the invisible God, who
       announced his presence in the rustling of the oaks, whose
       altar was surrounded by a vast circle of tripods, for a sign
       that he was the first to unite the domestic hearths and civic
       communities into a great association centering in himself.
       This Dodona was the central seat of the Græci; it was a sacred
       centre of the whole district before the Italicans commenced
       their westward journey; and at the same time the place where
       the subsequent national name of the Greeks can be first proved
       to have prevailed; for the chosen of the people, who
       administered the worship of Zeus, were called Selli or Helli,
       and after them the surrounding country Hellopia or Hellas."

    {1636}

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapters 1 and 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

          G. W. Cox,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 4.

          W. E. Gladstone,
          Juventus Mundi,
          chapter 4.

    HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.
    HELLENIC AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE.
    HELLENISM.

       "It was the privilege of the Greeks to discover the sovereign
       efficacy of reason. They entered on the pursuit of knowledge
       with a sure and joyous instinct. Baffled and puzzled they
       might be, but they never grew weary of the quest. The
       speculative faculty which reached its height in Plato and
       Aristotle, was, when we make due allowance for time and
       circumstance, scarcely less eminent in the Ionian
       philosophers; and it was Ionia that gave birth to an idea,
       which was foreign to the East, but has become the
       starting-point of modern science,—the idea that Nature works
       by fixed laws. A fragment of Euripides speaks of him as 'happy
       who has learned to search into causes,' who 'discerns the
       deathless and ageless order of nature, whence it arose, the
       how and the why.' The early poet-philosophers of Ionia gave
       the impulse which has carried the human intellect forward
       across the line which separates empirical from scientific
       knowledge; and the Greek precocity of mind in this direction,
       unlike that of the Orientals, had in it the promise of
       uninterrupted advance in the future,—of great discoveries in
       mathematics, geometry, experimental physics, in medicine also
       and physiology. … By the middle of the fifth century B. C.
       the general conception of law in the physical world was firmly
       established in the mind of Greek thinkers. Even the more
       obscure phenomena of disease were brought within the rule.
       Hippocrates writing about a malady which was common among the
       Scythians and was thought to be preternatural says: 'As for me
       I think that these maladies are divine like all others, but
       that none is more divine or more human than another. Each has
       its natural principle and none exists without its natural
       cause.' Again, the Greeks set themselves to discover a
       rational basis for conduct. Rigorously they brought their
       actions to the test of reason, and that not only by the mouth
       of philosophers, but through their poets, historians, and
       orators. Thinking and doing—clear thought and noble
       action—did not stand opposed to the Greek mind. The
       antithesis rather marks a period when the Hellenic spirit was
       past its prime, and had taken a one-sided bent. The Athenians
       of the Periclean age—in whom we must recognise the purest
       embodiment of Hellenism—had in truth the peculiar power,
       which Thucydides claims for them, of thinking before they
       acted and of acting also. … To Greece … we owe the love of
       Science, the love of Art, the love of Freedom: not Science
       alone, Art alone, or Freedom alone, but these vitally
       correlated with one another and brought into organic union.
       And in this union we recognise the distinctive features of the
       West. The Greek genius is the European genius in its first and
       brightest bloom. From a vivifying contact with the Greek
       spirit Europe derived that new and mighty impulse which we
       call Progress. Strange it is to think that these Greeks, like
       the other members of the Indo-European family, probably had
       their cradle in the East; that behind Greek civilisation,
       Greek language, Greek mythology, there is that Eastern
       background to which the comparative sciences seem to point.
       But it is no more than a background. In spite of an
       resemblances, in spite of common customs, common words, common
       syntax, common gods, the spirit of the Greeks and of their
       Eastern kinsmen—the spirit of their civilisation, art,
       language, and mythology—remains essentially distinct. …
       From Greece came that first mighty impulse, whose far-off
       workings are felt by us to-day, and which has brought it about
       that progress has been accepted as the law and goal of human
       endeavour. Greece first took up the task of equipping man with
       all that fits him for civil life and promotes his secular well
       being; of unfolding and expanding every inborn faculty and
       energy, bodily and mental; of striving restlessly after the
       perfection of the whole, and finding in this effort after an
       unattainable ideal that by which man becomes like to the gods.
       The life of the Hellenes, like that of their Epic hero
       Achilles, was brief and brilliant. But they have been endowed
       with the gift of renewing their youth. Renan, speaking of the
       nations that are fitted to play a part in universal history,
       says 'that they must die first that the world may live through
       them;' that a people must choose between the prolonged life,
       the tranquil and obscure destiny of one who lives for himself,
       and the troubled stormy career of one who lives for humanity.
       The nation which revolves within its breast social and
       religious problems is always weak politically. Thus it was
       with the Jews, who in order to make the religious conquest of
       the world must needs disappear as a nation.' 'They lost a
       material city, they opened the reign of the spiritual
       Jerusalem.' So too it was with Greece. As a people she ceased
       to be. When her freedom was overthrown at Chaeronea, the page
       of her history was to all appearance closed. Yet from that
       moment she was to enter on a larger life and on universal
       empire. Already during the last days of her independence it
       had been possible to speak of a new Hellenism, which rested
       not on ties of blood but on spiritual kinship. This
       presentiment of Isocrates was marvellously realised. As
       Alexander passed conquering through Asia, he restored to the
       East, as garnered grain, that Greek civilisation whose seeds
       had long ago been received from the East. Each conqueror in
       turn, the Macedonian and the Roman, bowed before conquered
       Greece and learnt lessons at her feet. To the modern world too
       Greece has been the great civiliser, the oecumenical teacher,
       the disturber and regenerator of slumbering societies. She is
       the source of most of the quickening ideas which re-make
       nations and renovate literature and art. If we reckon up our
       secular possessions, the wealth and heritage of the past, the
       larger share may be traced back to Greece. One half of life
       she has made her domain,—all, or well-nigh all, that belongs
       to the present order of things and to the visible world."

          S. H. Butcher,
          Some Aspects of the Greek Genius,
          pages 9-43.

       "The part assigned to [the Greeks] in the drama of the nations
       was to create forms of beauty, to unfold ideas which should
       remain operative when the short bloom of their own existence
       was over, and thus to give a new impulse, a new direction, to
       the whole current of human life.
    {1637}
       The prediction which Thucydides puts into the mouth of the
       Athenian orator has been fulfilled, though not in the sense
       literally conveyed; 'Assuredly we shall not be without
       witnesses,' says Pericles; 'there are mighty documents of our
       power, which shall make us the wonder of this age, and of ages
       to come.' He was thinking of those wide-spread settlements
       which attested the empire of Athens. But the immortal
       witnesses of his race are of another kind. Like the victims of
       the war, whose epitaph he was pronouncing, the Hellenes have
       their memorial in all lands, graven, not on stone, but in the
       hearts of mankind. … Are we not warranted by what we know of
       Greek work, imperfect though our knowledge is, in saying that
       no people has yet appeared in the world whose faculty for art,
       in the largest sense of the term, has been so comprehensive?
       And there is a further point that may be noted. It has been
       said that the man of genius sometimes is such in virtue of
       combining the temperament distinctive of his nation with some
       gift of his own which is foreign to that temperament; as in
       Shakespeare the basis is English, and the individual gift a
       flexibility of spirit which is not normally English. But we
       cannot apply this remark to the greatest of ancient Greek
       writers. They present certainly a wide range of individual
       differences. Yet so distinctive and so potent is the Hellenic
       nature that, if any two of such writers be compared, however
       wide the individual differences may be,—as between
       Aristophanes and Plato, or Pindar and Demosthenes,—such
       individual differences are less significant than those common
       characteristics of the Hellenic mind which separate both the
       men compared from all who are not Hellenes. If it were
       possible to trace the process by which the Hellenic race was
       originally separated from their Aryan kinsfolk, the
       physiological basis of their qualities might perhaps be traced
       in the mingling of different tribal ingredients. As it is,
       there is no clue to these secrets of nature's alchemy: the
       Hellenes appear in the dawn of their history with that unique
       temperament already distinct: we can point only to one cause,
       and that a subordinate cause, which must have aided its
       development, namely, the geographical position of Greece. No
       people of the ancient world were so fortunately placed.
       Nowhere are the aspects of external nature more beautiful,
       more varied, more stimulating to the energies of body and
       mind. A climate which, within three parallels of latitude,
       nourishes the beeches of Pindus and the palms of the Cyclades;
       mountain barriers which at once created a framework for the
       growth of local federations, and encouraged a sturdy spirit of
       freedom; coasts abounding in natural harbors; a sea dotted
       with islands, and notable for the regularity of its
       wind-currents; ready access alike to Asia and to the western
       Mediterranean,—these were circumstances happily congenial to
       the inborn faculties of the Greek race, and admirably fitted
       to expand them."

          R. C. Jebb,
          The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
          pages 27-31.

       "The sense of beauty which the Greeks possessed to a greater
       extent than any other people could not fail to be caught by
       the exceptionally beautiful natural surroundings in which they
       lived; and their literature, at any rate their poetry, bears
       abundant testimony to the fact. Small though Greece is, it
       contains a greater variety, both in harmony and contrast, of
       natural beauty than most countries, however great. Its
       latitude gives it a southern climate, while its mountains
       allow of the growth of a vegetation found in more northern
       climes. Within a short space occur all the degrees of
       transition from snow-topped hills to vine-clad fountains. And
       the joy with which the beauty of their country filled the
       Greeks may be traced through all their poetry. … The two
       leading facts in the physical aspect of Greece are the sea and
       the mountains. As Europe is the most indented and has
       relatively the longest coast-line of all the continents of the
       world, so of all the countries of Europe the land of Greece is
       the most interpenetrated with arms of the sea. …

          'Two voices are there: one is of the Sea,
          One of the Mountains; each a mighty voice:
          In both from age to age thou didst rejoice;
          They were thy chosen music, Liberty!'

       Both voices spoke impressively to Greece, and her literature
       echoes their tones. So long as Greece was free and the spirit
       of freedom animated the Greeks, so long their literature was
       creative and genius marked it. When liberty perished,
       literature declined. The field of Chæronea was fatal alike to
       the political liberty and to the literature of Greece. The
       love of liberty was indeed pushed even to an extreme in
       Greece; and this also was due to the physical configuration of
       the country. Mountains, it has been said, divide; seas unite.
       The rise and the long continuance in so small a country of so
       many cities, having their own laws, constitution, separate
       history, and independent existence, can only be explained by
       the fact that in their early growth they were protected, each
       by the mountains which surrounded it, so effectually, and the
       love of liberty in this time was developed to such an extent,
       that no single city was able to establish its dominion over
       the others. … Everyone of the numerous states, whose
       separate political existence was guaranteed by the mountains,
       was actually or potentially a separate centre of civilisation
       and of literature. In some one of these states each kind of
       literature could find the conditions appropriate or necessary
       to its development. Even a state which produced no men of
       literary genius itself might become the centre at which poets
       collected and encouraged the literature it could not produce,
       as was the case with Sparta, to which Greece owed the
       development of choral lyric. … The eastern basin of the
       Mediterranean has deserved well of literature, for it brought
       Greece into communication with her colonies on the islands and
       on the surrounding coasts, and enabled the numerous Greek
       cities to co-operate in the production of a rich and varied
       literature, instead of being confined each to a one-sided and
       incomplete development. The process of communication began in
       the earliest times, as is shown by the spread of epic
       literature. Originating in Ionia, it was taken up in Cyprus,
       where the epic called the Cypria was composed, and, at the
       beginning of the sixth century it was on the coast of Africa
       in the colony of Cyrene. The rapid spread of elegiac poetry is
       even more strikingly illustrated, for we find Solon in Athens
       quoting from his contemporary Mimnermus of Colophon. Choral
       lyric, which originated in Asia Minor, was conveyed to Sparta
       by Alcman, and by Simonides of Ceos all over the Greek world.
       But although in early times we find as much interchange and
       reaction in the colonies amongst themselves as between the
       colonies and the mother-country, with the advance of time we
       find the centripetal tendency becoming dominant.
    {1638}
       The mother-country becomes more and more the centre to which
       all literature and art gravitates. At the beginning of the
       sixth century Sparta attracted poets from the colonies in Asia
       Minor, but the only form of literature which Sparta rewarded
       and encouraged was choral lyric. No such narrowness
       characterised Athens, and when she established herself as the
       intellectual capital of Greece, all men of genius received a
       welcome there, and we find all forms of literature deserting
       their native homes, even their native dialects, to come to
       Athens. … As long as literature had many centres, there was
       no danger of all falling by a single stroke; but when it was
       centralised in Athens, and the blow delivered by Philip at
       Chæronea had fallen on Athens, classical Greek literature
       perished in a generation. It is somewhat difficult to
       distinguish race-qualities from the characteristics impressed
       on a people by the conditions under which it lives, since the
       latter by accumulation and transmission from generation to
       generation eventually become race-qualities. Thus the Spartans
       possessed qualities common to them and the Dorians, of whom
       they were a branch, and also qualities peculiar to themselves,
       which distinguished them from other Dorians. … The ordinary
       life of a Spartan citizen was that of a soldier in camp or
       garrison, rather than that of a member of a political
       community, and this system of life was highly unfavourable to
       literature. … Other Dorians, not hemmed in by such
       unfavourable conditions as the Spartans, did provide some
       contributions to the literature of Greece, and in the nature
       of their contributions we may detect the qualities of the
       race. The Dorians in Sicily sowed the seeds of rhetoric and
       carried comedy to considerable perfection. Of imagination the
       race seems destitute: it did not produce poets. On the other
       hand, the race is eminently practical as well as prosaic, and
       their humour was of a nature which corresponded to these
       qualities. … The Æolians form a contrast both to the
       Spartans and to the Athenians. The development of
       individuality is as characteristic of the Æolians as its
       absence is of the Spartans. But the Æolians, first of all
       Greeks, possessed a cavalry, and this means that they were
       wealthy and aristocratic. … This gives us the distinction
       between the Æolians and the Athenians: among the former,
       individuality was developed in the aristocracy alone; among
       the latter, in all the citizens. The Æolians added to the
       crown of Greek literature one of the brightest of its
       jewels-lyric poetry, as we understand lyric in modern times,
       that is, the expression of the poet's feelings, on any subject
       whatever, as his individual feeling. … But it was the
       Ionians who rendered the greatest services to Greek
       literature. They were a quick-witted race, full of enterprise,
       full of resources. In them we see reflected the character of
       the sea, as in the Dorians the character of the mountains. The
       latter partook of the narrowness and exclusiveness of their
       own homes, hemmed in by mountains, and by them protected from
       the incursion of strangers and strange innovations. The
       Ionians, on the other hand, were open as the sea, and had as
       many moods. They were eminently susceptible to beauty in all
       its forms, to the charm of change and to novelty. They were
       ever ready to put any belief or institution to the test of
       discussion, and were governed as much by ideas as by
       sentiments. Keenness of intellect, taste in all matters of
       literature and art, grace in expression, and measure in
       everything distinguished them above all Greeks. The
       development of epic poetry, the origin of prose, the
       cultivation of philosophy, are the proud distinction of the
       Ionian race. In Athens we have the qualities of the Ionian
       race in their finest flower."

          F. B. Jevons,
          A History of Greek Literature,
          pages 485-490.

    HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
       Hellenism and the Jews.

       "The Jewish region … was, in ancient times as well as in the
       Graeco-Roman period, surrounded on all sides by heathen
       districts. Only at Jamnia and Joppa had the Jewish element
       advanced as far as the sea. Elsewhere, even to the west, it
       was not the sea, but the Gentile region of the Philistine and
       Phenician cities, that formed the boundary of the Jewish.
       These heathen lands were far more deeply penetrated by
       Hellenism, than the country of the Jews. No reaction like the
       rising of the Maccabees had here put a stop to it, besides
       which heathen polytheism was adapted in quite a different
       manner from Judaism for blending with Hellenism. While
       therefore the further advance of Hellenism was obstructed by
       religious barriers in the interior of Palestine, it had
       attained here, as in all other districts since its triumphant
       entry under Alexander the Great, its natural preponderance
       over Oriental culture. Hence, long before the commencement of
       the Roman period, the educated world, especially in the great
       cities in the west and east of Palestine, was, we may well
       say, completely Hellenized. It is only with the lower strata
       of the populations and the dwellers in rural districts, that
       this must not be equally assumed. Besides however the border
       lands, the Jewish districts in the interior of Palestine were
       occupied by Hellenism, especially Scythopolis … and the town
       of Samaria, where Macedonian colonists had already been
       planted by Alexander the Great … while the national
       Samaritans had their central point at Sichem. The victorious
       penetration of Hellenistic culture is most plainly and
       comprehensively shown by the religious worship. The native
       religions, especially in the Philistine and Phenician cities,
       did indeed in many respects maintain themselves in their
       essential character; but still in such wise, that they were
       transformed by and blended with Greek elements. But besides
       these the purely Greek worship also gained an entrance, and in
       many places entirely supplanted the former. Unfortunately our
       sources of information do not furnish us the means of
       separating the Greek period proper from the Roman; the best
       are afforded by coins, and these for the most part belong to
       the Roman. On the whole however the picture, which we obtain,
       holds good for the pre-Roman period also, nor are we entirely
       without direct notices of this age. … In the Jewish region
       proper Hellenism was in its religious aspect triumphantly
       repulsed by the rising of the Maccabees; it was not till after
       the overthrow of Jewish nationality in the wars of Vespasian
       and Hadrian, that an entrance for heathen rites was forcibly
       obtained by the Romans. In saying this however we do not
       assert, that the Jewish people of those early times remained
       altogether unaffected by Hellenism. For the latter was a
       civilising power, which extended itself to every department of
       life.
    {1639}
       It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization of the
       state, legislation, the administration of justice, public
       arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the
       customs of daily life down to fashion and ornaments, and thus
       impressed upon every department of life, wherever its
       influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind. It is true
       that Hellenistic is not identical with Hellenic culture. The
       importance of the former on the contrary lay in the fact, that
       by its reception of the available elements of all foreign
       cultures within its reach, it became a world-culture. But this
       very world-culture became in its turn a peculiar whole, in
       which the preponderant Greek element was the ruling keynote.
       Into the stream of this Hellenistic culture the Jewish people
       was also drawn; slowly indeed and with reluctance, but yet
       irresistibly, for though religious zeal was able to banish
       heathen worship and all connected therewith from Israel, it
       could not for any length of time restrain the tide of
       Hellenistic culture in other departments of life. Its several
       stages cannot indeed be any longer traced. But when we reflect
       that the small Jewish country was enclosed on almost every
       side by Hellenistic regions, with which it was compelled, even
       for the sake of trade, to hold continual intercourse, and when
       we remember, that even the rising of the Maccabees was in the
       main directed not against Hellenism in general, but only
       against the heathen religion, that the later Asmonaeans bore
       in every respect a Hellenistic stamp-employed foreign
       mercenaries, minted foreign coins, took Greek names, etc., and
       that some of them, e. g. Aristobulus I., were direct favourers
       of Hellenism,—when all this is considered, it may safely be
       assumed, that Hellenism had, notwithstanding the rising of the
       Maccabees, gained access in no inconsiderable measure into
       Palestine even before the commencement of the Roman period."

          E. Schürer,
          History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
          division 2, volume 1, pages 29-30.

    HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
       Hellenism and the Romans.

       "In the Alexandrian age, with all its close study and
       imitation of the classical models, nothing is more remarkable
       than the absence of any promise that the Hellenic spirit which
       animated those masterpieces was destined to have any abiding
       influence in the world. … And yet it is true that the vital
       power of the Hellenic genius was not fully revealed, until,
       after suffering some temporary eclipse in the superficially
       Greek civilizations of Asia and Egypt, it emerged in a new
       quality, as a source of illumination to the literature and the
       art of Rome. Early Roman literature was indebted to Greece for
       the greater part of its material; but a more important debt
       was in respect to the forms and moulds of composition. The
       Latin language of the third century B. C. was already in full
       possession of the qualities which always remained distinctive
       of it; it was clear, strong, weighty, precise, a language made
       to be spoken in the imperative mood, a fitting interpreter of
       government and law. But it was not flexible or graceful,
       musical or rapid; it was not suited to express delicate shades
       of thought or feeling; for literary purposes, it was, in
       comparison with Greek, a poor and rude idiom. The development
       of Latin into the language of Cicero and Virgil was gradually
       and laboriously accomplished under the constant influence of
       Greece. That finish of form, known as classical, which Roman
       writers share with Greek, was a lesson which Greece slowly
       impressed upon Rome. … A close and prolonged study of the
       Greek models could not end in a mere discipline of form; the
       beauty of the best Greek models depends too much on their
       vital spirit. Not only was the Roman imagination enriched, but
       the Roman intellect, through literary intercourse with the
       Greek, gradually acquired a flexibility and a plastic power
       which had not been among its original gifts. Through Roman
       literature the Greek influence was transmitted to later times
       in a shape which obscured, indeed, much of its charm, but
       which was also fitted to extend its empire, and to win an
       entrance for it in regions which would have been less
       accessible to a purer form of its manifestation."

          R. C. Jebb,
          The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
          chapter 8.

       "Italy had been subject to the influence of Greece, ever since
       it had a history at all. … But the Hellenism of the Romans
       of the present period [second century B. C.] was, in its
       causes as well as its consequences, something essentially new.
       The Romans began to feel the lack of a richer intellectual
       life, and to be startled as it were at their own utter want of
       mental culture; and, if even nations of artistic gifts, such
       as the English and Germans, have not disdained in the pauses
       of their own productiveness to avail themselves of the paltry
       French culture for filling up the gap, it need excite no
       surprise that the Italian nation now flung itself with eager
       zeal on the glorious treasures as well as on the vile refuse
       of the intellectual development of Hellas. But it was an
       impulse still more profound and deep-rooted which carried the
       Romans irresistibly into the Hellenic vortex. Hellenic
       civilization still assumed that name, but it was Hellenic no
       longer; it was, it fact, humanistic and cosmopolitan. It had
       solved the problem of moulding a mass of different nations
       into one whole completely in the field of intellect, and to a
       certain degree in that of politics, and, now when the same
       task on a wider scale devolved on Rome, she entered on the
       possession of Hellenism along with the rest of the inheritance
       of Alexander the Great. Hellenism therefore was no longer a
       mere stimulus, or subordinate influence; it penetrated the
       Italian nation to the very core. Of course, the vigorous home
       life of Italy strove against the foreign element. It was only
       after a most vehement struggle that the Italian farmer
       abandoned the field to the cosmopolite of the capital; and, as
       in Germany the French coat called forth the national Germanic
       frock, so the reaction against Hellenism aroused in Rome a
       tendency, which opposed the influence of Greece on principle
       in a style to which earlier centuries were altogether
       unaccustomed, and in doing so fell not unfrequently into
       downright follies and absurdities. No department of human
       action or thought remained unaffected by this struggle between
       the new fashion and the old. Even political relations were
       largely influenced by it. The whimsical project of
       emancipating the Hellenes, … the kindred, likewise Hellenic,
       idea of combining republics in a common opposition to kings,
       and the desire of propagating Hellenic polity at the expense
       of eastern despotism—which were the two principles that
       regulated, for instance, the treatment of Macedonia—were
       fixed ideas of the new school, just as dread of the
       Carthaginians was the fixed idea of the old; and, if Cato
       pushed the latter to a ridiculous excess, Philhellenism now
       and then indulged in extravagances at least as foolish. …
    {1640}
       But the real struggle between Hellenism and its national
       antagonists during the present period was carried on in the
       field of faith, of manners, and of art and literature. … If
       Italy still possessed—what had long been a mere antiquarian
       curiosity in Hellas—a national religion, it was already
       visibly beginning to be ossified into theology. The torpor
       creeping over faith is nowhere perhaps so distinctly apparent
       as in the alterations in the economy of divine service and of
       the priesthood. The public service of the gods became not only
       more tedious, but above all more and more costly. … An augur
       like Lucius Paullus, who regarded the priesthood as a science
       and not as a mere title, was already a rare exception; and
       could not but be so, when the government more and more openly
       and unhesitatingly employed the auspices for the
       accomplishment of its political designs, or, in other words,
       treated the national religion in accordance with the view of
       Polybius as a superstition useful for imposing on the public
       at large. Where the way was thus paved, the Hellenistic
       irreligious spirit found free course. In connection with the
       incipient taste for art the sacred images of the gods began
       even in Cato's time to be employed, like other furniture, to
       embellish the chambers of the rich. More dangerous wounds were
       inflicted on religion by the rising literature. … Thus the
       old national religion was visibly on the decline; and, as the
       great trees of the primeval forest were uprooted, the soil
       became covered with a rank growth of thorns and briars and
       with weeds that had never been seen before. Native
       superstitions and foreign impostures of the most various hues
       mingled, competed and conflicted with each other. … The
       Hellenism of that epoch, already denationalized and pervaded
       by Oriental mysticism, introduced not only unbelief but also
       superstition in its most offensive and dangerous forms to
       Italy; and these vagaries, moreover, had a special charm,
       precisely because they were foreign. … Rites of the most
       abominable character came to the knowledge of the Roman
       authorities: a secret nocturnal festival in honour of the god
       Bacchus had been first introduced into Etruria by a Greek
       priest, and spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome
       and propagated itself over all Italy, everywhere corrupting
       families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes,
       unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and
       murdering by poison. More than 7,000 men were sentenced to
       punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and
       rigorous enactments were issued as to the future. … The ties
       of family life became relaxed with fearful rapidity. The evil
       of grisettes and boy-favourites spread like a pestilence. …
       Luxury prevailed more and more in dress, ornaments and
       furniture, in the buildings and on the tables. Especially
       after the expedition to Asia Minor, which took place in 564,
       [B. C. 190] Asiatico-Hellenic luxury, such as prevailed at
       Ephesus and Alexandria, transferred its empty refinement and
       its petty trifling, destructive alike of money, time, and
       pleasure, to Rome. … As a matter of course, this revolution
       in life and manners brought an economic revolution in its
       train. Residence in the capital became more and more coveted
       as well as more costly. Rents rose to an unexampled height.
       Extravagant prices were paid for the new articles of luxury.
       … The influences which stimulated the growth of Roman
       literature were of a character altogether peculiar and hardly
       paralleled in any other nation. … By means of the Italian
       slaves and freedmen, a very large portion of whom were Greek
       or half Greek by birth, the Greek language and Greek knowledge
       to a certain extent reached even the lower ranks of the
       population, especially in the capital. The comedies of this
       period indicate that even the humbler classes of the capital
       were familiar with a sort of Latin, which could no more be
       properly understood without a knowledge of Greek than Sterne's
       English or Wieland's German without a knowledge of French. Men
       of senatorial families, however, not only addressed a Greek
       audience in Greek, but even published their speeches. …
       Under the influence of such circumstances Roman education
       developed itself. It is a mistaken opinion, that antiquity was
       materially inferior to our own times in the general diffusion
       of elementary attainments. Even among the lower classes and
       slaves there was considerable knowledge of reading, writing,
       and counting. … Elementary instruction, as well us
       instruction in Greek, must have been long ere this period
       imparted to a very considerable extent in Rome. But the epoch
       now before us initiated an education, the aim of which was to
       communicate not merely an outward expertness, but a real
       mental culture. The internal decomposition of Italian
       nationality had already, particularly in the aristocracy,
       advanced so far as to render the substitution of a broader
       human culture for that nationality inevitable: and the craving
       after a more advanced civilization was already powerfully
       stirring men's minds. The study of the Greek language as it
       were spontaneously met this craving. The classical literature
       of Greece, the Iliad and still more the Odyssey, had all along
       formed the basis of instruction; the overflowing treasures of
       Hellenic art and science were already by this means spread
       before the eyes of the Italians. Without any outward
       revolution, strictly speaking, in the character of instruction
       the natural result was, that the empirical study of the
       language became converted into a higher study of the
       literature; that the general culture connected with such
       literary studies was communicated in increased measure to the
       scholars; and that these availed themselves of the knowledge
       thus acquired to dive into that Greek literature which most
       powerfully influenced the spirit of the age—the tragedies of
       Euripides and the comedies of Menander. In a similar way
       greater importance came to be attached to the study of Latin.
       The higher society of Rome began to feel the need, if not of
       exchanging their mother-tongue for Greek, at least of refining
       it and adapting it to the changed state of culture. … But a
       Latin culture presupposed a literature, and no such literature
       existed in Rome. … The Romans desired a theatre, but the
       pieces were wanting. On these elements Roman literature was
       based; and its defective character was from the first and
       necessarily the result of such an origin. … Roman poetry in
       particular had its immediate origin not in the inward impulse
       of the poet, but in the outward demands of the school, which
       needed Latin manuals, and of the stage, which needed Latin
       dramas. Now both institutions—the school and the stage—were
       thoroughly anti-Roman and revolutionary. … The school and
       the theatre became the most effective levers in the hands of
       the new spirit of the age, and all the more so that they used
       the Latin tongue.
    {1641}
       Men might perhaps speak and write Greek, and yet not cease to
       be Romans; but in this case they were in the habit of speaking
       in the Roman language, while the whole inward being and life
       were Greek. It is one of the most pleasing, but it is one of
       the most remarkable and in a historical point of view most
       instructive, facts in this brilliant era of Roman
       conservatism, that during its course Hellenism struck root in
       the whole field of intellect not immediately political, and
       that the school-master and the maître de plaisir of the great
       public in close alliance created a Roman literature."

          T. Mommsen,
          The History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 13 (volume 2).

       Panætius was the founder of "that Roman Stoicism which plays
       so prominent a part in the history of the Empire. He came from
       Rhodes, and was a pupil of Diogenes at Athens. The most
       important part of his life was, however, spent at Rome, in the
       house of Scipio Æmilianus, the centre of the Scipionic circle,
       where he trained up a number of Roman nobles to understand and
       to adopt his views. He seems to have taken the place of
       Polybius, and to have accompanied Scipio in his tour to the
       East (143 B. C.). He died as head of the Stoic school in
       Athens about 110 B. C. This was the man who, under the
       influence of the age, really modified the rigid tenets of his
       sect to make it the practical rule of life for statesmen,
       politicians, magnates, who had no time to sit all day and
       dispute, but who required something better than effete
       polytheism to give them dignity in their leisure, and
       steadfastness in the day of trial. … With the pupils of
       Panætius begins the long roll of Roman Stoics. … Here then,
       after all the dissolute and disintegrating influences of
       Hellenism,—its comœdia palliata, its parasites, its panders,
       its minions, its chicanery, its mendacity—had produced their
       terrible effect, came an antidote which, above all the human
       influences we know, purified and ennobled the world. It
       affected, unfortunately, only the higher classes at Rome; and
       even among them, as among any of the lower classes that
       speculated at all, it had as a dangerous rival that cheap and
       vulgar Epicureanism, which puffs up common natures with the
       belief that their trivial and coarse reflections have some
       philosophic basis, and can be defended with subtle arguments.
       But among the best of the Romans Hellenism produced a type
       seldom excelled in the world's history, a type as superior to
       the old Roman model as the nobleman is to the burgher in most
       countries—a type we see in Rutilius Rufus, as compared with
       the elder Cato. … It was in this way that Hellenistic
       philosophy made itself a home in Italy, and acquired pupils
       who in the next generation became masters in their way, and
       showed in Cicero and Lucretius no mean rivals of the
       contemporary Greek. … Till the poem of Lucretius and the
       works of Cicero, we may say nothing in Latin worth reading
       existed on the subject. Whoever wanted to study philosophy,
       therefore, down to that time (60 B. C.) studied it in Greek.
       Nearly the same thing may be said of the arts of architecture,
       painting, and sculpture. There were indeed distinctly Roman
       features in architecture, but they were mere matters of
       building, and whatever was done in the way of design, in the
       way of adding beauty to strength, was done wholly under the
       advice and direction of Greeks. The subservience to Hellenism
       in the way of internal household ornament was even more
       complete. … And with the ornaments of the house, the proper
       serving of the house, especially the more delicate
       departments—the cooking of state dinners, the attendance upon
       guests, the care of the great man's intimate comforts—could
       only be done fashionably by Greek slaves. … But of course
       these lower sides of Hellenism had no more potent effect in
       civilising Rome than the employing of French cooks and valets
       and the purchase of French ornaments and furniture had in
       improving our grandfathers. Much more serious was the
       acknowledged supremacy of the Greeks in literature of all
       kinds, and still more their insistence that this superiority
       depended mainly upon a careful system of intellectual
       education. … This is the point where Polybius, after his
       seventeen years' experience of Roman life, finds the capital
       flaw in the conduct of public affairs. In every Hellenistic
       state, he says, nothing engrosses the attention of legislators
       more than the question of education, whereas at Rome a most
       moral and serious government leaves the training of the young
       to the mistakes and hazards of private enterprise. That this
       was a grave blunder as regards the lower classes is probably
       true. … But when Rome grew from a city controlling Italy to
       an empire directing the world, such men as Æmilius Paullus saw
       plainly that they must do something more to fit their children
       for the splendid position they had themselves attained, and so
       they were obliged to keep foreign teachers of literature and
       art in their houses as private tutors. The highest class of
       these private tutors was that of the philosophers, whom we
       have considered, and while the State set itself against their
       public establishments, great men in the State openly
       encouraged them and kept them in their houses. … As regards
       literature, however, in the close of the second century B. C.
       a change was visible, which announced the new and marvellous
       results of the first. … Even in letters Roman culture began
       to take its place beside Greek, and the whole civilised world
       was divided into those who knew Greek letters and those who
       knew Roman only. There was no antagonism in spirit between
       them, for the Romans never ceased to venerate Greek letters or
       to prize a knowledge of that language. But of course there
       were great domains in the West beyond the influence of the
       most western Greeks, even of Massilia, where the first higher
       civilisation introduced was with the Roman legions and
       traders, and where culture assumed permanently a Latin form.
       In the East, though the Romans asserted themselves as
       conquerors, they always condescended to use Greek, and there
       were prætors proud to give their decisions at Roman assize
       courts in that language."

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          The Greek World under Roman Sway,
          chapter 5.

    HELLENION, The.

          See NAUKRATIS.

    HELLESPONT, The.

       The ancient Greek name of what is now called the straits of
       The Dardanelles, the channel which unites the Sea of Marmora
       with the Ægean. The name (Sea of Helle) came from the myth of
       Helle, who was said to have been drowned in these waters.

    HELLESPONTINE SIBYL.

          See SIBYLS.

    HELLULAND.

          See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

    HELOTS.

          See SPARTA: THE CITY.

    HELVECONES, The.

          See LYGIANS.

    {1642}

    HELVETIAN REPUBLIC, The.

       Switzerland is sometimes called the Helvetian Republic, for no
       better reason than is found in the fact that the country
       occupied by the Helvetii of Cæsar is embraced in the modern
       Swiss Confederacy. But the original confederation, out of
       which grew the federal republic of Switzerland, did not touch
       Helvetian ground.

          See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS,
          and A. D. 1332-1460.

    HELVETIC REPUBLIC OF 1798, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

    HELVETII, The arrested migration of the.

       "The Helvetii, who inhabited a great part of modern
       Switzerland, had grown impatient of the narrow limits in which
       they were crowded together, and harassed at the same time by
       the encroachments of the advancing German tide. The Alps and
       Jura formed barriers to their diffusion on the south and west,
       and the population thus confined outgrew the scanty means of
       support afforded by its mountain valleys. … The Helvetii
       determined to force their way through the country of the
       Allobroges, and to trust either to arms or persuasion to
       obtain a passage through the [Roman] province and across the
       Rhone into the centre of Gaul. … Having completed their
       preparations, [they] appointed the 28th day of March [B. C.
       58] for the meeting of their combined forces at the western
       outlet of the Lake Lemanus. The whole population of the
       assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, including the
       women and children; the number that bore arms was 92,000. They
       cut themselves off from the means of retreat by giving
       ruthlessly to the flames every city and village of their land;
       twelve of one class and four hundred of the other were thus
       sacrificed, and with them all their superfluous stores, their
       furniture, arms and implements." When the news of this
       portentous movement reached Rome, Cæsar, then lately appointed
       to the government of the two Gauls, was raising levies, but
       had no force ready for the field. He flew to the scene in
       person, making the journey from Rome to Geneva in eight days.
       At Geneva, the frontier town of the conquered Allobroges, the
       Romans had a garrison, and Cæsar quickly gathered to that
       point the one legion stationed in the province. Breaking down
       the bridge which had spanned the river and constructing with
       characteristic energy a ditch and rampart from the outlet of
       the lake to the gorge of the Jura, he held the passage of the
       river with his single legion and forced the migratory horde to
       move off by the difficult route down the right bank of the
       Rhone. This accomplished, Cæsar hastened back to Italy, got
       five legions together, led them over the Cottian Alps, crossed
       the Rhone above Lyons, and caught up with the Helvetii before
       the last of their cumbrous train had got beyond the Saone.
       Attacking and cutting to pieces this rear-guard (it was the
       tribe of the Tigurini, which the Romans had encountered
       disastrously half a century before), he bridged the Saone and
       crossed it to pursue the main body of the enemy. For many days
       he followed them, refusing to give battle to the great
       barbarian army until he saw the moment opportune. His blow was
       struck at last in the neighborhood of the city of Bibracte,
       the capital of the Ædui—modern Autun. The defeat of the
       Helvetii was complete, and, although a great body of them
       escaped, they were set upon by the Gauls of the country and
       were soon glad to surrender themselves unconditionally to the
       Roman proconsul. Cæsar compelled them—110,000 survivors, of
       the 368,000 who left Switzerland in the spring—to go back to
       their mountains and rebuild and reoccupy the homes they had
       destroyed.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 6 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Cæsar,
          Gallic Wars,
          chapters 1-29.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 1.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Julius Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

    HELVII, The.

       The Helvii were a tribe of Gauls whose country was between the
       Rhone and the Cevennes, in the modern department of the
       Ardêche.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 17.

    HENGESTESDUN, Battle of.

       Defeat of the Danes and Welsh by Ecgbehrt, the West Saxon
       king, A. D. 835.

    HENNERSDORF, Battle of (1745).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

    HENOTICON OF ZENO, The.

          See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

    HENRICIANS.

          See PETROBRUSIANS.

    HENRY,
       Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1206-1216.

       Henry (of Corinthia), King of Bohemia, 1307-1310.

       Henry, King of Navarre, 1270-1274.

       Henry, King of Portugal, 1578-1580.

       Henry, Count of Portugal, 1093-1112.

       Henry (called the Lion), The ruin of.

          See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

       Henry (called the Navigator), Prince, The explorations of.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

       Henry (called the Proud), The fall of.

          See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.

       Henry I., King of Castile, 1214-1217.

       Henry I., King of England, 1100-1135.

       Henry I., King of France, 1031-1060.

       Henry I. (called The Fowler), King of the East Franks
       (Germany), 919-936.

       Henry II.,
       Emperor, A. D. 1014-1024;
       King of the East Franks (Germany), 1002-1024;
       King of Italy, 1004-1024.

       Henry II. (of Trastamare),
       King of Castile and Leon, 1369-1379.

       Henry II. (first of the Plantagenets),
       King of England, 1154-1189.

       Henry II., King of France, 1547-1559.

       Henry III., Emperor, King of Germany,
       and King of Burgundy, 1089-1056.

       Henry III., King of Castile and Leon, 1390-1407.

       Henry III., King of England, 1216-1272.

       Henry III.,
       King of France (the last of the Valois), 1574-1589;
       King of Poland, 1573-1574.

       Henry IV.,
       Emperor, 1077-1106;
       King of Germany, 1056-1106.

       Henry IV., King of Castile and Leon, 1454-1474.

       Henry IV., King of England
       (first of the Lancastrian royal line), 1399-1413.

       Henry IV. (called the Great), King of France and Navarre
       (the first of the Bourbon kings), 1589-1610.
       Abjuration.

             See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

       Assassination.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

       Henry V.,
       Emperor, 1112-1125;
       King of Germany, 1106-1125.

       Henry V., King of England, 1413-1422.

       Henry VI.,
       King of Germany, 1190-1197;
       Emperor, 1191-1197;
       King of Sicily, 1194-1197.

       Henry VI., King of England, 1422-1461.

       Henry VII. (of Luxemburg),
       King of Germany, 1308-1313;
       King of Italy and Emperor, 1312-1313.

       Henry VII., King of England, 1485-1509.

       Henry VIII., King of England, 1509-1547.

    HENRY, Patrick,
       The Parson's cause.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

    {1643}

    HENRY, Patrick:
       The American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
          RECEPTION OF THE NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT, 1774 (SEPTEMBER),
          1775 (APRIL-JUNE), 1778-1779 CLARKE'S CONQUEST;
          also, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

       Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

    HENRY, Fort, Capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

    HEPTANOMIS, The.

       The northern district of Upper Egypt, embracing seven
       provinces, or nomes; whence its name.

    HEPTARCHY, The so-called Saxon.

          See ENGLAND: 7th CENTURY.

    HERACLEA.
       The earliest capital of the Venetians.

          See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

    HERACLEA, Battle of (B. C. 280).

          See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

    HERACLEA PONTICA,
       Siege of.

       Heraclea, a flourishing town of Greek origin on the Phrygian
       coast, called Heraclea Pontica to distinguish it from other
       towns of like name, was besieged for some two years by the
       Romans in the Third Mithridatic War. It was surrendered
       through treachery, B. C. 70, and suffered so greatly from the
       ensuing pillage and massacre that it never recovered. The
       Roman commander, Cotta, was afterwards prosecuted at Rome for
       appropriating the plunder of Heraclea, which included a famous
       statue of Hercules, with a golden club.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

    HERACLEIDÆ, OR HERAKLEIDS, The.

       Among the ancient Greeks the reputed descendants of the
       demi-god hero, Herakles, or Hercules, were very numerous.
       "Distinguished families are everywhere to be traced who bear
       his patronymic and glory in the belief that they are his
       descendants. Among Achæans, Kadmeians, and Dorians, Hêraklês
       is venerated: the latter especially treat him as their
       principal hero—the Patron Hero-God of the race: the
       Hêrakleids form among all Dorians a privileged gens, in which
       at Sparta the special lineage of the two kings was included."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

       "The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of
       all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued even
       to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
       character, was the expedition of the Dorians into
       Peloponnesus. … The traditionary name of this expedition is
       'the Return of the Descendants of Hercules' [or 'the Return of
       the Heraclidæ']. Hercules, the son of Zeus, is (even in the
       Iliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of
       Tiryns and Mycenæ, and ruler of the surrounding nations. But
       through some evil chance Eurystheus obtained the precedency
       and the son of Zeus was compelled to serve him. Nevertheless
       he is represented as having bequeathed to his descendants his
       claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus, which they afterwards
       made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules having
       also performed such actions in behalf of this race that his
       descendants were always entitled to the possession of
       one-third of the territory. The heroic life of Hercules was
       therefore the mythical title, through which the Dorians were
       made to appear, not as unjustly invading, but merely as
       reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes in
       former times."

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          book 1, chapter 3.

          See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    HERACLEIDÆ OF LYDIA.

       The second dynasty of the kings of Lydia—so-called by the
       Greeks as reputed descendants of the sun-god. The dynasty is
       represented as ending with Candaules.

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 4, chapter 17.

    HERACLEONAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641.

    HERACLIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 610-641.

       ----------HERAT: Start--------

    HERAT: B. C. 330.
       Founding of the city by Alexander the Great.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

    HERAT: A. D. 1221.
       Destruction by the Mongols.

          See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

       ----------HERAT: End--------

    HERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    HERCULANEUM.

          See POMPEII.

    HERCULIANS AND JOVIANS.

          See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

    HERCYNIAN FOREST, The.

       "The Hercynian Forest was known by report to Eratosthenes and
       some other Greeks, under the name Orcynia. The width of this
       forest, as Caesar says (B. G. vi. 25), was nine days' journey
       to a man without any incumbrance. It commenced at the
       territory of the Helvetii [ Switzerland] … and following the
       straight course of the Dunube reached to the country of the
       Daci and the Anartes. Here it turned to the left in different
       directions from the river, and extended to the territory of
       many nations. No man of western Germany could affirm that he
       had reached the eastern termination of the forest even after a
       journey of six days, nor that he had heard where it did
       terminate. This is all that Caesar knew of this great forest.
       … The nine days' journey, which measures the width of the
       Hercynian forest, is the width from south to north; and if we
       assume this width to be estimated at the western end of the
       Hercynia, which part would be the best known, it would
       correspond to the Schwarzwald and Odenwald, which extend on
       the east side of the Rhine from the neighbourhood of Bâle
       nearly as far north as Frankfort on the Main. The eastern
       parts of the forest would extend on the north side of the
       Danube along the Rauhe Alp and the Boehmerwald and still
       farther east. Caesar mentions another German forest named
       Bacenis (B. G. vi. 10), but all that he could say of it is
       this: it was a forest of boundless extent, and it separated
       the Suevi and the Cherusci; from which we may conclude that it
       is represented by the Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge,
       Riesengebirge, and the mountain ranges farther east, which
       separate the basin of the Danube from the basins of the Oder
       and the Vistula."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 2.

    HERETOGA.

          See EALDORMAN.

    HEREWARD'S CAMP IN THE FENS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

    HERIBANN.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

    HERKIMER, General, and the Battle of Oriskany.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    HERMÆ AT ATHENS, Mutilation of the.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

    {1644}

    HERMÆAN PROMONTORY.

       The ancient name of the north-eastern horn of the Gulf of
       Tunis, now called Cape Bon. It was the limit fixed by the old
       treaties between Carthage and Rome, beyond which Roman ships
       must not go.

          R. B. Smith,
          Carthage and the Carthaginians,
          chapter 5.

    HERMANDAD, The.

       See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

    HERMANRIC, OR ERMANARIC, The empire of.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 350-375; and 376.

    HERMANSTADT,
       Battle of (1442).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

       (Or Schellenberg,) Battle of (1599).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, &c.).

    HERMINSAULE, The.

          See SAXONS: A.D. 772-804.

    HERMIONES, The.

          See GERMANY: As KNOWN TO TACITUS.

    HERMITS.

          See ANCHORITES.

    HERMONTHIS.

          See ON.

    HERMUNDURI, The.

       Among the German tribes of the time of Tacitus, "a people
       loyal to Rome. Consequently they, alone of the Germans, trade
       not merely on the banks of the river, but far inland, and in
       the most flourishing colony of the province of Rætia.
       Everywhere they are allowed to pass without a guard; and while
       to the other tribes we display only our arms and our camps, to
       them we have thrown open our houses and country-seats, which
       they do not covet."

          Tacitus,
          Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
          The Germany.

       "The settlements of the Hermunduri must have been in Bavaria,
       and seem to have stretched from Ratisbon, northwards, as far
       as Bohemia and Saxony."

          Tacitus,
          Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
          The Germany.
          Geography notes.

    HERNICANS, The.

       A Sabine tribe, who anciently occupied a valley in the Lower
       Appenines, between the Anio and the Trerus, and who were
       leagued with the Romans and the Latins against the Volscians
       and the Æquians.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 6.

    HERODEANS, The.

          See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
          REIGN OF THE HERODEANS.

    HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.

          See GREECE: THE HEROES.

    HEROÖPOLIS.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

    HERRINGS, The Battle of the (1429).

       In February, 1429, while the English still held their ground
       in France, and while the Duke of Bedford was besieging Orleans
       [see FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431], a large convoy of Lenten
       provisions, salted herring in the main, was sent away from
       Paris for the English army. It was under the escort of Sir
       John Fastolfe, with 1,500 men. At Rouvray en Beausse the
       convoy was attacked by 5,000 French cavalry, including the
       best knights and warriors of the kingdom. The English
       entrenched themselves behind their wagons and repelled the
       attack, with great slaughter and humiliation of the French
       chivalry; but in the mêlée the red-herrings were scattered
       thickly over the field. This caused the encounter to be named
       the Battle of the Herrings.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          2d series, chapter 35.

    HERRNHUT.

          See MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

    HERULI, The.

       The Heruli were a people closely associated with the Goths in
       their history and undoubtedly akin to them in blood. The great
       piratical expedition of A. D. 267 from the Crimea, which
       struck Athens, was made up of Herules as well as Goths. The
       Heruli passed with the Goths under the yoke of the Huns. After
       the breaking up of the empire of Attila, they were found
       occupying the region of modern Hungary which is between the
       Carpathians, the upper Theiss, and the Danube. The Herules
       were numerous among the barbarian auxiliaries of the Roman
       army in the last days of the empire.

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

       ----------HERZEGOVINA: Start--------

    HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1875-1876.
       Revolt against Turkish rule.
       Interposition of the Powers.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

    HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1878.
       Given over to Austria by the Treaty of Berlin.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

       ----------HERZEGOVINA: End--------

    HESSE: A. D. 1866.
       Extinction of the electorate.
       Absorption by Prussia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    HESSIANS, The, in the American War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
          A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

    HESTIASIS.

       The feasting of the tribes at Athens.

          See LITURGIES.

    HESYCHASTS, The.

          See MYSTICISM.

    HETÆRIES, Ancient.

       Political clubs "which were habitual and notorious at Athens;
       associations, bound together by oath, among the wealthy
       citizens, partly for purposes of amusement, but chiefly
       pledging the members to stand by each other in objects of
       political ambition, in judicial trials, in accusation or
       defence of official men after the period of office had
       expired, in carrying points through the public assembly, &c.
       … They furnished, when taken together, a formidable
       anti-popular force."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 62 (volume 7).

          ALSO IN:
          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    HETAIRA.
    HETAIRISTS, Modern.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

    HETMAN.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
          also, COSSACKS.

    HEXHAM, Battle of (1464).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

    HEYDUCS.

       Servian Christians who, in the earlier period of the Turkish
       domination, fled into the forest and became outlaws and
       robbers were called Heyducs.

          L. Ranke,
          History of Servia,
          chapter 3.

    HIAWATHA AND THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERATION.

          See IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

    HIBERNIA.

          See IRELAND.

    HICKS PASHA, Destruction of the army of (1883).

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.

    HIDALGO.

       "Originally written 'fijodalgo,' son of something. Later
       applied to gentlemen, country gentlemen perhaps more
       particularly. … In the Dic. Univ. authorities are quoted
       showing that the word 'hidalgo' originated with the Roman
       colonists of Spain, called 'Italicos,' who were exempt from
       imposts. Hence those enjoying similar benefits were called
       'Italicos,' which word in lapse of time became 'hidalgo.'"

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, page 252, foot-note.

    HIDATSA INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA.

    {1645}

    HIDE OF LAND.
    CARUCATE.
    VIRGATE.

       "In the [Hundred] rolls for Huntingdonshire [England] a series
       of entries occurs, describing, contrary to the usual practice
       of the compilers, the number of acres in a virgate, and the
       number of virgates in a hide, in several manors. … They show
       clearly—(1) That the bundle of scattered strips called a
       virgate did not always contain the same number of acres. (2)
       That the hide did not always contain the same number of
       virgates. But at the same time it is evident that the hide in
       Huntingdonshire most often contained 120 acres or thereabouts.
       … We may gather from the instances given in the Hundred
       Rolls for Huntingdonshire, that the 'normal' hide consisted as
       a rule of four virgates of about thirty acres each. The really
       important consequence resulting from this is the recognition
       of the fact that as the virgate was a bundle of so many
       scattered strips in the open fields, the hide, so far as it
       consisted of actual virgates in villenage, was also a
       bundle—a compound and fourfold bundle—of scattered strips in
       the open fields. … A trace at least of the original reason
       of the varying contents and relations of the hide and virgate
       is to be found in the Hundred Rolls, as, indeed, almost
       everywhere else, in the use of another word in the place of
       hide, when, instead of the anciently assessed hidage of a
       manor, its modern actual taxable value is examined into and
       expressed. This new word is 'carucate'—'the land of a plough
       or plough team,'—'caruca' being the mediæval Latin term for
       both plough and plough team. … In some cases the carucate
       seems to be identical with the normal hide of 120 acres, but
       other instances show that the carucate varied in area. It is
       the land cultivated by a plough team; varying in acreage,
       therefore, according to the lightness or heaviness of the
       soil, and according to the strength of the team. … In
       pastoral districts of England and Wales the Roman tribute may
       possibly have been, if not a hide from each plough team, a
       hide from every family holding cattle. … The supposition of
       such an origin of the connexion of the word 'hide' with the
       'land of a family,' or of a plough team, is mere conjecture;
       but the fact of the connexion is clear."

          F. Seebohm,
          English Village Community,
          chapter 2, section 4,
          and chapter 10, section 6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. M. Kemble,
          The Saxons in England,
          book 1, chapter 4.

          See, also, MANORS.

    HIERATIC WRITING.

          See HIEROGLYPHICS.

    HIERODULI, The.

       In some of the early Greek communities, the Hieroduli, or
       ministers of the gods, "formed a class of persons bound to
       certain services, duties, or contributions to the temple of
       some god, and … sometimes dwelt in the position of serfs on
       the sacred ground. They appear in considerable numbers, and as
       an integral part of the population only in Asia, as, e. g., at
       Comana in Cappadocia, where in Strabo's time there were more
       than 6,000 of them attached to the temple of the goddess Ma,
       who was named by the Greeks Enyo, and by the Romans Bellona.
       In Sicily too the Erycinian Aphrodite had numerous ministers,
       whom Cicero calls Venerii, and classes with the ministers of
       Mars (Martiales) at Larinum in South Italy. In Greece we may
       consider the Craugallidæ as Hieroduli of the Delphian Apollo.
       They belonged apparently to the race of Dryopes, who are said
       to have been at some former time conquered by Heracles, and
       dedicated by him to the god. The greater part of them, we are
       told, were sent at the command of Apollo to the Peloponnese,
       whilst the Craugallidæ remained behind. … At Corinth too
       there were numerous Hieroduli attached to Aphrodite, some of
       whom were women, who lived as Hetæræ and paid a certain tax
       from their earnings to the goddess."

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 2, chapter 4.

          See, also, DORIS AND DRYOPIS.

    HIEROGLYPHICS, Egyptian.

       "The Greeks gave the name of Hieroglyphics, that is, 'Sacred
       Sculpture,' to the national writing of the Egyptians, composed
       entirely of pictures of natural objects. Although very
       inapplicable, this name has been adopted by modern writers,
       and has been so completely accepted and used that it cannot
       now be replaced by a more appropriate appellation. … For a
       long series of ages the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, for
       which the classical writers furnish no assistance, remained a
       hopeless mystery. The acute genius of a Frenchman at last
       succeeded, not fifty years since, in lifting the veil. By a
       prodigious effort of induction, and almost divination, Jean
       François Champollion, who was born at Figeac (Lot) on the 23d
       of December, 1790, and died at Paris on the 4th of March,
       1832, made the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century in
       the domain of historical science, and succeeded in fixing on a
       solid basis the principle of reading hieroglyphics. Numerous
       scholars have followed the path opened by him. … It would
       … be very far from the truth to regard hieroglyphics as
       always, or even generally, symbolical. No doubt there are
       symbolical characters among them, generally easy to
       understand; as also there are, and in very great number,
       figurative characters directly representing the object to be
       designated; but the majority of the signs found in every
       hieroglyphic text are characters purely phonetic; that is,
       representing either syllables (and these are so varied as to
       offer sometimes serious difficulties) or the letters of an
       only moderately complicated alphabet. These letters are also
       pictures of objects, but of objects or animals whose Egyptian
       name commenced with the letter in question, while also the
       syllabic characters (true rebusses) represented objects
       designated by that syllable."

          F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier.
          Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
          book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).

       "The system of writing employed by the people called Egyptians
       was probably entirely pictorial either at the time when they
       first arrived in Egypt, or during the time that they still
       lived in their original home. We, however, know of no
       inscription in which pictorial characters alone are used, for
       the earliest specimens of their writing known to us contain
       alphabetical characters. The Egyptians had three kinds of
       writing—Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic. …
       Hieroglyphics … were commonly employed for inscriptions upon
       temples, tombs, coffins, statues, and stelæ, and many copies
       of the Book of the Dead were written in them. The earliest
       hieroglyphic inscription at present known is found on the
       monument of Shera, parts of which are preserved in the
       Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and in the Gîzeh Museum; it dates
       from the IInd dynasty. Hieroglyphics were used in Egypt for
       writing the names of Roman Emperors and for religious purposes
       until the third century after Christ, at least.
    {1646}
       Hieratic … was a style of cursive writing much used by the
       priests in copying literary compositions on papyrus; during
       the XIth or XIIth dynasty wooden coffins were inscribed in
       hieratic with religious texts. The oldest document in hieratic
       is the famous Prisse papyrus, which records the counsels of
       Ptah-hetep to his son; the composition itself is about a
       thousand years older than this papyrus, which was probably
       inscribed about the XIth dynasty. Drafts of inscriptions were
       written upon flakes of calcareous stone in hieratic, and at a
       comparatively early date hieratic was used in writing copies
       of the Book of the Dead. Hieratic was used until about the
       fourth century after Christ. Demotic … is a purely
       conventional modification of hieratic characters, which
       preserve little of their original form, and was used for
       social and business purposes; in the early days of Egyptian
       decipherment it was called enchorial. … The Demotic writing
       appears to have come into use about B. C. 900, and it survived
       until about the fourth century after Christ. In the time of
       the Ptolemies three kinds of writing were inscribed side by
       side upon documents of public importance, hieroglyphic, Greek,
       and Demotic; examples are the stele of Canopus, set up in the
       ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I., B. C.
       247-222, at Canopus, to record the benefits which this king
       had conferred upon his country, and the famous Rosetta Stone,
       set up at Rosetta in the eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy
       V. Epiphanes (B. C. 205-182), likewise to commemorate the
       benefits conferred upon Egypt by himself and his family, etc.
       … A century or two after the Christian era Greek had
       obtained such a hold upon the inhabitants of Egypt, that the
       native Christian population, the disciples and followers of
       Saint Mark, were obliged to use the Greek alphabet to write
       down the Egyptian, that is to say Coptic, translation of the
       books of the Old and New Testaments, but they borrowed six
       signs from the demotic forms of ancient Egyptian characters to
       express the sounds which they found unrepresented in Greek."

          E. A. Wallis Budge,
          The Mummy,
          pages 353-354.

          See, also, ROSETTA STONE.

    HIEROGLYPHICS, Mexican (so-called).

          See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

    HIERONYMITES, The.

       "A number of solitaries residing among the mountains of Spain,
       Portugal, and Italy, gradually formed into a community, and
       called themselves Hieronymites, either because they had
       compiled their Rule from the writings of St. Jerome, or
       because, adopting the rule of St. Augustine, they had taken
       St. Jerome for their patron. … The community was approved by
       Gregory XI., in 1374. The famous monastery of Our Lady of
       Guadaloupe, in Estremadura; the magnificent Escurial, with its
       wealth of literary treasures, and the monastery of St. Just,
       where Charles V. sought an asylum in the decline of his life,
       attest their wonderful energy and zeal."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 3, page 149.

    HIGH CHURCH AND LOW CHURCH:
       First use of the names.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

          See CURIA REGIS.

    HIGH GERMANY, Old League of.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

    HIGH MIGHTINESSES, Their.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

    HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE, The.

       William H. Seward, speaking in the Senate of the United
       States, March 11, 1850, on the question of the admission of
       California into the Union as a Free State, used the following
       language: "'The Constitution,' he said, 'regulates our
       stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to
       justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is
       a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our
       authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble
       purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of
       the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the
       Creator of the universe. We are His stewards, and must so
       discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable
       degree their happiness.' This public recognition by a Senator
       of the United States that the laws of the Creator were
       'higher' than those of human enactment excited much
       astonishment and indignation, and called forth, in Congress
       and out of it, measureless abuse upon its author."

          H. Wilson,
          History of the Rise and Fall
          of the Slave Power in America,
          volume 2, pages 262-263.

       In the agitations that followed upon the adoption of the
       Fugitive Slave Law, and the other compromise measures
       attending the admission of California, this Higher Law
       Doctrine was much talked about.

    HIGHLAND CLANS.

          See CLANS.

    HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND,

          See SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

    HIKENILDE—STRETE.

          See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

    HILDEBRAND (Pope Gregory VII.), and the Papacy.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
          GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
          and CANOSSA.

    HILDEBRAND, KING OF THE LOMBARDS, A. D. 743-744.

    HILL, Isaac, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

    HILL, Rowland, and the adoption of penny-postage.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.

    HILTON HEAD, The capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

    HIMATION, The.

       An article of dress in the nature of a cloak, worn by both men
       and women among the ancient Greeks. It "was arranged so that
       the one corner was thrown over the left shoulder in front, so
       as to be attached to the body by means of the left arm. On the
       back the dress was pulled toward the right side, so as to
       cover it completely up to the right shoulder, or, at least, to
       the armpit, in which latter case the right shoulder remained
       uncovered. Finally, the himation was again thrown over the
       left shoulder, so that the ends fell over the back. … A
       second way of arranging the himation, which left the right arm
       free, was more picturesque, and is therefore usually found in
       pictures."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 42.

       ----------HIMERA: Start--------

    HIMERA, Battle of.

          See SICILY: B. C. 480.

    HIMERA:
       Destroyed by Hannibal.

          See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

       ----------HIMERA: End--------

    HIMYARITES, The.

          See ARABIA.

    HIN, The.

          See EPHAH.

    HINDMAN, Fort, Capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).

    {1647}

    HINDOO KOOSH, The Name of the.

          See CAUCASUS, THE INDIAN.

    HINDUISM.

          See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

    HINDUSTAN.

          See INDIA: THE NAME.

    HINKSTON'S FORK, Battle of (1782).

          See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

    HIONG-NU, The.

          See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

    HIPPARCH.

       A commander of cavalry in the military organization of the
       ancient Athenians.

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    HIPPEIS.

       Among the Spartans, the honorary title of Hippeis, or Knights,
       was given to the members of a chosen body of three hundred
       young men, the flower of the Spartan youth, who had not
       reached thirty years of age. "Their three leaders were called
       Hippagretæ, although in war they served not as cavalry but as
       hoplites. The name may possibly have survived from times in
       which they actually served on horseback." At Athens the term
       Hippeis was applied to the second of the four property classes
       into which Solon divided the population,—their property
       obliging them to serve as cavalry.

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece, The State,
          part 3, chapters 1 and 3.

          See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    HIPPIS, Battle of the,

       Fought, A. D. 550, in what was known as the Lazic War, between
       the Persians on one side and the Romans and the Lazi on the
       other. The latter were the victors.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 20.

       ----------HIPPO: Start--------

    HIPPO, OR HIPPO REGIUS.

       An ancient city of north Africa, on the Numidian coast.

          See NUMIDIANS; and CARTHAGE: DOMINION OF.

    HIPPO: A. D. 430-431.
       Siege by the Vandals.

          See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

       ----------HIPPO: End--------

    HIPPOBOTÆ, The.

       See EUBŒA.

    HIPPODROME.
    STADION.
    THEATER.

       "The arts practised in the gymnasia were publicly displayed at
       the festivals. The buildings in which these displays took
       place were modified according to their varieties. The races
       both on horseback and in chariots took place in the
       hippodrome; for the gymnastic games of the pentathlon served
       the stadion; while for the acme of the festivals, the musical
       and dramatic performances, theatres were erected."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans
          (translated by Hueffer),
          sections 28-30.

    HIPPOTOXOTÆ, The.

          See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

    HIRA.

       "The historians of the age of Justinian represent the state of
       the independent Arabs, who were divided by interest or
       affection in the long quarrel of the East [between the Romans
       and Persians—3rd to 7th century]: the tribe of Gassan was
       allowed to encamp on the Syrian territory; the princes of Hira
       were permitted to form a city about 40 miles to the southward
       of the ruins of Babylon. Their service in the field was speedy
       and vigorous; but their friendship was venal, their faith
       inconstant, their enmity capricious: it was an easier task to
       excite than to disarm these roving barbarians; and, in the
       familiar intercourse of war, they learned to see and to
       despise the splendid weakness both of Rome and of Persia."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 50 (volume 5).

       "The dynasty of Palmyra and the western tribes embraced
       Christianity in the time of Constantine; to the east of the
       desert the religion was later of gaining ground, and indeed
       was not adopted by the court of Hira till near the end of the
       6th century. Early in the 7th, Hira fell from its dignity as
       an independent power, and became a satrapy of Persia."

          Sir William Muir,
          Life of Mahomet,
          introduction, chapter 1.

       In 633 Hira was overwhelmed by the Mahometan conquest, and the
       greater city of Kufa was built only 3 miles distant from it.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651;
          also, BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

    HISPALIS.

       The name of Seville under the Romans.

          See SEVILLE.

    HISPANIA CITERIOR AND HISPANIA ULTERIOR.

          See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

    HISPANIOLA.

       The name given by Columbus to the island now divided between
       the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496, and after;
          and HAYTI.

    HISSARLIK.

       The site of ancient Troy, as supposed to be identified by the
       excavations of Dr. Schliemann.

          See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
          also, TROJA, and HOMER.

       ----------HISTORY: Start--------

    HISTORY:
       Definitions.

       "With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all
       modern languages, signifies either a form of literary
       composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such
       composition—either a narrative of events, or events which
       may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this
       doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole,
       to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may,
       with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so
       related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two
       things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word
       history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot
       have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a
       form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when
       either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd
       that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done
       were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule
       rather than the exception. The majority of so-called
       definitions of history are definitions only of the records of
       history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not
       to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although
       given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not
       apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history.
       They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they
       cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of
       history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this
       latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of
       history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant
       history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as
       a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one,
       'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the
       exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des
       Geschehenen).
    {1648}
       The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and
       explicit indication of what history as effectuated or
       transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It
       is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has
       happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is
       history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things
       or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and
       comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as
       distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a
       neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the
       English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das
       Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander
       des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we
       have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the
       name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human
       history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency
       and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which
       have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have
       been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word
       history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse
       than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and
       pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on
       certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may
       perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary
       of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses
       dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth
       remembering"]—is a specimen of a very numerous species.
       According to such definitions history consists of exceptional
       things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and
       actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements
       in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and
       literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of
       history. History is made up of what is little as well as of
       what is great, of what is common as well as of what is
       strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted
       noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography
       of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether
       undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all
       history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a
       certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow,
       however, that biography is a more general notion than history,
       and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not
       only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the
       history of an individual as to say that history is the
       biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography
       in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical
       sense, not the word history in the former case. … According
       to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are
       present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any
       logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying
       that politics and history are the same, and may both be
       divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what
       either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is
       not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that
       something may be called either this or that. Besides, the
       identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been
       already indicated, on a view of history which is at once
       narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that
       mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are
       present history, as that political history is past politics
       and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past
       was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is
       nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."

          R. Flint,
          History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
          pages 5-10.

    HISTORY:
       The subjects and objects of History.

       "The position for which I have always striven is this, that
       history is past politics, that politics are present history.
       The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the
       name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of
       an organized society, governed according to law. History, in
       any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I
       am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the
       merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is
       necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits
       of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the
       pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind.
       Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and
       special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or
       manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are
       constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The
       collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are
       materials for history, materials of which the historian makes
       grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to
       in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no
       kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the
       historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his
       subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch,
       sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all
       other things are secondary, is man as the member of a
       political community. Rightly to understand man in that
       character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the
       developments, that political society has taken. Effects have
       to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up
       to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those
       needful processes if we confine our studies either to the
       political societies of our own day or to political societies
       on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch
       the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human
       nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in
       all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all
       circumstances under which we have any means of studying it.
       … In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always
       repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to
       say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical
       position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical
       position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has
       gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is
       unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the
       working of like causes, still the two results can never be
       exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself
       takes its place among the causes of the later result.
       Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and
       they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from
       being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully
       distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the
       oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy
       that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from
       small occasions.
    {1649}
       A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with
       gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in
       telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest
       causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by
       some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal
       quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal
       of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both
       in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal
       of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without
       notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a
       certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes
       and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories
       which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great
       events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak
       of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the
       causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to
       be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of
       really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its
       place among determining causes. In any large view of history,
       we must always be on our guard against either underrating or
       overrating the actions of individual men. History is something
       more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most
       important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand,
       that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them,
       can direct the course of history according to their own will
       and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no
       danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run
       counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal
       or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that
       the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it
       is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that
       there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small
       men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk
       of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we
       should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man
       has some influence on the course of history."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Practical Bearings of European History
          (Lectures to American Audiences),
          pages 207-215.

    HISTORY:
       The Philosophy of History

       "The philosophy of history is not a something separate from
       the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The
       more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets
       into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the
       rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and
       essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever
       species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not
       something separate and distinct from, something over and
       above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation.
       He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special
       development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is
       and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character
       it has, and what its relation is to the general development of
       humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of
       that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is
       sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is
       most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which
       is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to
       work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as
       reason and research can ascertain. History always participates
       in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected
       according to some real or supposed principle either of
       efficient or final causation."

          R. Flint,
          Philosophy of History,
          introduction.

    HISTORY:
       The possibility of a Science of History.
       Mr. Buckle's theory.

       "The believer in the possibility of a science of history is
       not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined
       events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions
       which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to
       concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we
       perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that
       those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that,
       therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the
       antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we
       could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their
       immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the
       view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by
       system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence
       actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical
       dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined
       events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of
       men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a
       character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely
       the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same
       results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out
       of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the
       results—in other words, all the changes of which history is
       full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress
       or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the
       fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon
       the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena.
       These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can
       alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind
       obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled
       by external agents, developing itself according to the
       conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have
       what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but
       incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men,
       exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and
       therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would
       not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man
       modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this
       reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring.
       The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method
       of discovering the laws of this double modification."

          H. T. Buckle,
          History of Civilization in England,
          chapter 1.

       "Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the
       unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as
       an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital
       phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are
       the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which
       others have incidentally broached under some formula about
       'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and
       merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others,
       as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have
       developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a
       comprehensive historical exposition. …
    {1650}
       He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to
       demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the
       way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest
       conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those
       indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all
       probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will
       and predestination, that both are in a great degree
       'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate
       proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which
       History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the
       human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its
       misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of
       outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature
       upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered
       the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore
       elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does
       not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with
       divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an
       illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of
       philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A
       thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call
       all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A
       arises out of a + x, a embracing all that comes to the
       man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people,
       age, etc., while the vanishingly little x is his own
       contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly
       small this x may be, it is of infinite value. Morally
       and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the
       brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which
       he had not created. He had learned from one and another master
       to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of
       the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in
       church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him
       at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material
       and technical conditions and such traditions and
       contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would
       be, in the formula A = a + x, the service of the
       vanishing little x. Similarly everywhere. Let
       statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so
       many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A
       = a + x this a includes all the elements which
       'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty,
       thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each
       individual case of the kind has its history, how often a
       touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have
       fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing
       that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the
       tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one
       of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A =
       a + x the vanishing little x is of immeasurable
       weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the
       human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man
       will think of denying that the statistical method of
       considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not
       forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant
       to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a
       legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for
       the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists'
       definitions concerning intellectual property."

          J. G. Droysen,
          Outline of the Principles of History
          pages 62-64 and 77-79.

    HISTORY:
       History as the root of all Science.
       Lost History.

       "History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the
       first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest
       expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both
       before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits,
       unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable,
       in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the
       meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old,
       are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not:
       but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not
       attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough
       to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads,
       with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with
       earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or
       cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the
       White, lives between two eternities, and warring against
       Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious
       relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united,
       with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History
       may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a
       certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory
       written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning,
       conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without
       philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom,
       and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably
       recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men,
       you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what
       they have thought, which indeed were often a very small
       matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen,
       which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off
       from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even
       among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among
       the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but
       enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in
       that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon.
       For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but
       recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which;
       therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and
       Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the
       aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute
       society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies.
       But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and
       recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points
       unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the
       very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we
       know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest
       innovator, which was the more important personage in man's
       history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the
       victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who
       first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak
       tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred
       acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze.
    {1651}
       Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and
       with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like
       tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens,
       are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves,
       political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house
       wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of
       the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and
       traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our
       existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of
       Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists,
       of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the
       long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the
       first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to
       act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well
       may we say that of our History the more important part is lost
       without recovery."

          T. Carlyle,
          On History
          (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).

    HISTORY:
       Interpretation of the Past by the Present.

       "But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from
       the Present, if there are no institutions in the present
       answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example,
       in England at the present time, how then are we to understand
       a state of Society of which they were a component element? The
       answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the
       relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and
       dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between
       the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves
       the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to
       correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in
       early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion
       and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This
       method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been
       followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with
       such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give
       us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and
       other sources the broad historical facts, the form of
       Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and
       Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life
       and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on
       the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects
       existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows
       for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and
       religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real
       and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the
       working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the
       husks with which the historians have furnished us."

          J. B. Crozier,
          Civilization and Progress,
          page 35.

    HISTORY:
       The Moral lessons of History.

       "Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had
       he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe
       at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the
       world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace
       in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles
       bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day;
       and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of
       destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what
       are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and
       nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a
       study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the
       centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners
       change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on
       the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous
       deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the
       price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief
       offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone
       endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived,
       but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and
       other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is
       that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect
       little, for what we expect will not come to pass."

          J. A. Froude,
          Short Studies on Great Subjects,
          pages 27-28.

    HISTORY:
       The Educational and Practical value of History.

       "It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of
       reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches
       men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of
       evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of
       authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more
       than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am
       inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of
       formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no
       doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with
       demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many
       excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of
       the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is
       largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the
       conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about
       historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your
       notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place
       yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each
       side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the
       point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up
       upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can
       give them. You will find that few practices do more to
       elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          The Political Value of History,
          pages 47-49.

       "He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action
       must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself
       to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling
       to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason
       to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly
       accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in
       statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic
       professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by
       those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of
       probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value.
       This is the essential reason why the study of history is so
       important an element in the work of improving the judgment,
       and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger
       interests of communities and states. It is a study of
       humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists.
       The student of history surveys the relations of life in
       essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys
       them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical
       method is the method that must be used in the common affairs
       of everyday life.
    {1652}
       The premises from which the man of business has to draw his
       conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain.
       The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the
       endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other
       quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is
       the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points
       of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches
       its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable
       process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value
       and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to
       reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly
       logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the
       most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it
       comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of
       necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and
       contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this
       method of studying men that the historical student has to use.
       His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his
       conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day
       life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product
       of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to
       explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures
       history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why
       the study of history is so necessary a part of a good
       preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship.
       Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and
       politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who
       can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics
       are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent
       reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political
       judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of
       all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be
       said that the most important elements of success are the same
       in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of
       statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been
       essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been,
       from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism.
       It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No
       part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely
       useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may
       be in himself."

          C. K. Adams,
          A Manual of Historical Literature,
          pp. 15-16.

       "To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not
       like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere
       grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as
       regards the training of the study and the information attained
       in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities;
       it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a
       politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all;
       beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose,
       beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it
       has something of the preciousness of everything that is
       clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its
       value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a
       term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value
       analogous to the value of science; a value as something that
       is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own
       and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial
       attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of
       knowing something that the world does not know,—that
       doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to
       be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It
       is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with
       every step of investigation new points of view open out, and
       new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that
       investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be
       ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible
       materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one
       that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the
       man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages,
       new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not
       all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science,
       in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a
       consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the
       workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of
       History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its
       own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its
       own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and
       most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most
       wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human
       will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is
       not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the
       freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its
       variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to
       classification, on the generalisations of which we may
       formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are
       far more diversified and less reducible than any other
       phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power
       to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or
       geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life,
       in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in
       the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the
       subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which
       it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the
       pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the
       development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the
       ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating
       destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the
       roll of sciences."

          W. Stubbs,
          Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
          Medieval and Modern History,
          lectures 1 and 4.

       "There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that
       I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are
       deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can
       find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another;
       and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more
       excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of
       it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are,
       without superstition, without imposture, without error, and
       without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the
       harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I
       say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to
       the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it
       enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that
       habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all
       mere amusement or even information that we may gather from
       it."

          J. S. Brewer,
          English Studies,
          page 382.

    {1653}

       "To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not
       Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No
       one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History.
       Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge
       as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon,
       and for this purpose no study is its equal."

          W. P. Atkinson,
          On History and the Study of History,
          page 107.

    HISTORY:
       The Writing of History.
       Macaulay's view.

       "A history in which every particular incident may be true may
       on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most
       influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners
       and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to
       wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to
       humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions.
       Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are
       pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by
       armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no
       treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in
       every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters,
       at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society
       presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the
       direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats
       and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable
       amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the
       fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate
       favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the
       good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the
       good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of
       historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that
       produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is
       transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions.
       He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by
       contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of
       manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as
       contracted as if they had never stirred from their own
       market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of
       many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet
       be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the
       character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He
       relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his
       characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient
       testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and
       arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have
       been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination
       is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire.
       But the scale on which he represents them is increased or
       diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons
       concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they
       elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He
       shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us
       also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of
       manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his
       notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the
       operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark
       the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be
       described, but will be made intimately known to us."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History
          (Essays, volume 1).

    HISTORY:
       The Writing of History.
       Truthfulness in Style.

       "That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of
       being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any
       truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by
       reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the
       truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets,
       of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith
       in any narration is much influenced by the personal
       appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There
       is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must
       look into that well before you can know what faith to give
       him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and
       references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in
       him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not
       be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical,
       vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both
       inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as
       to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it,
       sad work they make between them of the memories of former
       days."

          Sir A. Helps,
          Friends in Council,
          volume 1, pages 199-200.

    HISTORY:
       Historical Romance and Romantic History.
       Sir Walter Scott.

       "The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the
       historical romance has made to the stories of elevated
       literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of
       the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the
       novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott
       appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular
       in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real
       genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply
       because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of
       human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in
       the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but
       imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the
       composer; because they were confined to one circle and class
       of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which
       it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of
       variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous
       ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the
       inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how
       ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out,
       and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of
       time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a
       new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when
       literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for
       above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels
       of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of
       history were exhausted, and that modern story would never
       present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of
       the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of
       Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to
       the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less
       decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard
       afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original
       thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the
       sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote
       'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through
       the clouds."

          Historical Romance
          (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1845).

    {1654}

       "Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having
       falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget
       the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally
       presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of
       events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in
       painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of
       detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined
       important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of
       all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has
       pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."

          G. H. Lewes,
          Historical Romance
          (Westminster Review, March, 1846).

       "The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the
       invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry
       Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period,
       at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king
       and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he
       means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the
       examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct
       interests and conditions, two nations, a double language,
       customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny
       and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real
       developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle
       of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of
       the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places
       the world which does and always will exist, that is to say,
       human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything
       peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the
       aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and
       manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and
       yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details
       is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the
       past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain
       men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there
       is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England
       than in the philosophically false compilations which still
       possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in
       the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old
       Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,'
       and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"

          A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era,
          Historical Essays, etc., essay 9.

       "We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought
       history home to people who would never have looked into the
       ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us
       confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods
       which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either
       of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators.
       Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott
       to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great
       personages of history were after all men and women of flesh
       and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical
       literature there is visible the effort to make history more
       personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly
       read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving
       that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its
       origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay
       grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his
       sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had
       read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the
       clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of
       the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally
       possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again
       in his essays, and which at last he realized with such
       wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make
       history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the
       most famous of a large group of writers who have been
       possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical
       romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history.
       And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this
       is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have
       genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind
       of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it.
       Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose
       perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national
       events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the
       elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not
       like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than
       is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to
       submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of
       life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like
       romance, so history when it is studied in original documents
       looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which
       historians have accustomed us to."

          J. R. Seeley,
          History and Polities
          (Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879).

    HISTORY:
       How to study History.

       "The object of the historical student is to bring before his
       mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times
       which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from
       a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more
       elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system
       of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to
       read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three
       things carefully, the historical student carries away an
       impression of his period which will never be effaced."

          Prof. A. B. Hart,
          How to Study History
          (Chautauquan, October, 1893).

    HISTORY:
       The Importance of a knowledge of Universal History.

       "When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil
       thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before
       he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen,
       and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience.
       Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on
       the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his
       learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his
       insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish
       to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which
       have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them
       is universal history, the general course of the history of the
       world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more
       important for the consideration of any human being than the
       knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since
       the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now
       attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to
       know how affairs came into that position. Besides the
       satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we
       can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere
       survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in
       the character of the community.
    {1655}
       Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German
       parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two
       books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the
       present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these
       universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In
       England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria,
       and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an
       essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is
       taken as a subject under certain conditions in the
       Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the
       notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject
       who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient,
       mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the
       student did know, and still more at what he was expected to
       know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of
       all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of
       Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper
       text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the
       attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no
       difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly
       every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the
       enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic
       march of human events and the preparation for any future
       course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German
       professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few
       English boys or even English men have any notion of their
       centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked
       a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C.
       or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B.
       D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar
       answer."

          O. Browning,
          The Teaching of History in Schools
          (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
          new series, volume 4).

    HISTORY:
       The Importance of Local History.

       "From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded
       that one of the best introductions to history that can be
       given in American high schools, and even in those of lower
       grade, is through a study of the community in which the school
       is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best
       American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local
       interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his
       native country best.' The best students of universal history
       are those who know some one country or some one subject well.
       The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the
       parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are
       historically the ways by which men have approached national
       and international life. It was a preliminary study of the
       geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to
       study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to
       establish the new science of comparative geography. He says:
       'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over
       the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one
       capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the
       globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of
       geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the
       district where we live. … American local history should be
       studied as a contribution to national history. This country
       will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic
       growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm
       of state life. And some day this country will be studied in
       its international relations, as an organic part of a larger
       organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely
       developing through the operation of economic, legal, social,
       and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and
       British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American
       history in its widest relations is not to be written by any
       one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow
       with the nation and with its developing consciousness of
       internationality. The present possibilities for the real
       progress of historic and economic science lie, first and
       foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and
       practical historians, who realize that history is past
       politics and politics present history; secondly, in the
       expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of
       its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations
       of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power
       in these days of growing centralization. National and
       international life can best develop upon the constitutional
       basis of local self-government in church and state. … If
       young Americans are to appreciate their religious and
       political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth.
       They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things
       around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for
       town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to
       speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the
       majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as
       the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen
       as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English
       reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught
       to see in the town common or village green a survival of that
       primitive institution of land-community upon which town and
       state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and
       family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place
       hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences
       around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive
       town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a
       name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the
       most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. …
       It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development
       of historical science in America if teachers in our public
       schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils
       with special reference to the local environment. … A
       multitude of historical associations gather around every old
       town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and
       traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and
       grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest
       inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old
       documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the
       early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of
       information more authentic than tradition, and yet often
       entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not
       necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban
       dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe,
       or even with the presidents of the United States. These
       subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for
       beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of
       greater interest and vitality.
    {1656}
       The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the
       world is from a local environment through widening circles of
       interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the
       broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study
       of the community in which the student dwells will serve to
       connect that community not only with the origin and growth of
       the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the
       German fatherland, with village communities throughout the
       Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome;
       from these classic lands to Persia and India."

          H. B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2),
          pages 16-21.

       ----------HISTORY: Start--------

    HITCHITIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    HITTIN, Battle of (1187).

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

    HITTITES, The.

       The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or
       Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war.
       Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized
       and powerful nation and played a more important part in the
       early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed.
       Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria
       which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the
       Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but
       scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be
       found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the
       Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of
       empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from
       the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is
       conjectured that these people were originally from the
       Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are
       still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the
       plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the
       language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that
       language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper
       names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show
       that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."

          A. H. Sayee,
          Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 5.

       "We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the
       existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is
       certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also
       by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses
       II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks
       allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already
       exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of
       Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the
       Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could
       summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north.
       Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as
       powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful,
       and there was always a refuge among them for those who were
       oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a
       Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It
       was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject
       provinces were consolidated together under a central
       authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It
       was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the
       Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented
       the organised union of numerous states and nations under a
       single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact,
       empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a
       foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces
       had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could
       be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be
       crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an
       empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia
       Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the
       distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the
       Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the
       tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the
       command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they
       acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and
       followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief.
       If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean,
       and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact
       homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have
       had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its
       wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors
       would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There
       was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the
       western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had
       their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this
       period lingered on into classical days."

          A. H. Sayee,
          The Hittites,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Wright,
          The Empire of the Hittites.

          See, also,
          AMORITES; and ITALY, ANCIENT: EARLY ITALIANS.

    HIVITES, The.

       The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the
       Israelites invaded it.

          See AMALEKITES.

    HLÆFDIGE.

          See LADY.

    HLAFORD.

          See LORD.

    HLUDWIG.

          See LOUIS.

    HOARD.
    HORDERE.

          See STALLER.

    HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

    HOCHE, Campaigns of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
          PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    HOCHELAGA.

       The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of
       the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of
       surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name
       Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river
       of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535,
          and CANADA: NAMES.

    HOCHHEIM, The storming of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

    HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

       ----------HOCHSTADT: Start--------

    HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).

       The great battle which English historians name from the
       village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the
       neighboring town of Hochstadt.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

    HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

       ----------HOCHSTADT: End--------

    {1657}

    HODEIBIA, Truce of.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

    HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

    HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    HOHENSTAUFEN OR SUABIAN FAMILY, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
          and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.

    HOHENZOLLERN:
       Rise of the House of.

       "Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the
       sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north
       from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs
       of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is
       perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old
       Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black
       Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful
       Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name
       'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls.
       Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper
       'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars
       climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus
       far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in
       unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but
       we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known:
       That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing
       anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its
       'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable
       way ever since."

          T. Carlyle,
          Frederick the Great,
          book 2, chapter 5.

       "The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in
       the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the
       Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of
       Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his
       descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired
       extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and
       their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight
       in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was
       enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made
       his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter
       confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained
       knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the
       Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the
       margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

          C. T. Lewis,
          History of Germany,
          book 3, chapter 12, section 1.

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.

    HOHENZOLLERN INCIDENT, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

       ----------HOLLAND: Start--------

    HOLLAND:
       The country and its Name.

          See NETHERLANDS.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1430.
       Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.

       See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1477.
       The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491.
       The Bread and Cheese War.
       End of the Party of the Hooks.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1494.
       The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome.
       Friesland detached.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609.
       The Austro-Spanish tyranny.
       Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
       Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747.
       Wars with England and France.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1746.
       The restored Stadtholdership.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810.
       French invasion and conquest.
       The Batavian Republic.
       The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte.
       Annexation to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
          1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
          and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
       Independence regained.
       Belgium annexed.
       The kingdom of the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813;
          FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
          and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
       Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
       Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

       ----------HOLLAND: Start--------

    HOLLAND PURCHASE, The.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

    HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    HOLOCAUST.

       "The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was
       kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by
       the ancient Greeks.

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          page 60.

       ----------HOLSTEIN: Start--------

    HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866.
       The Schleswig-Holstein question.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

    HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866.
       Annexation to Prussia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

       ----------HOLSTEIN: End--------

    HOLY ALLIANCE, The.

       "The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched
       at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the
       Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by
       [the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated
       conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was
       suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia
       after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the
       influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of
       the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher
       Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the
       deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar
       dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by
       the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia
       signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar,
       without attaching much importance to what he did. … The
       emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first
       declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a
       political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a
       religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich
       accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du
       verbiage.'
    {1658}
       Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance,
       with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it
       seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi
       observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of
       events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest
       real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance
       of the good understanding between the powers who had put down
       Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good
       understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the
       20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers
       should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to
       regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It
       was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up
       close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and
       Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the
       Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to
       be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of
       repression."

          M. E. G. Duff,
          Studies in European Polities,
          chapter 2.

       The text of the Treaty is as follows:

       "In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy
       Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their
       Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the
       Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events
       which have marked the course of the three last years in
       Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased
       Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place
       their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the
       intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to
       be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon
       the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour
       teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no
       other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world,
       their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their
       respective States, and in their political relations with every
       other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of
       that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian
       Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to
       private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the
       councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the
       only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying
       their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have
       agreed on the following Articles:—

          Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures,
          which command all men to consider each other as brethren,
          the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the
          bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and
          considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on
          all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and
          assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their
          subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead
          them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are
          animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

          Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force,
          whether between the said Governments or between their
          Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal
          service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the
          mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to
          consider themselves all as members of one and the same
          Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on
          themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern
          three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia,
          and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of
          which they and their people form a part, has in reality no
          other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really
          belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures
          of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God,
          our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of
          Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their
          people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means
          of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience,
          and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every
          day more and more in the principles and exercise of the
          duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

          Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow
          the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act,
          and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness
          of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should
          henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the
          influence which belongs to them, will be received with
          equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in
          triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815,
          14/26th September."

       "It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of
       the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to
       it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and
       Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither
       the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

          E. Hertslet,
          Map of Europe by Treaty,
          volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319.

       "The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name
       of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received
       a letter declaring that his principles had the personal
       approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The
       Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and
       in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and
       of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

       "Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as
       'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a
       religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would
       misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none
       knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements,
       and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many
       crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made
       Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe
       conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects.
       Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose
       common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein
       approved. He exerted his influence over each of them
       separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his
       minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch
       against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he
       won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked
       every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He
       told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he
       prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for
       truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by
       which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were
       governed.
    {1659}
       In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning
       nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel
       in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of
       craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his
       competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal
       than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and
       nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm,
       sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg
       dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that
       House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State.
       But the central figure in his perspective was always himself,
       whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose
       preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of
       his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all
       change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface
       smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a
       spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,'
       he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the
       spiders only because they die naturally so young that they
       have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the
       nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his
       forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due
       quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He
       seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might
       have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick
       William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty
       in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most
       dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment
       of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth
       century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the
       resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort
       towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names
       have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared.
       The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than
       Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in
       inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and
       all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he
       flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish
       Inquisitors had for heretics."

          W. R. Thayer,
          The Dawn of Italian Independence,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    HOLY BROTHERHOOD, OR HERMANDAD, The.

       Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in
       Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which
       sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely
       compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the
       celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association
       was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the
       lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very
       adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed
       at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a
       regularly organized police, it then consisted of a
       confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a
       solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties
       in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by
       deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose,
       transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws
       which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the
       sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed
       force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of
       1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and
       inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. …
       In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that
       if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his
       property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to
       the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the
       king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be
       put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand
       and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the
       license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile,
       and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was
       one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project
       for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into
       the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at
       Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially
       from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial
       in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom;
       and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case,
       against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the
       suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the
       maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its
       jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the
       highways or in the open country, and in cities by such
       offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape;
       and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of
       18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or
       householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman,
       whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence
       of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the
       villages through which he was supposed to have passed were
       sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood,
       stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with
       such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of
       two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty
       families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction
       of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified
       cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of
       deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually
       convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions
       were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the
       execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular
       constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages
       attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so
       decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the
       check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it
       required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect
       its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting
       from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation
       by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of
       the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in
       1498, the objects for which it was established having been
       completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the
       nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed.
       The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate
       functionaries were retained for the administration of justice,
       over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate
       jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa
       Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name,
       dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with
       various modifications of form, down to the present century."

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
          introduction, section 1, with foot-note,
          and part 1, chapter 6.

    {1660}

    HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

    HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

    HOLY JUNTA, The.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

       ----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------

    HOLY LEAGUES:
       Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

       Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

       German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of
       Smalcald.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

       Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

       Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

       Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia
       against the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

       ----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------

    HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

    HOLY OFFICE, The.

          See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
       Its origin.

          See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

       Its extinction.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

    HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.

       "A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine
       of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret,
       and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their
       kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round
       which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the
       Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh.
       The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to
       frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it
       a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as
       Holyrood House."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 20 (volume 2).

       The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was
       carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone,"
       by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and
       then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which
       it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

    HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

          See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

    HOMAGE.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.

    HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

       "When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person
       historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the
       main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful
       poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the
       world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is
       conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different
       from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.'
       … At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the
       poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a
       school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making
       it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the
       question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted,
       whether they present substantially the character of what may
       be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually
       diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of
       the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a
       far greater amount of information than is to be found in any
       other literary production of the same compass. In the second
       place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be
       had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the
       utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to
       us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most
       gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they
       became such as in later times we know them. … And this
       picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars
       and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an
       age been so completely placed upon record. … We are …
       probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place
       to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his
       knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an
       ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. …
       It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of
       Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the
       time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching
       revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for
       those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this
       belief involves the further proposition that the poet was
       severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects
       of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon
       the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a
       perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an
       historical character. … The question … has to be decided …
       by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I
       venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an
       European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian
       Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when
       the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the
       race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its
       close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy
       was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking
       the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol
       of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform
       assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length
       pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After
       slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the
       publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack.
       … Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at,
       or till long after, the period of their composition; and that
       works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written
       characters, could not have been transmitted through a course
       of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they
       could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at
       a later date."

          W. E. Gladstone,
          Homer (Literature Primers),
          chapters 1-2.

    {1661}

       "Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total
       unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion
       reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so
       remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition
       that when they were composed the revolution in question had
       not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

          A. M. Clerke,
          Familiar Studies in Homer,
          chapter 1.

       "It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have
       the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards
       the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of
       the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer
       makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist
       a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions
       for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city
       'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such
       as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

          See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.

       It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the
       poems describe was one which really existed in the place where
       they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking
       illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that
       we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time
       before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the
       traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But
       the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for
       there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation
       which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which
       we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered
       by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of
       these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with
       Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be
       far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in
       dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains
       the question of the historical basis which may underlie the
       story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of
       Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that
       the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But
       here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those
       of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to
       confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the
       tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey
       are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been
       gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued
       at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century
       ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition,
       and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical
       view."

          W. Leaf,
          Companion to the Iliad,
          introd.

       "It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and
       Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian,
       Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far
       from the coast on which these three names were attached to
       successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the
       ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must
       turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims
       of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the
       chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient
       seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not
       actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the
       seat of Achæan empire."

          D. B. Monro,
          Homer and the Early History of Greece
          (English Historical Review, January, 1886).

       "I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a
       single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration
       which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This
       primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B.
       C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia,
       and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original
       nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece
       proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was
       carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out;
       and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local
       traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and
       Ionian society."

          R. C. Jebb,
          The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
          page 14.

          R. C. Jebb,
          Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey.

       "We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The
       inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory
       seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly
       exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great
       harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and
       sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more
       difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may
       make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we
       have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity,
       the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to
       do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and
       compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse
       places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient,
       demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the
       opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of
       literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the
       'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

          A. Lang,
          Homer and the Epic,
          chapters 7 and 13.

    HOMERITES, The.

          See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

    HOMESTEAD ACT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).

    HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.

       A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding
       army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by
       the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the
       Battle of Humbledon.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

    HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

          SEE ARIANISM.

    HOMS, Battle of (1832).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

    HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

       ----------HONDURAS: Start--------

    HONDURAS:
       Aboriginal inhabitants.
       Ruins of Ancient Civilization.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.

    HONDURAS: A. D. 1502.
       Discovery by Columbus.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

    HONDURAS: A. D. 1524.
       Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

    {1662}

    HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.
       Separation from Spain and independence.
       Brief annexation to Mexico.
       Attempted federations and their failure.
       The British colony.

          See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

       ----------HONDURAS: End--------

    HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850.
       The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

          See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

    HONE, William, The Trials of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    HONEIN, Battle of.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842.
       Ceded to Great Britain.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

    HONG MERCHANTS.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

    HONORIUS,
       Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.
       Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.
       Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.
       Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.
       Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

    HONOURS, Escheated.

       "When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the
       hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated
       with the general body of the county or counties in which it
       lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole
       apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under
       the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession
       of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out
       again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

           W. Stubbs,
           Constitutional History of England,
           chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

    HOOD, General John B.
       The Atlanta campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
          (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

    HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA),
          and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

       Transfer to Chattanooga.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

       At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
          (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
          also, 1482-1493.

    HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

    HOPLITES.

       Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

          See PHYLÆ.

    HORESTII, The.

          See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

    HORIKANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.

    HORITES, The.

       The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At
       the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed
       many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land.
       They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests
       very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel, introduction,
          section 4.

       F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided
       into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim
       and the Anakim.

          Manual of Ancient History,
          book 6, chapter 1.

          See, also,
          JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

    HORMUZ, Battle of.

       The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz,
       in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was
       overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New
       Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 3.

    HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

    HORN, Cape.
       Discovered by Drake (1578).

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

    HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 286.

    HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

    HOSPES.
    HOSPITES.
    HOSPITIUM.

       "In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and
       Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent
       tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger
       was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for
       a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation
       which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form
       previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who
       might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his
       protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal.
       … An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the
       parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to
       each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double
       signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an
       entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the
       covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. …
       The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. …
       The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their
       descendants might recognise each other. This token, called
       'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process
       of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common
       for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any
       individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of
       the whole community."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 3.

       ----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------

    HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights:
       A. D. 1115-1310.
       The origin and rise of the order.

       "Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,
       had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission
       of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of
       the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the
       Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks
       were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A
       nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of
       pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated
       to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of
       Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,
       to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the
       bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the
       faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with
       attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of
       Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the
       hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the
       sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.
       Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;
       his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the
       Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from
       the monastery.
    {1663}
       They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed
       for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight
       points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia
       to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as
       brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of
       the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight
       of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of
       Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in
       the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

          T. Keightley,
          The Crusaders,
          chapter 2.

       To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military
       character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care
       of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which
       characterized the Knights of St. John during all their
       subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was
       drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three
       classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms
       and form a military body for service in the field against the
       enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem
       in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or
       gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly,
       the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank,
       and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the
       care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were
       considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual
       three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the
       Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order
       spread and the number of its members and convents increased,
       it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or
       'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were
       ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France,
       Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black
       robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight
       points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all
       Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged;
       but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights
       should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground.
       … It was not long before the new Order found a field for the
       exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were
       always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every
       battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their
       gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted
       fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of
       every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the
       King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal
       kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its
       ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see
       JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there
       the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and
       fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel
       and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their
       pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and
       turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the
       Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to
       cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying
       pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the
       enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence
       they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in
       a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

          F. C. Woodhouse,
          Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
          part 1, chapter 3-6.

          ALSO IN:
          Abbe de Vertot,
          History of the Knights Hospitallers,
          books 1-3 (volume 1).

          A. Sutherland,
          Achievements of the Knights of Malta,
          chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

    HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310.
       Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

       "The most important conquest of the time … was that of
       Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
       both from its durability and from the renown of the
       conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had
       been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to
       remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form
       a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests
       from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to
       maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited
       permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the
       Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and
       bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences,
       besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under
       the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb,
       the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes.
       So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they
       sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to
       withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its
       dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him
       with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus
       dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the
       siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the
       city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this
       beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian
       Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the
       chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb
       at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a
       romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained
       the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening
       to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a
       class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The
       little realm they governed as an independent state consisted
       of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos,
       Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite
       continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus,
       and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still
       overhang the sea."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
          book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Porter,
          History of the Knights of Malta,
          chapters 7-10 (volume 1).

    HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482.
       Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522.
       Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

       In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned
       his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at
       that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small
       state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of
       Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the
       field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,
       appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of
       5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers
       de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour
       rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous
       juncture.
    {1664}
       No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's
       vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the
       Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common
       enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes
       to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and
       trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security
       against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,
       with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,
       exhorted the contending powers to forget their private
       quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
       from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
       name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
       parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
       of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
       exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
       operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
       grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
       patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
       months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
       post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
       numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
       the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
       surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
       and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
       of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
       ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
       each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
       equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
       the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
       they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
       and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
       the infidels."

          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Torr,
          Rhodes in Modern Times,
          chapter 1.

          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          chapter 10 (volume 1).

    HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.
       Occupation of Malta.
       Improvement and fortification of the island.
       The great siege.
       The Turks repelled.

       "Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]
       predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part
       of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to
       the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own
       interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no
       revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged
       with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made
       frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and
       dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this
       transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he
       not only relieved himself of all further expense on its
       account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of
       his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his
       brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It
       was not very long before the wilderness before them was to
       blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was
       brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.
       Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the
       rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was
       soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In
       a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,
       which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its
       garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works
       was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the
       accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not
       until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are
       now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices
       that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride
       of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to
       battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils
       of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights
       of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the
       Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the
       East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,
       "resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the
       knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by
       driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a
       formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de
       la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long
       in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself
       for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He
       addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He
       summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to
       Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming
       struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and
       military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia
       of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000
       men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and
       Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,
       strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition
       for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette
       could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000
       men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already
       arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their
       way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The
       Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It
       comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a
       number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,
       independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,
       was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The
       command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One
       of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the
       Spaniards at Gelves.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

       He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
       were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
       The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
       island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
       speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
       over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
       the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
       of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
       the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
       the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
       called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
       mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
       and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
       episodes of war in the 16th century.
    {1665}
       The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
       assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
       Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
       these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
       its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
       at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
       of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
       and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
       After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
       concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
       from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
       peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
       extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
       works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
       of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
       fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
       batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
       they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
       repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
       Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
       and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
       knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
       relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
       disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
       Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
       reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
       … The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
       30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
       grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
       soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
       children,—are said to have perished."

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Philip II.,
          book 4, chapters 2-5.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Porter,
          History of the Knights of Malta,
          chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

          S. Lane-Poole,
          Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
          chapter 13.

    HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.
       Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

       "The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the
       Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on
       the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest
       and affluence produced gradually their usual
       consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The
       'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long
       years, in which there were no events to bind them together in
       united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had
       become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789
       the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European
       nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had
       received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their
       grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully
       contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in
       his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the
       confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when
       the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

          W. Tallack,
          Malta,
          section 8.

       "In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
       and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
       to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
       executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
       Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
       there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
       incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
       Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
       had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
       doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
       rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
       (of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
       troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
       Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
       troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
       at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
       Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
       sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
       refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
       taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
       French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
       taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
       would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
       rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
       palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
       knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
       the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
       Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
       capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
       France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
       within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
       taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
       collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
       following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
       obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
       remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
       Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
       practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
       Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
       to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
       Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
       mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
       Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
       for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
       undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
       Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
       restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
       nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
       into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
       again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
       England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
       Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
       Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
       do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
       Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
       knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
       Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
       appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
       Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
    {1666}
       [Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
       titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
       In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
       capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
       or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
       the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
       Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
       Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
       Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting
       hospitals."

          F. C. Woodhouse,
          Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
          part 1, chapter 20.

       ----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------

    HOSPODAR.

       "A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =
       Lord)."

          J. Samuelson, Roumania,
          page 209, foot-note.

    HOSTIS.

          See PEREGRINI.

    HOTTENTOTS, The.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
          and A. D. 1486-1806;
          also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS.

          See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
          and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

    HOUSE OF KEYS, The.

          See MANX KINGDOM.

    HOUSE OF LORDS.

          See LORDS, HOUSE OF.

    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

          See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    HOUSECARLS.

       "No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent
       military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.
       1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly
       under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These
       were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so
       much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls
       were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an
       institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well
       as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under
       Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at
       their head."

           E. A. Freeman,
           Norman Conquest,
           chapter 6, section 2,
           and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).

    HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

    HOVAS, The.

          See MALAYAN RACE.

    HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

    HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord,
    and the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

       Naval Victory (1794).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American
    Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);
          1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

    HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

          See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

    HUAMABOYA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    HUANCAS, The.

          See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    HUASTECS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

    HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.

          See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

    HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

    HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY,
       Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.

    HUECOS, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

       ----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------

    HUGUENOTS.
       First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
       Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.
       Ascendancy in Navarre.

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
       Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
       The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.
       The Wars of Religion in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.
       The Edict of Nantes.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
       Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
       Continued desertion of nobles.
       Leadership of the clergy.
       Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.
       Renewed revolt.
       Second Treaty of Montpellier.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
       Revolt in alliance with England.
       Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
       End of political Huguenotism in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.
       Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
       The climax of persecution in France.
       The Dragonnades.
       The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
       The great exodus.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

    HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.
       The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

       ----------HUGUENOTS: End--------

    HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

    HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

    HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

       Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
       after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
       Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
       October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

          C. R. Markham,
          Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
          chapter 12.

          See, also,
          WINCEBY FIGHT.

    HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

    HULST, Battle of (1642).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    HUMANISM.

          See RENAISSANCE.

    HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    {1667}

    HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

    HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.

    HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

    HUMBLEDON, Battle of.

          See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.

    HUNDRED, The.

       "The union of a number of townships for the purpose of
       judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is
       known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering
       to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the
       'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,
       which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,
       has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use
       of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in
       comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent
       its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred
       judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains
       abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration
       of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of
       the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other
       enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may
       be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive
       organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial
       hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is
       capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been
       regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of
       land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to
       the host; as representing the original settlement of the
       hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of
       which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar
       to English history, and the same result may have followed from
       very different causes as probably as from the same causes,
       here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already
       stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in
       hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was
       carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems
       reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,
       we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the
       hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake
       court, was held every month; it was called six days before the
       day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was
       attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their
       stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the
       reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal
       jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial
       court leet."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).

       "By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much
       diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between
       township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of
       the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost
       everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred
       had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of
       its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and
       should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of
       the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but
       they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name
       soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,
       for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred
       flourished and became the political unit, like the township in
       New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the
       district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it
       was also the representative district. … The hundred had also
       its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects
       like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings
       enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often
       exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution
       they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct
       in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the
       county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this
       day."

          J. Fiske,
          Civil Government in the United States,
          chapter 4, section 1.

    HUNDRED DAYS, The.

       The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
       return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
       Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
       Hundred Days.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The

          See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

       ----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------

    HUNGARIANS, The.

       "Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the
       Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The
       original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called
       Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian
       mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,
       who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the
       most important of the western branches are the Finns and
       Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk
       Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great
       Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish
       tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the
       plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the
       reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.
       They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the
       name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has
       been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is
       difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the
       foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the
       degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by
       historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;
       but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,
       the description given of them by an old chronicler of the
       ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely
       with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

          Dr. W. Smith,
          Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 55.

       "That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural
       Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions
       being against it. Hence it is just possible that a
       whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the
       Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most
       Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

          R. G. Latham,
          Ethnology of Europe,
          chapter 11.

       "According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling
       caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor
       the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';
       and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the
       rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          A. J. Patterson,
          The Magyars,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

    {1668}

    HUNGARIANS:
       Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

       "The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and
       probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by
       internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home
       for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores
       of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly
       struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the
       very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the
       eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their
       chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the
       frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the
       conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of
       about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,
       and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The
       country which they prepared to take possession of, and the
       central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up
       into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin
       and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and
       Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with
       his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four
       centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most
       dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost
       unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from
       victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the
       land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the
       same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the
       Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.
       Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on
       the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was
       Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far
       from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody
       adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken
       by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor
       Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.
       The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought
       the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down
       from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient
       to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths
       of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by
       mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from
       the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were
       simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the
       inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of
       Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were
       repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy
       tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her
       geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of
       these new neighbours."

          E. Szabad,
          Hungary, Past and Present,
          part 1, chapter 1.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

    HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.
       Ravages in Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

    HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
       Repulse from Germany.

       "The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by
       the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,
       in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the
       Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the
       Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his
       son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest
       estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic
       faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and
       they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the
       heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho
       dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,
       unless they were true to each other, their religion and
       country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were
       reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in
       eight legions, according to the division of provinces and
       tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].
       … The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly
       passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the
       Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the
       baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The
       battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the
       Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with
       an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought
       under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in
       merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred
       years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the
       flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers
       of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the
       hope of mercy."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
          chapter 55.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Menzel,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 135 (volume 1).

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          volume 2, pages 656-665.

          A. W. Grube,
          Heroes of History and Legend,
          chapter 8.

       ----------HUNGARIANS: End--------

    HUNGARY:
       Ancient.

          See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

    HUNGARY:
       The Huns in possession.

          See HUNS.

    HUNGARY:
       The Avars in possession.

          See AVARS.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
       Christianization of the Magyars.
       Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
       Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

       "King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN
       EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan
       Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was
       never again able to cross, and even within these limits the
       Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part
       they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to
       exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast
       they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from
       the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to
       develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours
       gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …
       Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke
       of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,
       and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her
       influence in favour of her religion.
    {1669}
       She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came
       to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and
       Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic
       conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the
       'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of
       the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He
       sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was
       able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great
       Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,
       continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to
       Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and
       solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name
       of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort
       of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially
       from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate
       relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the
       empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir
       presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,
       daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of
       Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another
       married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,
       Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European
       states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by
       Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the
       position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its
       conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar
       historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the
       invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king
       Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use
       persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he
       hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an
       ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who
       graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,
       and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that
       he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the
       Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to
       Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege
       of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of
       the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity
       of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,
       however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,
       still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this
       great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom
       between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of
       Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.
       His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in
       the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his
       son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written
       his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as
       a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were
       harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of
       August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his
       nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was
       driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the
       country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a
       tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of
       Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother
       Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with
       revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in
       1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails
       in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This
       prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry
       IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating
       position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him
       of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for
       having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged
       to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling
       against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged
       the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience
       to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in
       the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He
       was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to
       make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The
       dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …
       The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]
       was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been
       elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left
       the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made
       himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had
       himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of
       Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,
       Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted
       them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself
       crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this
       time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very
       much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria
       in later times."

          L. Leger,
          History of Austro-Hungary,
          chapters 5-6.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
          9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.
       Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
       The Golden Bull of King Bela.
       Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
       The end of the Arpad dynasty.

       "Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
       after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
       important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
       the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
       Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
       ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
       several important events. Having entirely reduced
       Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
       kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
       Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
       German settlers received from the king a separate district,
       being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
       particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
       century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
       and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
       war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
       More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
       throne in 1205. …
    {1670}
       Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
       to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
       nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
       the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
       afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
       scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
       unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
       favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
       oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
       king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
       arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
       addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
       the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
       became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
       privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
       Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
       of this charter were as follows:

       1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
       either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

       2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
       previously tried and legally sentenced;

       3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the
       property of the nobles;

       4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
       of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

       5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor
       given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

       The most important point, however, was article 31st, which
       conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case
       of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions
       contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower
       clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the
       determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of
       the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the
       charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning
       of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions
       caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary
       in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,
       after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in
       Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a
       greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary
       with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the
       Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and
       Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of
       Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions
       facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on
       the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the
       total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with
       astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a
       few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not
       contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised
       snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making
       their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths
       of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo
       was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of
       state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a
       proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king
       [calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed
       the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable
       people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their
       homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work
       of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and
       then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in
       the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the
       Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving
       assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a
       prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to
       Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime
       Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the
       death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne
       by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen
       was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied
       himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew
       and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see
       AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called
       the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal
       dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were
       continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own
       tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,
       was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the
       house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with
       Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his
       son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops
       before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to
       sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew
       having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this
       matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.
       Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.
       Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,
       who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of
       his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring
       them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of
       Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

          E. Szabad,
          Hungary, Past and Present,
          part 1, chapter 2.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.
       Wallachian struggle for independence.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
          14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
       The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
       Conquests of Louis the Great.
       Beginning of wars with the Turks.
       The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

       On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
       line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
       crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
       fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
       of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
       Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
       Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
       crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
       prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
       distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
       from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
       Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
       Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
       at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
       uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
       him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
    {1671}
       This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
       Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
       united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
       reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
       to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
       the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
       formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
       Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
       1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
       Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
       disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
       Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
       Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
       which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
       provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
       acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
       Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
       the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
       protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
       Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
       Austria, who reigned only two years."

          C. W. Koch,
          The Revolutions of Europe, period 5.

       "Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first
       prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of
       Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the
       Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had
       married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,
       Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured
       for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German
       Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,
       to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with
       her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though
       40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future
       husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in
       Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her
       to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian
       nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his
       dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund
       expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon
       after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and
       immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her
       agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.
       He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.
       … The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both
       to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal
       expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,
       before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,
       forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity
       and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti
       Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;
       while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king
       in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged
       the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the
       clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the
       feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations
       were now adopted respecting the military system of the
       kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually
       to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus
       [Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of
       the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of
       Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife
       Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long
       minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her
       to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown
       should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging
       that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would
       endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the
       duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the
       Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.
       … Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the
       court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth
       brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,
       was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of
       the arrangement that had been made; and the news having
       arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor
       of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry
       the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the
       Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had
       accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.
       … The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was
       headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was
       compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,
       carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her
       infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick
       III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and
       Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed
       upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that
       one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the
       contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, Dec. 24th,
       1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the
       ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the
       great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over
       the Turks gave him enormous influence."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          introduction (volume 1).

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1364.
       Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386.
       Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444.
       Wars of Huniades with the Turks.

          See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
       The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
       Regency of Huniades.
       His defeat of the Turks and his death.
       His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

       Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement
       that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary
       until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be
       possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without
       issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two
       daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother
       Casimir.
    {1672}
       The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia;
       and the administration during his minority vested in two
       Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the
       Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George
       Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in
       the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a
       ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young
       Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians
       entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the
       redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the
       Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found
       himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the
       Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of
       the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the
       age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the
       Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign
       at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of
       Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were
       directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government
       caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the
       custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor,
       and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a
       force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous;
       he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and
       compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person
       of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then
       assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in
       their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together
       with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal
       great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic
       does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following
       year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant
       of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a
       level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia
       at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to
       visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the
       power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as
       to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An
       attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna;
       but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and
       prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an
       apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the
       regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the
       credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the
       moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over
       his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks
       [1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation;
       the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the
       Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna;
       whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm.
       … The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain
       preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle,
       were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to
       30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see
       TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long
       survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the
       enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions.
       Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who
       were as much the idols of their country as they were objects
       of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took
       care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but
       the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus
       Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter,
       Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his
       favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King
       Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured
       into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457].
       Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the
       indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his
       prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant
       disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering
       for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged
       the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the
       Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI.,
       whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians
       rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on
       the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified
       their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing
       his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for
       40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled
       himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and
       his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him
       in a war with the new King of Hungary."

          Sir R. Comyn,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapter 28 (volume 2).

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1444.
       Wallachia taken from the Turks.

          See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.
       King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of
       Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
       The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the
       Turks.
       Conquest and occupation of Austria.

       Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of
       George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his
       father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now
       involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was
       agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles
       breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to
       Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having
       subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built
       the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed
       Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,
       Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and
       prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,
       he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated
       by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by
       an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the
       united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two
       sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years
       and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to
       repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of
       Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a
       reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself
       [on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of
       100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the
       side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.
    {1673}
       Having in consequence of these successes delivered his
       dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to
       gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had
       afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating
       Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had
       abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to
       fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of
       Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland
       and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally
       conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."
       Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks
       (1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.
       "Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the
       smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran
       the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and
       either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,
       as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,
       and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions
       imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment
       of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,
       when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in
       hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by
       his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he
       acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,
       Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in
       1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his
       death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his
       arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the
       former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four
       years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of
       the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that
       they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the
       neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of
       Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite
       residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary
       dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach
       of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to
       convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of
       Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the
       small force at his command, could only retard the progress of
       the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In
       consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in
       November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted
       to retain possession of the conquered territories, until
       Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed
       the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that
       period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 18 (volume 1).

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
       Death of Matthias.
       Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of
       Jagellon.
       Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.
       Loss of the Austrian provinces.
       Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.
       Insurrection of the Kurucs.
       Loss of Belgrade.
       Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.
       The end of Hungarian independence.

       "When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias,
       who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his
       power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present
       time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power
       had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of
       Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had
       no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his
       natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his
       successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50,
       without having arranged anything definitely for the future of
       his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the
       reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to
       watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of
       rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned
       to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of
       Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old
       rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St.
       Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by
       Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against
       Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate.
       Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the
       Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against
       his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of
       Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, …
       whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed
       to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in
       case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in
       which the king disposed of the country without consulting the
       diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks
       thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet
       II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not
       be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save,
       and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly
       disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by
       the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in
       his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and
       later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave
       the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to
       Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. …
       To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a
       terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz
       came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade
       against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves,
       as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then
       turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible
       insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection
       of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief
       leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the
       Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle
       near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their
       vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on
       a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a
       red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage
       that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died
       in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be
       summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the
       defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was
       corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and
       his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion.
    {1674}
       The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the
       leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of
       sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the
       greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever
       deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign
       who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before
       he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his
       subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia,
       captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took
       it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The
       key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King
       Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes
       were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when
       joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies
       of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman
       quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300
       cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against
       the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the
       captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey
       of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the
       Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured
       Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the
       right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army
       was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory,
       archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom
       Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by
       Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi
       wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help
       to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the
       impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At
       first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the
       Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his
       army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that
       then the main body of his troops should close around them.
       When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were
       overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat.
       They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them
       lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain;
       seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the
       field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and
       after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they
       reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias
       Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were
       either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the
       tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land
       covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended
       with Louis II."

          L. Leger,
          History of Austro-Hungary,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          L. Felbermann,
          Hungary and its People,
          chapter 3.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
       Election of John Zapolya to the throne.
       Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.
       Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.
       Great invasion by Soliman.
       Siege of Vienna.
       The sultan master of the greater part of the country.
       Progress of the Reformation.
       Soliman's last invasion.

       "No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,
       under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily
       electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir
       to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,
       far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,
       was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of
       the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne
       found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania
       and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at
       Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,
       which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya
       king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod
       receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the
       palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,
       first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the
       widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to
       enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her
       role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married
       to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon
       repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's
       arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic
       party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of
       Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between
       representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.
       Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts
       beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the
       Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the
       capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign
       mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine
       himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom
       for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the
       renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from
       the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the
       great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met
       no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to
       enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon
       "Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.
       His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed
       himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to
       pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that
       his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected
       native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and
       Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's
       mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna
       [1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of
       Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of
       Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not
       forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though
       neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the
       advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the
       Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their
       way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have
       numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish
       boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of
       the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the
       surrounding country terribly ravaged.
    {1675}
       Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands
       of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery
       the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is
       "an epoch in the history of the world."]

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 9.

       … Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over
       the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to
       Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on
       between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda
       had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf;
       but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to
       eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the
       Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to
       the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in
       vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it
       was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein,
       which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the
       country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to
       Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to
       Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya
       should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was
       to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense
       indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and
       ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of
       momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development
       of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which
       removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the
       very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he
       had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the
       undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of
       Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John
       Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was
       supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George
       Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand
       and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged
       suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to
       Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army
       occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made
       his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep
       permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and
       assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade
       her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice
       which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust.
       Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of
       Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally,
       became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new
       complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when
       Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of
       guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country,
       began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand,
       aware of these circumstances, marched an army into
       Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain
       over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a
       cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced
       into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this
       about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk
       Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his
       own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the
       Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by
       his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of
       Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of
       the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain
       to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his
       Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked
       his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through
       the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian
       throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons.
       Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria;
       Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son,
       got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his
       Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to
       that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as
       his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part
       of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his
       authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left
       Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor,
       although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he
       observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and
       progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious
       reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the
       political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of
       Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many
       persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the
       Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it
       in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might
       win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus
       increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian
       spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its
       way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of
       considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a
       smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's
       followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its
       centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In
       1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from
       his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and
       against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another
       formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress
       of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth,
       by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny.
       These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for
       nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without
       surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of
       20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor
       caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This
       brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new
       peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute
       of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also
       relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a
       sudden death."

          E. Szabad,
          Hungary, Past and Present,
          part 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          R. W. Fraser,
          Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
          chapters 12-13.

    {1676}

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
       Successive disturbances in Transylvania.
       Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and
       consequent revolt.
       Religious persecutions of Rodolph.
       Successful rebellion of Botskai.
       Continued war with the Turks.

       John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the
       peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored
       to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed,
       and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace
       offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both
       parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of
       Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to
       acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in
       addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he
       was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch,
       with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could
       recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to
       confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to
       him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the
       death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was
       to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the
       crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place,
       for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon
       after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to
       Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori,
       who had acted with great reputation as the general and
       minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had
       recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice.
       … The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by
       Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the
       crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship
       and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a
       delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the
       last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his
       dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first
       obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son
       Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at
       Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the
       Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king
       of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later,
       the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which
       secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter
       crown fell to him the following year, when his father died.
       Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was
       easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father,
       and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against
       the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in
       Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance.
       "The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions
       in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the
       enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the
       side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the
       empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the
       contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for
       its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of
       Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital
       of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance.
       He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures,
       which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every
       nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony.
       This feudal establishment gradually extended along the
       frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed,
       at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but
       afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though
       formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats,
       Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror
       among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. …
       Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by
       Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a
       predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The
       truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by
       Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to
       Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines,
       with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, …
       Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his
       numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following
       years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended
       with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage
       ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of
       Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary
       turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of
       the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of
       Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother
       Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and,
       dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the
       protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high
       spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the
       reins of government before he liberated himself from the
       galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive
       alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain
       Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of
       Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. …
       The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. …
       By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered
       from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a
       powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond
       signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill;
       uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he
       defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and
       drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople.
       Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were
       likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the
       Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran
       and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet,
       the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596,
       at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau,
       and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the
       lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his
       arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the
       loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time
       tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without
       vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action.
       But this year, though little distinguished by military events,
       was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by
       the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships
       of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension."
    {1677}
       The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his
       bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion,
       but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again
       to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and
       disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent
       finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then
       placed under the government of the imperial general Basta.
       "His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to
       despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other
       magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of
       the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks.
       Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies
       of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by
       numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the
       capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and
       inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was
       scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for,
       before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated
       by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion
       of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers
       dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the
       principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania,
       Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the
       Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with
       little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the
       confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the
       complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and
       indifference; and the German troops being free from control,
       filled the country with devastation and pillage. While,
       however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to
       chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter
       his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most
       intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in
       various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing
       in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the
       principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond
       Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the
       same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed
       to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a
       Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into
       Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally
       inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested
       or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of
       Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him].
       … He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if
       he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he
       conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh;
       at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and
       Novigrad."

          W. Coxe
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapters 38-42 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
          History of the Protestant Church in Hungary,
          chapters 12-20.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
       The Turkish war.
       Great defeat at Cerestes.
       The Peace of Sitvatorok.

       'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in
       Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious
       that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great
       ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an
       auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The
       Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian
       Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian
       Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the
       Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts
       from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa,
       had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the
       loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk,
       Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the
       monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for
       the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the
       sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time
       was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the
       True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan
       Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders
       under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded
       the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers
       of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and
       captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a
       junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund,
       advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October
       23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on
       the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the
       Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of
       battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished
       to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was
       persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though
       safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle
       was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry
       under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division
       of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the
       time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund
       were flying for their lives, without a single Christian
       regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally
       and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians
       perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. …
       Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to
       Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his
       victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence.
       The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the
       peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of
       Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in
       the territorial possessions of either party, except that the
       Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty,
       and that province became to some extent, though not entirely,
       independent of the Ottoman Empire."

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 12.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
       The Pacification of Vienna.
       Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.
       Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.

       In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed
       to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,
       by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as
       the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with
       Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"
       restored the religious toleration that had been practised by
       Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be
       lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title
       of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated
       that on the failure of his male issue these territories should
       revert to the House of Austria.
    {1678}
       "This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the
       expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed
       of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long
       wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the
       divisions into which it had been split up by the various
       factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,
       was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and
       Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey
       possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania
       736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,
       and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon
       abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the
       plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out
       of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and
       giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke
       Mathias, came to a head.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.

       Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble
       resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and
       compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria
       and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the
       crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of
       king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states.
       Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia,
       which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his
       coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign
       a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that
       the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of
       that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be
       filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real
       property in the country. The peace of the country was soon
       disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel
       Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of
       the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him
       into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly
       fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel
       Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was
       unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the
       sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full
       measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from
       the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not,
       however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had
       been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai,
       by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now
       anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present
       opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in
       wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a
       diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in
       1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all
       aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan
       for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made
       in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus
       tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving
       his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the
       renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in
       his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D.
       1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years'
       War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia.
       "Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the
       Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took
       Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under
       Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got
       possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the
       regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of
       the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a
       long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier
       successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained
       considerable advantages over two generals of ability and
       reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length,
       according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal
       title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in
       Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau,
       Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration
       to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and
       war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000
       men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of
       the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over
       the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw
       of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force,
       captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid
       siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the
       famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking
       their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into
       Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive
       in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the
       approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close.
       The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem
       began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now
       be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of
       Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and
       Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his
       soldiers.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

       … The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the
       Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in
       1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his
       place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania
       enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again
       disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to
       the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures
       against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death
       of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.
       Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which
       became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the
       Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a
       very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time
       Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother
       of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short
       reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving
       his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a
       period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than
       any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the
       revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.
    {1679}
       No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined
       attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians
       oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was
       left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;
       nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend
       it."

          E. L. Godkin,
          History of Hungary,
          chapters 15-17.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
       Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.
       The battle of St. Gothard.
       Liberation of Transylvania.
       A twenty years truce.

       "Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman
       empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was
       suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part
       of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting
       like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George
       Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat
       against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the
       House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper
       Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the
       Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The
       Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the
       service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a
       part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there;
       Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their
       protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their
       attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these
       alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and
       Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two
       oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid
       themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the
       present master. … Religious distrust also complicated
       political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia,
       remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor
       demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the
       Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis
       XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope,
       replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the
       Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half
       to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine;
       that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The
       Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the
       aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing
       danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a
       great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the
       Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in
       the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting
       men, invaded the country between the Danube and the
       Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg
       and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to
       maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast
       intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and
       Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after
       another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to
       Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the
       urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no
       effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the
       Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on
       condition that the Diet should decide, before separating,
       certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty
       of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States
       furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but
       soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000
       Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the
       junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the
       Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the
       offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the
       year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of
       Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed
       them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the
       right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of
       the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army
       was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive
       moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the
       bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the
       French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab
       to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the
       Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the
       Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river
       and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the
       Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were
       continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon
       found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed
       lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet
       Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with
       their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes,
       asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the
       terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the
       Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate
       army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward
       and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first
       slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and
       fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire
       of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The
       fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters
       of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all
       the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the
       immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the
       opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of
       their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them
       expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with
       astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the
       approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he
       seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty
       years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand
       Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its
       elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept
       his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which
       they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the
       Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins
       tribute."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 62 (volume 2).

    {1680}

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
       Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.
       Tekeli's revolt.
       The Turks again called in.
       Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
       Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

       In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive
       Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by
       the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the
       Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to
       the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the
       Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to
       the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to
       all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence
       and devastations of the generals and the German
       administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province.
       The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated
       their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints
       Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared
       not even the families of the most illustrious; several
       magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such
       oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a
       conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain
       Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and
       frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count
       Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at
       the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed
       any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much
       military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House
       of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men,
       defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied
       the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled
       the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the
       truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions,
       which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same
       time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of
       Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this
       conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an
       appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish
       and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier]
       determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader
       offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
       Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave
       him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into
       Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians,
       Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against
       Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria
       and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded
       to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support
       Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of
       1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a
       large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of
       Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."

          S. Menzies,
          Turkey, Old and New,
          book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1).

       "The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led
       to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in
       his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The
       attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any
       but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the
       Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It
       is probable that not less than half a million of men were set
       in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans
       against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor
       money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of
       invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a
       promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had
       previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish
       army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from
       Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious
       check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the
       strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city
       of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count
       Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the
       Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was
       besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted
       from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which
       the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison
       and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by
       the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and
       in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander
       sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha,
       at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by
       storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a
       general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as
       Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the
       Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city
       would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he
       would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if
       the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the
       soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops
       before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted
       to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and
       some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a
       considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at
       Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled
       round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of
       Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear.
       The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to
       the progress of the relieving army through the difficult
       country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of
       September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount
       Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers.
       Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill,
       and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a
       sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly
       encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat
       him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down
       from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult
       for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an
       able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the
       Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march,
       had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of
       action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and
       imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the
       campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the
       chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the
       city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down
       which Sobieski and his troops were advancing.
    {1691}
       In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially
       intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was
       obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a
       direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent
       was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of
       Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really
       among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and
       turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman
       army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha
       with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left
       in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the
       garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the
       whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans
       became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a
       victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid
       trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as
       Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was
       rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement
       of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in
       Europe."

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 16.

       "It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the
       King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared
       the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if
       the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the
       Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans
       would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and
       Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna
       would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to
       internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph
       of their cause would have consoled few for their individual
       destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir
       William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall
       of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent
       increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there
       were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The
       Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France
       and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side
       of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other,
       and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the
       French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the
       controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be
       decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not
       stand neutral."

          H. E. Malden,
          Vienna, 1683,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          The Battle-Fields of Germany,
          chapter 9.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
       End of the insurrection of Tekeli.
       Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.
       The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

       The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the
       insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the
       Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla
       warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the
       capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end
       [1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long
       an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to
       Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in
       Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of
       the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately
       afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming
       the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He
       established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this
       tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in
       the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary,
       Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of
       concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the
       monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should
       now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity
       with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in
       the male line of the house of Habsburg."

          L. Leger,
          History of Austro-Hungary,
          chapter 20.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
       Expulsion of the Turks.
       Battle of Zenta.
       Peace of Carlowitz.

       After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their
       expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began
       the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,
       the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad
       and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they
       defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685
       they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,
       which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they
       laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of
       June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of
       September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and
       regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145
       years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the
       year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several
       lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a
       battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks
       became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the
       House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On
       this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat
       became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier
       battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."
       Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,
       and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,
       what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was
       reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less
       than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another
       was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the
       end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except
       Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the
       Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the
       river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of
       Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both
       Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were
       expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the
       Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by
       Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held
       Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in
       another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years
       little progress in the war was made on either side; until
       Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and
       wrought a speedy change in the military situation.
    {1682}
       The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in
       person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since
       their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September
       11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost
       literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on
       the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had
       reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.
       Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other
       Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living
       Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The
       booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.
       Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There
       was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The
       cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed
       and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part
       of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the
       Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most
       telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of
       inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to
       mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.
       Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at
       Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by
       representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of
       Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,
       after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was
       concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of
       Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the
       territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of
       the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the
       frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended
       only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of
       Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short
       distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the
       country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were
       yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,
       Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the
       Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,
       Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she
       had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,
       and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo
       and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the
       Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of
       its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to
       Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of
       Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."

          G. B. Malleson,
          Prince Eugene of Savoy,
          chapters 2 and 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 17.

          See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League"
          against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only
          a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
       The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.
       The Treaty of Szathmar.
       Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.
       Peace of Passarowitz.

       "The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian
       territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian
       States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in
       itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was
       considerably increased by the general policy continually
       pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of
       Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have
       perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,
       the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of
       entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy
       were ready to second any measure of the government, provided
       they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the
       Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the
       peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in
       the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly
       rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new
       struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen
       Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she
       became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from
       Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a
       proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The
       Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the
       Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during
       the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot
       became master of the greater part of the country. Then there
       occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English
       government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the
       reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and
       more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in
       which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were
       correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from
       France, and France failed them; they had expectations from
       Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war
       decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence
       of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their
       abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance
       which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to
       discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710
       Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting
       help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief
       command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of
       Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled
       the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known
       as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged
       to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,
       besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as
       the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.
       Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by
       Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and
       remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,
       had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,
       which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …
       After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite
       different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a
       century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,
       lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles
       VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new
       war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in
       Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of
       the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the
       Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be
       seen, to his own destruction.
    {1683}
       After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks
       at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly
       all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of
       the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to
       lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the
       whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a
       heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost
       all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year
       1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.
       The present campaign paved the way for the peace of
       Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded
       between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the
       provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the
       fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side
       of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the
       Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."

          E. Szabad,
          Hungary, Past and Present,
          part 2, chapter 5-6.

          ALSO in:
          L. Felbermann,
          Hungary and its People,
          chapter 4.

          See, also,
          TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1739:
       Belgrade restored to the Turks.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1740.
       The question of the Austrian Succession.
       The Pragmatic Sanction.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.
       Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:
       Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.
       His seizure of Silesia.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.
       Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.
       Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.

       "The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of
       Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two
       countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry
       out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars.
       With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him
       nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the
       nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the
       political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to
       him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing
       the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He
       never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws
       against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never
       succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of
       April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought
       to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To
       confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the
       eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the
       nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this
       time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a
       neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various
       parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal
       principles in substituting German, and that language took the
       place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not
       wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict
       which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new
       birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II.
       Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat'
       of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an
       end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national
       liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in
       demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the
       long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The
       revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt
       even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in
       its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of
       equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great
       nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political
       element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which
       were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the
       Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had
       found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was
       toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to
       be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were
       themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic
       party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to
       the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II.
       the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support
       their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight
       the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very
       soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and
       money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures
       carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity
       which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The
       censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the
       persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in
       which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active
       part—all helped to create discontent."

          L. Leger,
          History of Austro-Hungary,
          chapters 23 and 28.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791.
       War with the Turks.
       Treaty of Sistova.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
       The wakening of the national spirit.
       Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.

       "The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible
       struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years
       been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed
       freely … and their first act was to enter into a league
       against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and
       break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those
       who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of
       Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated
       promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting
       him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults
       of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he
       emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to
       convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it
       for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a
       pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to
       yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the
       diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars
       with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was
       … rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of
       trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in
       connexion with subsequent events.
    {1684}
       It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first
       speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary
       man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved
       by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the
       dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of
       eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that
       his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no
       private individual has ever acquired over a people, except,
       perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as
       the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than
       of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first
       object to which his attention was directed was the restoration
       of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts
       of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the
       higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national
       language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But
       the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen.
       Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and
       official documents, and German and French were alone used in
       good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of
       reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and
       disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways
       to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he
       rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage,
       made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the
       magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The
       diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period
       Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which
       he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon
       considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party,
       which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so
       successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was
       compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts,
       formally to recognize the independence of the country, and
       promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three
       years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing
       the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was
       still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and
       communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the
       want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where
       political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same
       party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the
       establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the
       London clubs. He next turned his attention to the
       establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He …
       rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black
       Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part,
       went over to England, studied the principles of the
       steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English
       engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the
       multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the
       sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was
       accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which
       followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed
       up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to
       his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely
       the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of
       them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles,
       the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a
       system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the
       equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the
       commercial code and of internal communication, and though
       last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were
       all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any
       practical result. The next meeting was for a long time
       delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened
       in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important
       that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles
       was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of
       these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent
       looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course,
       but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period
       were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians
       had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was
       still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was
       known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world
       without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since
       become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been
       heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the
       apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary
       proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this
       defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would
       otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully
       reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all
       over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of
       the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet
       caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth
       rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often
       even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon
       took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the
       Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the
       reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled.
       He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to
       act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of
       the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript
       throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and
       new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the
       session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by
       reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were
       then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped
       his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of
       messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to
       village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a
       flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest
       Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a
       prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not
       brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four
       years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that
       he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real
       ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had
       circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his
       liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short
       period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of
       recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly
       abstained from taking any part in public affairs.
    {1685}
       On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth,
       named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal
       entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the
       editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition
       that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of
       his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of
       his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country
       where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing.
       He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the
       noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower
       classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of
       ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the
       editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which
       now blazed fiercely enough of itself."

          E. L. Godkin,
          History of Hungary,
          chapter 21.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.
       The struggle for National Independence and its failure.

       "A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many
       years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor.
       The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous,
       was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue,
       all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race
       apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand
       V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the
       Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince
       Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was
       laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash
       of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other
       tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats,
       began to make separate demands, and to show themselves
       stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It
       was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the
       Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian
       constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their
       national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky,
       they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not
       be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they
       distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the
       same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed
       ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was
       great, for these insurgents called the constitutional
       government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding
       the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the
       Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a
       high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been
       appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his
       wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich
       advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that
       in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned,
       and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was
       defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace
       Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of
       the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely
       murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a
       lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish
       General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz
       and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and
       Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of
       October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the
       rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then
       prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very
       different matter, since the constitutional government there
       had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of
       Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore
       thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public
       safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men.
       Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable
       of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a
       family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had
       retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that
       his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in
       favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable
       young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate
       matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the
       new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional
       government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce
       to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to
       repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both
       in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed,
       the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of
       Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their
       throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince
       Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable
       army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting
       together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded
       by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the
       mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians,
       though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five
       considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849,
       and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube
       out of the country."

          C. M. Yonge,
          Landmarks of Recent History,
          chapter 3, part 5.

       "On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was
       promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,
       but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged
       completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient
       institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial
       Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in
       which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited
       all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever
       from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new
       Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the
       late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.
       For a while the national army was victorious. … But the
       despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic
       that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the
       time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert
       itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La
       raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of
       Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother
       in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the
       arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so
       cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a
       second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of
       political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having
       always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever
       revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in
       danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his
       empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in
       Hungary.'
    {1686}
       … In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national
       army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,
       was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and
       instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save
       the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of
       August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid
       down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to
       the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of
       300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the
       Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided
       over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll
       of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the
       Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány
       and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'
       the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a
       refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried
       with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,
       and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those
       bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing
       influence of time, and still more of that great work of
       reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has
       effected between the two countries."

          Francis Deak,
          Hungarian Statesman: a memoir,
          chapter 14.

          See, also,
          AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.
       Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by
       the United States.
       The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.
       Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.
       Restoration of pure absolutism.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.
       Recovery of nationality.
       Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.

       In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty
       against the political offenders, and in the following year he
       decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps
       were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859
       other concessions were made, notably as to provincial
       Governments in Hungary, and they were given free
       administration as to their educational and religious rites in
       the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated,
       and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to
       Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and
       Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for
       so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however,
       did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for
       their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which
       therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the
       Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who
       gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further
       details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out
       between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these
       from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's
       promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the
       Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the
       Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed
       in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the
       dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria
       presided for so many years. The final result of this was that
       a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the
       Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect
       freedom and independence as to the administration of its
       affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so
       to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian
       Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also
       described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir
       Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as
       follows:

       I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
       consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for
       Finance.

       II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry
       of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and
       National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President
       of the Council.

       III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of
       353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both
       cases by direct election.

       IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members
       from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from
       amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in
       each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian
       and Hungarian Legislatures.

       V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and
       Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being
       confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard
       to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the
       Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of
       disagreement between the two Delegations the question of
       policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written
       messages; drawn up in the official language—German or
       Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and
       accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of
       the Delegation to which it is addressed.

       VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an
       agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the
       question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate.
       The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an
       equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually,
       the Emperor-King having the casting vote.

       VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs,
       the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the
       Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues,
       to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.

       VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all
       international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by
       their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter,
       that whilst the appointment to the military command of the
       whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary,
       is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters
       affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and
       pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the
       Hungarian Legislature.

    {1687}

       IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to
       the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation,
       currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties,
       subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases
       where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each
       retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with
       their own special interests.

       X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the
       Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned
       by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each
       Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National
       Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.

       It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented
       Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have
       by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these
       concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was
       reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who
       escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its
       Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in
       great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the
       greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."

          L. Felbermann,
          Hungary and its People,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Francis Deak: a memoir,
          chapters 26-31.

          Count von Beust,
          Memoirs,
          volume 2, chapter 38.

          See, also,
          AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,
          and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.
       Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
       Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.

    HUNGARY: A. D. 1894.
       Death of Kossuth.

       Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of
       1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged
       ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be
       reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to
       countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual
       nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and
       remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were
       brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on
       Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national
       demonstration of respect.

       ----------HUNGARY: End--------

    HUNIADES AND THE HUNGARIAN WARS WITH THE TURKS.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
          and TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

    HUNINGEN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    HUNKERS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

       ----------HUNS: Start--------

    HUNS, Gothic account of the.

       "We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who
       surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When
       Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from
       Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have
       before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women,
       whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or
       Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of
       his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander
       up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made
       concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most
       fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul,
       emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing
       only the shadow of human speech by way of language. …
       Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight
       fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call
       them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with
       little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or
       chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep
       furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show
       the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity
       they apply to every male child that is born among them. …
       They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their
       motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered,
       good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and
       always holding their heads high in their pride."

          Jornandes,
          De Rebus Geticis,
          translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 1.

    HUNS:
       First appearance in Europe.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 376.

    HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
       The empire of Attila.

       After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had
       halted in their march westward for something more than a
       generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern
       frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in
       its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute,
       and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable
       correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in
       the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman
       soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian
       parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable
       antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps.
       … About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the
       Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their
       king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the
       Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred
       of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts,
       their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his
       systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his
       rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his
       insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning
       which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant
       arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in
       his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless
       cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy,
       and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish
       barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the
       civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's
       daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic
       tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his
       nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him.
       Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted
       an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and
       preserve, in which men and their works should supply the
       objects and zest of the chase."

          R. W. Church,
          Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 1.

    {1688}

       "He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was
       formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the
       art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the
       Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of
       the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian
       Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and
       Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had
       remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a
       century before."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

       "The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy
       Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts
       is not to be easily matched in the history of our race.
       Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the
       only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat.
       The impression left upon us by what history records of him is
       that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers
       unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some
       doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the
       wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China
       on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in
       front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who
       ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his
       right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep
       as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with
       Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember
       that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can
       have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and
       Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His
       own personal government, if government it can be called, may
       very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the
       modern Hungary and Transylvania."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

       "As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of
       Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated
       between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian
       hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in
       the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin
       it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the
       long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled
       into a huge village."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 34.

    HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
       Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.

       Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed
       against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had
       been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war.
       "It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had
       surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the
       Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns
       immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair,
       and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and
       carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople
       the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor
       thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to
       be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate
       the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his
       merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague
       terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium,
       its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south
       of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both
       of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A
       truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated
       its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they
       reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result
       the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes.
       Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities
       levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of
       his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen
       days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of
       6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an
       annual tribute."

          J. G. Sheppard,
          Fall of Rome,
          lecture 4.

    HUNS: A. D. 451.
       Attila's invasion of Gaul.

       In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host
       which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward
       the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was
       said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects
       of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in
       Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused
       tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war.
       The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with
       the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its
       provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of
       conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage
       riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and
       Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the
       warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the
       plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and
       after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the
       conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by
       the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of
       Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a
       bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with
       resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the
       Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who
       served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of
       danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the
       flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary
       chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly
       stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into
       the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a
       long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of
       Orleans."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 35.

       Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,
       who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western
       Empire, had brought about a general combination of the
       barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It
       included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of
       Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the
       Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments
       of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,
       and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The
       latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city
       were already crumbling under his battering rams when the
       banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila
       retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere
       within the wide extent of what were anciently called the
       Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country
       surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.
       451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued
       Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.
    {1689}
       The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;
       according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a
       victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose
       king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their
       own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and
       quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably
       best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.
       As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has
       chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good
       reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from
       Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named
       the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the
       battle of Mery-sur-Seine."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

       "It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian
       hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and
       said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement
       of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of
       terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he
       was most widely and most fearfully known."

          Sir E. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
          chapter 6.

    HUNS: A. D. 452.
       Attila's invasion of Italy.

       In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain
       of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters
       in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he
       nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he
       set his host in motion again, directing its march to the
       Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of
       Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich,
       was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of
       the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of
       abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his
       shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns
       to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was
       carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the
       defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to
       Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila
       was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was
       absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of
       the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. …
       When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used
       fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as
       Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the
       siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses
       may have been left standing, and others must have slowly
       gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained
       all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old
       ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately
       cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the
       City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow.
       … The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more
       terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through
       the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua),
       Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At
       Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns
       were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who
       did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the
       fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the
       islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of
       the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in
       time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The
       valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the
       invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome
       as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the
       world? This was the great question that was being debated in
       the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all
       for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into
       the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later
       ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut
       off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of
       Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently
       insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was
       prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from
       Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the
       head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo
       I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific
       disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly
       ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to
       peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in
       fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the
       Appennines, but not beyond.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 35.

          See, also,
          VENICE: A. D. 452.

    HUNS: A. D. 453.
       Death of Attila and fall of his empire.

       Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a
       drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year
       453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under
       which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his
       death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of
       his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on
       the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority
       of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the
       Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned
       allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the
       Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital
       struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less
       famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with
       that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of
       civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns;
       but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered
       the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of
       the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the
       royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in
       the barbarian world."

          J. G. Sheppard,
          Fall of Rome,
          lecture 4.

       "Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead
       upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The
       rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and
       over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of
       Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we
       saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,
       Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in
       the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which
       we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser
       Scythia.'
    {1690}
       Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up
       the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these
       fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern
       himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and
       north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's
       domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and
       victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of
       Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and
       Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended
       kings of the Ostrogoths."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    HUNS:
       Attila in Teutonic legend.

       "Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror
       it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over
       the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon
       forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a
       long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in
       the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila,
       before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled,
       with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter
       bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that
       Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen
       Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is
       surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre.
       Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of
       a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of
       his real might can be detected only at rare intervals,
       fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a
       by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the
       impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little
       more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people
       for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by
       which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a
       far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."

          G. T. Dippold,
          Great Epics of Mediæval Germany,
          chapter 4.

       ----------HUNS: End--------

    HUNS, The White.

       "It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of
       Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced
       between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east
       which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the
       middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of
       the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom
       Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called
       Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to
       be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and
       the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be
       quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the
       Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the
       Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or
       sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the
       Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during
       the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east
       of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and
       that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic
       or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200,
       had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White
       Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were
       quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila.
       … They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were
       decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns
       were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns
       were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well
       civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they
       belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 14.

       "We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these
       formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march
       towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these
       colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and
       extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the
       Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the
       epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their
       manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly
       improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long
       residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain
       a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a
       name which they derived from the change of their complexion,
       soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which,
       under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a
       temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who
       exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their
       luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."

          E. Gibbon.
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 26.

       The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.

          See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

    HUNTER, General David.
       Command in Kansas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

       Emancipation Order.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).

       Command in the Shenandoah.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).

    HUPAS, OR HOOPAHS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

       ----------HURON, Lake: Start--------

    HURON, Lake:
       Discovery.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.

    HURON, Lake: A. D. 1679.
       Navigated by La Salle.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

       ----------HURON, Lake: End--------

    HURONS, OR WYANDOTS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS,
          and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

    HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

    HUSCARLS.

          See HOUSECARLS.

    HUSSARS.

       Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in
       1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the
       attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign.
       Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the
       utmost speed, the most important of which was the
       establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was
       enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the
       'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."

          E. Szabad,
          Hungary, Past and Present,
          page 50.

    HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.

    {1691}

    HUSTINGS.
    COURT OF HUSTING.

       "The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of
       London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of
       Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway
       once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen.
       The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and
       [dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies,
       according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,'
       in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in
       Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term
       'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied
       at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts,
       usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of
       electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its
       strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The
       Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the
       City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling
       disputes between citizen and citizen."

          R. R. Sharpe,
          Introduction to Calendar of Wills,
          Court of Husting, London.

    HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638;
          and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

    HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas,
       and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,
          NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).

    HWICCAS.

       A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in
       Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was
       conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king
       Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh.
       The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from
       the throne.

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          pages 129-208.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.

       "The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ
       [Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month
       Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. …
       Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo,
       was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the
       flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast
       seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a
       lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by
       the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over
       death itself.'

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Herodotus,
          Note, book 9, section 7.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Abbott,
          History of Greece,
          volume 1, page 222.

    HYBLA.

       "There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as
       the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here
       with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were
       called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island,
       now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the
       place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted.
       This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous
       for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount
       Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is
       now called Paterno."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Story of Sicily,
          page 33.

    HYDASPES, The.

       The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab,
       on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain
       attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 53.

    HYDER ALI AND TIPPOO SAIB,
       English Wars with.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783;
          and 1785-1793.

    HYDERABAD OR HAIDERABAD,
       The Nizam of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.

    HY-IVAR, The.

          See NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

    HYKSOS, The.

          See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

    HYLLEANS, The.

       "The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative,
       but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to
       have been known to the geographers only from mythological
       writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of
       Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          volume 1, introduction.

    HYMETTUS.

       One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its
       excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base,
       which scented the air with their delicious perfume."

          M. and R. P. Willson,
          Mosaics of Grecian History,
          page 9.

    HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.

       "As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or
       anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families
       are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan
       names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the
       south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan,
       their mutual ancestors."

          T. D. McGee,
          Popular History of Ireland,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

    HYPATIA.

          See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.

    HYPERBOREANS, The.

       A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond
       the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in
       the extreme north.

    HYPHASIS, The.
       The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.

    HYRCANIA.
    HYRCANIAN SEA.

       "The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran]
       on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of
       Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner
       of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three
       degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty
       ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian
       region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east
       longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel
       to one another, having a general direction of east and west.
       … Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani;
       and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania
       (Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined
       came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the
       region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains
       were celebrated by the ancient writers."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapter 1.

       "In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania]
       is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here,
       according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with
       forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in
       the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down
       to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen
       grains without any special sowing."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 1.

          See, also, PARTHIA.

    {1692}

    I.

    IAPYGIANS, The.

          See ITALY, ANCIENT;
          also, ŒNOTRIANS.

    IAZYGES, OR JAZYGES, The.

          See LIMIGANTES.

    IBERA, Battle at.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    IBERIANS, The eastern.

       "The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of
       later writers. The name is found under the various forms of
       Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence
       the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented
       as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so
       that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of
       the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe
       that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their
       neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the
       original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which
       have defied the destroying touch of time for more than
       twenty-four centuries."

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Herodotus,
          book 7, appendix 1.

          See, also, ALARODIANS.

       If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin
       of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection
       does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and
       subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.

          See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.

    IBERIANS, The western.

       "The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess
       exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the
       Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and
       may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking
       peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which
       occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and
       north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be
       any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people
       being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have
       left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of
       their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they
       were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars
       of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and
       Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was
       apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout
       the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it
       is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical
       characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new
       invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of
       history. … These two races were in possession of Spain
       during the very earliest times recorded in history, the
       Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or
       Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along
       the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then,
       as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution
       of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have
       noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian
       Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne,
       the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection
       also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred
       from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' …
       Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul
       as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so
       they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of
       Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the
       Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were
       subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English
       invaders."

          W. B. Dawkins,
          Early Man in Britain,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          I. Taylor,
          Origin of the Aryans,
          chapter 2, section 5.

          See CELTS; LIGURIANS;
          AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES;
          AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY;
          and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.

    IBERION.

          See ALBION.

    IBRAHIM,
       Caliph, A. D. 744.

       Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.

    ICARIA, Attica.

       One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where
       Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making
       by Dionysus.

    ICARIA, in the Ægean.

       An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians,
       who used it chiefly for their pasture land.

       ----------ICELAND: Start--------

    ICELAND:
       Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.

          See THULE.

    ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.
       Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.
       A Norse Commonwealth.
       Development of the Saga Literature.

          See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

    ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874.
       Political relations with Denmark.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

       ----------ICELAND: End--------

    ICELANDIC "THING," The.

          See THING.

    ICENI, The.

          See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.

    ICONIUM, Sultans of.

          See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.

    ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, The.

       "Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth
       century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the
       worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence
       spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both
       to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it
       appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the
       Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of
       the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the
       portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the
       sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom
       the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to
       Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the
       churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only
       protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having
       assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to
       be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These
       first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the
       emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a
       very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far
       more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with
       the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping
       religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the
       Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil
       entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all
       images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the
       cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of
       them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated.
    {1693}
       … A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the
       Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For
       the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by
       the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of
       gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true
       religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and
       Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. …
       The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of
       the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either
       massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by
       these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy,
       and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented
       him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and
       indignation, he vented his fury against images and their
       worshippers, much more violently than before. For having
       assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of
       Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted
       Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be
       committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments
       upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity
       was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two
       parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and
       worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae,
       who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties
       furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and
       assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly
       prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine
       at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either
       of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss
       of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is
       to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in
       behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus
       by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to
       the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he
       laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images,
       in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the
       monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than
       his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were
       governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious
       matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at
       Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this
       controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general
       council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary,
       according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned
       images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death
       of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his
       father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of
       images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle
       measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV.
       being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his
       perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became
       triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire
       during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to
       establish her authority, after entering into a league with
       Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in
       Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the
       second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors,
       together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople,
       were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was
       established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the
       Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground
       between the contending parties; for they decided, that images
       were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches,
       but that no religious worship could be offered to them without
       dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at
       the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with
       the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be
       drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to
       the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his
       approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of
       the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely
       and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by
       such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his
       formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in
       the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the
       Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council
       approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne,
       and forbid the worship of images."

          J. L. von Mosheim,
          Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
          book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 4, chapter 10, section 101.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 49.

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire,
          book 1.

          H. F. Tozer,
          The Church and the Eastern Empire,
          chapter 6.

          See, also,
          PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

    ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

    ICTIS.

       An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to
       have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to
       Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the
       mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's
       Mount, is a disputed question.

    IDA, Mount.

          See TROJA.

       ----------IDAHO: Start--------

    IDAHO:
       The Aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    IDAHO: A. D. 1803.
       Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
       Grounds of American possession.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    IDAHO: A. D. 1863.
       Organized as a Territory.

       The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of
    Congress passed March 3, 1863.

    IDAHO: A. D. 1890.
       Admission to the Union as a State.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

       ----------IDAHO: End--------

    IDES.

          See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

    IDLE, Battle of the.

       Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles,
       and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.

    IDOMENE, Battle of.

       One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the
       Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by
       Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general
       Demosthenes, B. C. 426.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6).

    IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

    IDUMEANS, The.

          See EDOMITES.

    IERNE.

          See IRELAND: THE NAME.

    {1694}

    IGANIE, Battle of (1831).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

    IGUALA, The Plan of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

    IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

    IKENILD-STRETE.

          See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

    ILA.
    ILARCH.

       The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to
       their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was
       commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 1.

    ILERDA.

       Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign
       against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.

          See ROME: B. C. 49.

    ILIAD, The.

          See HOMER.

    ILIUM.

          See TROJA.

    ILKHANS, The.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

    ILLINOIA,
       The proposed State of.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
          THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

       ----------ILLINOIS: Start--------

    ILLINOIS:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
          ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and ILLINOIS.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673.
       Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682.
       LaSalle's fort and colony.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735.
       The French occupation.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750.
       The "Illinois country" under the French.

       "For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the
       region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan,
       and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south.
       The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but
       little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a
       later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the
       'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate
       government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the
       Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were
       remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with
       the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy
       amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their
       settlements were usually in the form of small, compact,
       patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around
       their old men and patriarchs."

          J. W. Monette,
          History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
          the Mississippi,
          volume 1, pages 181-183.

          See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.
       Settlements and population.

       "Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper
       Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their
       respective villages. These were:

       1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five
       miles below the present site of St. Louis;

       2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles
       above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;

       3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve
       miles above Kaskaskia;

       4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles
       above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the
       Mississippi River;

       5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;

       6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and
       about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.

       These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the
       Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the
       French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or
       3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of
       France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500
       souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to
       460 souls, in 1773."

          J. W. Monette,
          History of the Discovery and Settlement
          of the Mississippi Valley,
          volume 1, pages 167-168.

       "The population of the French and Indian villages in the
       district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is
       largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis
       Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750,
       and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have
       here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the
       cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three
       villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five
       leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river
       called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps,
       eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red
       slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain
       more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does
       not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of
       Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois
       nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of
       that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or
       five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen
       families, except at the principal village, where there were
       three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near
       eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all
       tribes."

          J. Wallace,
          History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,
          chapter 16.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
       Cession to Great Britain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
       The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
          THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
       Possession taken by the English.

       "The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally
       to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the
       Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council
       held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the
       Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,
       and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren
       will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when
       Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their
       elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,
       had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We
       follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,
       'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees
       begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became
       their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word
       for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask
       how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley
       of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries.
       Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear
       arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of
       negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn
       from another source, were occupied by about 110 French
       families, most of which were at Vincennes.
    {1695}
       Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of
       an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed
       to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from
       English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her
       territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan,
       an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois
       nations agreed that the English should take possession of all
       the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain
       Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down
       the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres,
       St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness,
       gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th
       of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the
       Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at
       St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families,
       while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February
       1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration
       of the British commander, already counted about twice that
       number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western
       side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant
       territory, the government then instituted was the absolute
       rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all
       disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the
       country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          volume 3, pages 151-152.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765-1774.
       Early years of English rule.

       "Just before and during the first years of the English
       domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants
       from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British
       rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the
       wealthier and more influential families, removed with their
       slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or
       down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them
       settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set
       by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis,
       which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana.
       … At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of
       inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois,
       excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post
       Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand
       persons; and, during the entire period of British possession,
       the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with
       the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers
       and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising
       traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be
       seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the
       purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country
       by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained
       essentially French, with whom there was no taste for
       innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American
       had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great
       Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct
       with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be
       introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the
       Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military
       government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and
       liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and
       loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further
       exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On
       the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major
       Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment
       of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after
       exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and
       feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel
       Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at
       Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres
       about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to
       him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early
       in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who
       proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became
       so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that
       he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John
       Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had
       formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived
       from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768.
       He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for
       garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of
       Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which
       he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled
       to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
       without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey
       to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel
       Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became
       unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him,
       including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for
       an official investigation, claiming that he was able to
       justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in
       September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the
       following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment,
       became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in
       command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774,
       Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province
       of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the
       territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate
       successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not
       positively determined."

          J. Wallace,
          History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule,
          chapter 20.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1774.
       Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779.
       Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and
       annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
          CLARK'S CONQUEST.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784.
       Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and
       Polypotamia.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786.
       Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
       and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787.
       The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
       Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809.
       Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.

          See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

    {1696}

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1818.
       Admission into the Union as a State.

          See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818;
          and WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
       The Black Hawk War.

       "In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes,
       by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United
       States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their
       country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60
       years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned
       with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock
       Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of
       about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and
       penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came
       only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not
       restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare
       soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at
       Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals
       Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement,
       which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and
       desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers,
       and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched
       against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General
       Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on
       Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The
       Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River;
       and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again
       overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the
       Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water
       while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a
       little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50
       prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and
       children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon
       closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and
       other chiefs."

          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          Popular History of the United States,
          volume 4, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Ford,
          History of Illinois,
          chapters 4-5.

          J. B. Patterson, editor,
          History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself.
          Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
          volume 10.

    ILLINOIS: A. D. 1840-1846.
       The settlement and the expulsion of the Mormons.

          See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846; and 1846-1848.

       ----------ILLINOIS: End--------

    ILLUMINATI, The.

          See ROSICRUCIANS.

    ILLYRIA, Slavonic settlement of.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

    ILLYRIAN PROVINCES OF NAPOLEON.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    ILLYRIANS, The.

       "Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more
       numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name
       of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east
       by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of
       Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper
       Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of
       Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north
       and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others
       consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and
       Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at
       the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians
       generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in
       battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom
       of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices:
       moreover, they were always ready to sell their military
       service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in
       whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable
       admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian
       kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its
       capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies
       in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing
       period of Grecian history."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 6.

    ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS.

       "The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general
       appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were
       esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to
       be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia,
       Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia,
       and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more
       properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the
       Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the
       Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 1.

          See, also, ROME: A. D. 394-305.

    IMAGE-BREAKING IN THE NETHERLANDS.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

    IMAMS.
    THE IMAMATE.

       "When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam
       is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate
       their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so,
       and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up
       on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the
       business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law
       himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The
       election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite
       in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical
       soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that
       Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the
       'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali.
       But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting.
       They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince
       who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in
       Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was
       that the sovereign thus reigning should be a
       member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."

          R. D. Osborn,
          Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
          part 3, chapter 1.

          See, also, ISLAM.

    IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
       Promulgation of the Dogma of the.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1854.

    IMMÆ, Battle of (A. D. 217).

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

    IMMORTALS, The.

       A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under
       the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.

       ----------IMPEACHMENT: Start--------

    IMPEACHMENT:
       Acquisition of the right by the English House of Commons.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

    {1697}

    IMPEACHMENT:
       Revival of the right.

       In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on
       the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a
       committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed.
       The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that
       of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient
       right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of
       an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which
       had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk
       in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse,
       partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly
       through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of
       attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power
       wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to
       inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting
       to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the
       spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of
       impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the
       Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular
       power."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 13.

       ----------IMPEACHMENT: End--------

    IMPEACHMENTS:
       Warren Hastings.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

       President Johnson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY)

       Strafford.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

       ----------IMPERATOR: Start--------

    IMPERATOR.

       "There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly
       signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably
       have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom
       Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however,
       equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with
       the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the
       title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those
       who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much
       valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it
       seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed
       their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of
       battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the
       commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. …
       But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in
       a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which
       we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct
       testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who
       tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius
       Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had
       hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but
       as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power,
       and in this signification it was transmitted to his
       successors, without, however, suppressing the original import
       of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power,
       comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and
       Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the
       name of the individual to whom it is applied."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 5.

          See, also,
          ROME: B. C. 45-44.

    IMPERATOR:
       Final Signification of the Roman title.

       "When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of
       their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and
       nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of
       proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it
       had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican
       extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they
       still distinguished their high station by the appellation of
       Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and
       more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the
       Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name
       of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was
       associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of
       Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was
       expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his
       subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the
       despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing
       it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence
       by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more
       feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of
       'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but
       was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 13.

          See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

       ----------IMPERATOR: End--------

    IMPERIAL CHAMBER, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

    IMPERIAL CITIES OF GERMANY.

          See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
          and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia)
          GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    IMPERIAL FEDERATION.

          See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: BRITANNIC FEDERATION.

    IMPERIAL INDICTIONS.

          See INDICTIONS.

    IMPERIUM, The.

       "The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman
       Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but
       also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the
       imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by
       virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his
       fellow-citizens."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 6, chapter 5 (volume 4).

    IMPEY, Sir Elijah, Macaulay's injustice to.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

    IMPORTANTS, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

    IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN SEAMEN BY BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

    INCAS, OR YNCAS, The.

          See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

    INCUNABULA.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

    INDEPENDENCE, MO.,
       Confederate capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    INDEPENDENCE DAY.

       The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence,
       adopted July 4, 1776.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

    INDEPENDENCE HALL.
       The Liberty Bell.

       The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at
       Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American
       Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental
       Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House,
       which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully
       preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed,
       except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special
       occasion opens its doors to the public.
    {1698}
       Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except
       two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of
       which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by
       Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration
       of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple,
       where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four
       feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the
       heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends
       from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names
       of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore
       the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. …
       The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for
       the State House was imported from England. On the first
       trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was
       recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the
       direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the
       Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in
       English America,' which now hangs in the old State House
       steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its
       crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental
       Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ:
       'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the
       inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell
       the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed
       liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result
       was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of
       that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the
       land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the
       joyful annunciation for more than two hours."

          B. J. Lossing,
          Field-book of the Revolution,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
          History of Philadelphia,
          volume I, chapters 15 and 17.

    INDEPENDENT REPUBLICANS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

       ----------INDEPENDENTS: Start--------

    INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS:
       Their origin and opinions.

       "The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing
       courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it
       was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that
       the disposition was manifested among them to break away from
       the church altogether, and to form communities of their own.
       And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the
       more sober part remained in the church. The communities of
       persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in
       London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those
       had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil
       Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or
       Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first
       they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a
       divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer
       of the duty of separation."

          J. Hunter,
          The Founders of New Plymouth,
          pages 12-13.

       "The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief
       that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church
       was that of the voluntary association of believers into local
       congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and
       managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring
       congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly
       conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to
       profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted,
       this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between
       neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused,
       until the true independency of each voluntary society of
       Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in
       Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a
       district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or
       Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the
       primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I
       believe, though with varieties of expression, English
       Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original
       warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the
       practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the
       theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new
       process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries,
       and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate
       beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions
       propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert
       Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a
       preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished
       from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as
       they were called, had persisted in their course, through
       execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the
       pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans
       disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable
       numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and
       throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them
       in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting
       from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to
       elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592,
       the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London
       Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more
       ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in
       general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. …
       Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon,
       then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His
       feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for
       those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the
       most, a very small number of very silly and base people here
       and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to
       God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and
       worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon
       was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished.
       Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast
       out."

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2.

       "The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of
       those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the
       heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that
       a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,
       relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who
       had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches
       came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and
       denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,
       blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.
    {1699}
       To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and
       studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and
       with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes
       called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to
       charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,
       and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to
       the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on
       the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or
       Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from
       house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their
       courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period
       of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full
       vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of
       the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New
       England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred
       to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had
       made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7.

          L. Bacon,
          Genesis of the New England Churches.

          B. Hanbury,
          Historical Memorials of the Independents,
          volume 1.

          G. Punchard,
          History of Congregationalism,
          volume 3.

          H. M. Dexter,
          The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,
          lectures 1-5.

          See, also,
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:
          IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.

    INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
       The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

       "The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from
       becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That
       honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country
       gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby."
       After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan
       divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them,
       nonconformity began to assume among the churches more
       decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict
       was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had
       not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists.
       Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a
       company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service
       in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this
       independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully
       aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was
       then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at
       Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare
       sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a
       broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the
       Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike
       bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the
       comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in
       points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing
       that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth
       colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of
       Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding
       influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another
       important member of the Scrooby congregation was William
       Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a
       lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of
       intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of
       Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of
       his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure
       and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of
       the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth.
       It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent
       threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized.
       Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered
       so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began
       to think of following the example of former heretics and
       escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the
       autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in
       accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to
       find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had
       preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies,
       that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet:
       This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise
       counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting
       divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as
       the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless
       task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the
       Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the
       Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various
       occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more
       than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution,
       however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new
       home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that
       this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete
       toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they
       come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might
       have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot
       refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America.
       But they had come as an organized community, and absorption
       into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished
       to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep
       up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they
       might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The
       spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of
       self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which
       could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not
       been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of
       Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late
       in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon
       European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated.
       The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of
       America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed
       the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of
       disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length
       been founded in Virginia."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Punchard,
          History of Congregationalism,
          volume 1, chapters 12-15.

          G. Sumner,
          Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden
          (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,
          volume 9).

          A. Steele,
          Life and Time of Brewster,
          chapters 8-14.

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          chapter 17 (volume 2).

    {1700}

    INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620.
       Preparations for the exodus to New England.

       "'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have
       them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn
       love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led
       them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of
       England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with
       the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,'
       hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to
       live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent
       of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in
       1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven
       articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be
       submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These
       articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in
       religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the
       theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of
       persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian
       sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their
       concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire
       of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and
       all civil authority derived from him, including the civil
       authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done
       to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things,
       active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or
       passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical
       bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. …
       The London company listened very willingly to their proposal,
       so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and,
       through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious
       gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been
       taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the
       multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the
       pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands
       of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers
       of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the
       Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion,
       to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they
       encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the
       negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the
       Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and
       nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than
       an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied,
       being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If
       there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they
       communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as
       the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall
       or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.'
       Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company
       for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who
       from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his
       presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the
       company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which
       being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a
       large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed
       to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was
       never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after
       investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to
       execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for
       aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the
       number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to
       emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a
       new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the
       states general. The 'West India company was willing to
       transport them without charge, and to furnish them with
       cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general
       to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence
       from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict
       with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The
       members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the
       Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now
       trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends.
       The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English
       merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a
       partnership between their employers and men of business in
       London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital
       of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be
       reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount,
       and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be
       divided among the share-holders according to their respective
       interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive
       for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his
       services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to
       the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not
       interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And
       now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and
       in themselves, made ready for their departure."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

    INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1620.
       The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.

          See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

    INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649.
       In the English Civil War.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH);
          1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.

       ----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------

    INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, The.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

       ----------INDIA: Start--------

    INDIA.
       The name.

       "To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is
       marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and
       the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not
       always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this
       country. To them for a long time the word India was for
       practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of
       the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they
       refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some
       information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none
       about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so
       natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole
       region. For there is a very marked difference between the
       northern and southern parts of it.
    {1701}
       The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented
       Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the
       great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.
       Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this
       northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races
       and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not
       a political name, but only a geographical expression like
       Europe or Africa."

          J. R. Seeley,
          The Expansion of England,
          pages 221-222.

       "The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has
       been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe.
       … The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the
       northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the
       'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. …
       The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may
       be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from
       having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the
       river.'"

          E. G. Keene,
          Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
          page 1.

       "Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of
       the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since
       it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the
       Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river
       Sindus, instead of Indus."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapter 1, note.

    INDIA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

       "Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling
       for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had
       lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who
       called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage,
       speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful
       gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India.
       The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the
       land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the
       mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The
       comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now
       nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung
       chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present
       Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early
       tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The
       Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided
       themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for
       'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan
       poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000
       years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the
       Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the
       black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own
       'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter
       the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed
       features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines.
       One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or
       flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed'
       gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been
       savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the
       Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.'
       The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and
       some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by
       non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive
       peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the
       Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in
       the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in
       hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which
       we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of
       culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the
       isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of
       Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as
       dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands
       in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the
       midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals
       with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by
       plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills,
       in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes.
       The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products,
       mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons.
       Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but
       wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They
       shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and
       seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped,
       small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a
       higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence
       over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great
       stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient
       non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of
       South-Western India, still keep up the old system of
       polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several
       husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons,
       but to his sister's children. This system also appears among
       the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of
       India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a
       large part of the population. In certain localities they
       amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important
       race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the
       wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the
       chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the
       approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the
       Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in
       number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.'
       Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few
       strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves
       before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of
       India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled
       by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam
       hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by
       any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the
       number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the
       way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black,
       undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes,
       therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as
       that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years
       ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities
       of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder
       ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and
       I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of
       them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their
       home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in
       Lower Bengal.
    {1702}
       They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of
       the plains, and number about a million. Although still
       clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have
       learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful
       husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is
       supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the
       village. … Until near the end of the last century, the
       Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under
       British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. …
       The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about
       100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges
       which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is
       purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the
       father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life,
       but live in his house with their wives and children, and all
       share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of
       the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family.
       … The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way
       between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan
       tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence
       came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in
       the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still
       scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world?
       Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us
       little. But from their languages we find that they belong to
       three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered
       India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of
       the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have
       entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly
       along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland
       which covers the southern half of India. Third, the
       Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their
       way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now
       inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far
       down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a
       rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful,
       loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while
       even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into
       clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the
       troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and
       some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us
       Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the
       Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian
       army, and lately covered themselves with honour in
       Afghanistan."

          W. W. Hunter,
          Brief History of the Indian People,
          chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Brown,
          Races of Mankind,
          volume 4, chapter 1.

          R. G. Latham,
          Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies,
          chapter 3.

          See, also,
          TURANIAN RACES.

    INDIA:
       The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.
       The hymns and prayers of their religion.
       Vedism.
       Brahmanism.
       Hinduism

       "The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the
       west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of
       the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the
       eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among
       them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks
       Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection
       with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in
       very close connection with the language of the monuments of
       Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The
       religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit
       striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable
       number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and
       customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not
       always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.
       Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the
       borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.
       Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive
       settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the
       Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas
       denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha
       (Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already
       established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it
       is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights
       of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five
       tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from
       the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures
       and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which
       separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river
       which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped
       the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny,
       Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the
       Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the
       land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The
       inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus.
       These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products
       of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of
       the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under
       names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must
       have been settled there for centuries previously. For this
       reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further
       on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of
       the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time
       when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the
       Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the
       dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by
       the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas,
       whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement
       there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a
       collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e.,
       'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or
       collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the
       priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these
       families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain
       with exactness the region in which the greater number of these
       poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise:
       the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the
       Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself
       and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the
       east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The
       seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the
       seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has
       already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta
       sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the
       Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks,
       we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of
       Iran.
    {1703}
       As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing …
       and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at
       all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the
       songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to
       the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to
       move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather
       from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were
       not one civic community. They were governed by a number of
       princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus,
       others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes
       combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but
       against each other."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 4).

       "When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in
       the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the
       15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship.
       It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in
       operation around them for production, destruction, and
       reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more
       distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism,
       and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as
       something more than radiant beings, and something more than
       powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers,
       guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in
       formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas).
       These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit
       language, at different times—perhaps during several
       centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light
       and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were
       afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal
       saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been
       directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis,
       and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal
       word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or
       hymns were arranged in three principal collections or
       continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called
       the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns,
       arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first
       bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism.
       … Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian
       branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of
       Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in
       one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which,
       when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter);
       when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā
       (masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men,
       was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a
       philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine
       was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It
       was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a
       confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. …
       Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in
       this—that it takes little account of the primordial,
       impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal
       manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma
       and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu.
       Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism
       is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily
       there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. …
       Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and
       superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and
       Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians,
       and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified
       by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering
       races, such as Islam and Christianity."

          M. Williams,
          Religious Thought and Life in India,
          part 1, chapter 1, and introduction.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Mitra,
          Indo-Aryans.

          F. Max Müller,
          History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature.

          F. Max Müller, editor,
          Sacred Books of the East,
          volume. 1, and others.

          A. Barth,
          Religions of India.

          Rig-Veda Sanhita,
          translated by H. H. Wilson.

          See, also,
          ARYANS.

    INDIA: 6th Century, B. C.
       Invasion of Darius.

          See PERSIA: B. C.621-493.

    INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
       Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great.
       Expulsion of the Greeks.
       Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

       "The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of
       India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed
       since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha
       was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and
       Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the
       banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was
       leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the
       river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of
       the Punjab.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

       … The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions
       westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and
       then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and
       march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction,
       crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to
       pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and
       Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or
       Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour.
       … After crossing the Indus, there were at least three
       kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other,
       namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum;
       that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and
       that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee.
       … When Alexander had fully established his authority in
       Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted
       some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having
       submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum,
       and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite
       bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with
       chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on
       the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient
       story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the
       admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled
       to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission.
       … The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of
       Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question
       between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new
       communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian
       Ocean.
    {1704}
       He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the
       northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he
       founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of
       the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed,
       Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that
       river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at
       his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder
       Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he
       was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed.
       "But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their
       campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead
       them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of
       necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they
       were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with
       his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a
       portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army
       marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost
       due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he
       reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the
       phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched
       through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted
       the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the
       same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the
       rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about
       the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as
       his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of
       mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander
       was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the
       news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the
       mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain
       by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately
       despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry
       on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could
       appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems
       to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C.
       323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can
       scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took
       advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was
       ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians
       by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos,
       and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to
       have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute
       his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of
       Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the
       Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole
       of Hindustan and the Punjab."

          J. T. Wheeler,
          History of India: Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Arrian,
          Anabasis of Alexander
          (translated by Chinnock),
          books 4-6.

          T. A. Dodge,
          Alexander,
          chapters 38-43.

    INDIA: B. C. 312
       Chandragupta and Asoka.
       The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

       "The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the
       era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya
       dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra
       (Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar),
       extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a
       determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos
       Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about
       312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his
       kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by
       Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an
       alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman
       Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this
       circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian
       manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent
       observer who was not a native, and this narrative of
       Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which
       we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism
       existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth
       century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King
       Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in
       public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any
       rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did
       for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an
       impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed.
       Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith
       of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great
       portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical
       with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of
       their history are similar. He is probably the same as King
       Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,'
       or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are
       scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the
       west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west.
       What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it
       arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common
       with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with
       each other, yet they are very different from each other.
       Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all
       theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God.
       Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but
       rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without
       real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an
       epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one
       who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all
       existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or
       'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it.
       The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a
       series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the
       universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at
       the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana
       being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being
       the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the
       Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name
       of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is
       said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi
       tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'),
       at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to
       have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon
       afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of
       Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are
       equal.
    {1705}
       … We have five marked features of Buddhism:

       1. disregard of all caste distinctions;

       2. abolition of animal sacrifice and of vicarious suffering;

       3. great stress laid on the doctrine of transmigration;

       4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity,
       and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all
       action;

       5. concentration of all human desires on the absolute
       extinction of all being.

       There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy
       of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The
       only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A
       Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on
       the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining
       Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have
       blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each
       had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted
       something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism
       was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct
       persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of
       Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares.
       Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found
       Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in
       the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's
       doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date,
       and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon
       after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In
       other parts of India there was probably a period of
       Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution;
       but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back
       into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who
       met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an
       incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the
       Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are
       probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are
       found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially
       on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it
       may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has
       disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted),
       and that it has not done so without having largely contributed
       towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the
       present day."

          M. Williams,
          Hinduism,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams),
          Buddhism.

          H. Oldenburg,
          Buddha.

          P. Bigandet,
          Life and Legend of Gaudama.

          A. Lillie,
          Buddha and the Early Buddhists.

          W. W. Rockhill,
          The Life of the Buddha.

    INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
       Under the Ghaznavide and Mameluke empires.

       "Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in
       uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob,
       the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways.
       The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent;
       worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion
       that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the
       caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of
       its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became
       disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by
       land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the
       state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia
       began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the
       Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the
       Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no
       wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the
       Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the
       Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were
       spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of
       Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had
       perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure.
       Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of
       Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the
       Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was
       Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and
       popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once
       ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan
       was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled
       from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A.
       D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired
       his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the
       succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the
       Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as
       Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated
       Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to
       Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a
       reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times,
       inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their
       idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj,
       Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his
       enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at
       Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one
       hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and
       Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe
       of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the
       Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known,
       but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in
       a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A.
       D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river.
       Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had
       lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the
       invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a
       narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers
       would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated
       Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat;
       and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and
       Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he
       repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He
       was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of
       Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din
       Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and
       ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his
       acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din
       Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time
       been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first
       undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and
       temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the
       materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for
       the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin
       Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy.
    {1706}
       But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the
       difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so
       remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,'
       accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem.
       Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate
       Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' …
       Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now
       known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul
       leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested.
       The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful
       campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power
       was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern
       Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death
       of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The
       Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal;
       the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a
       Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of
       these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at
       Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as
       Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named
       Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation
       of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement.
       … Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became
       Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to
       obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of
       which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that
       Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later
       Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some
       of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable
       barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan,
       under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

       They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and
       occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among
       the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to
       settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh
       and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the
       Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their
       capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests
       south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he
       turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was
       routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or
       was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior
       (in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus
       under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his
       tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he
       demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the
       following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed
       to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after
       a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest
       son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died
       before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son,
       Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the
       Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was
       besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence
       against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm
       and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was
       a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men
       in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned
       among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who
       penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by
       Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated
       Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched
       against them and met with a partial success. This turned into
       evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was
       organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his
       uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June
       1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal
       exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of
       the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire
       in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his
       grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined
       to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern
       and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a
       girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He
       gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be
       murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at
       Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death
       (1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

          H. G. Keene,
          Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
          book 1, chapters 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Wheeler,
          History of India,
          volume 4, part 1, chapter 2.

          A. Dow,
          History of Hindustan
          (from the Persian of Ferishta),
          volume 1.

    INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398.
       From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

       "In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was
       assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under
       the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and
       made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named
       Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently
       acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din
       was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to
       conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of
       Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very
       troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had
       enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were
       turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.
       Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried
       to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.
       Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives
       and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first
       Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan
       and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to
       invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry
       off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of
       raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was
       followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have
       been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din
       had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.
       Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the
       revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.
       The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed
       character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,
       and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his
       Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated
       themselves on Korans.
    {1707}
       The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the
       end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor
       of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the
       throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.
       The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably
       regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at
       Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old
       Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad
       is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when
       the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died
       in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in
       history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but
       blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent
       his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy
       which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the
       Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them
       to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury
       was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by
       Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but
       only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed
       rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a
       separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the
       Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan
       army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan
       of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against
       him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The
       history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad
       Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.
       He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the
       empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the
       subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed
       temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting
       Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of
       Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see
       TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;
       they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities
       may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that
       Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers
       to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In
       1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan
       fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.
       At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,
       invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

          J. T. Wheeler,
          Short History of India,
          part 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Elphinstone,
          History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
          book 6. chapters 2-3.

    INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399.
       Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

          See TIMOUR.

    INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
       The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.
       The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

       "The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority
       already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for
       twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan
       Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family
       which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in
       history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern
       India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a
       powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to
       endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The
       Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the
       rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed
       provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus,
       in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by
       the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles
       of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat.
       Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to
       the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. …
       Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by
       Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each
       had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as
       far eastward as the country immediately to the north of
       Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded
       on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole
       authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar
       Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he
       subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign,
       and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of
       Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated
       under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab;
       the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part
       of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact,
       the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of
       Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in
       calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant
       of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which
       he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had
       made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504),
       establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the
       Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in
       1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second
       invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth
       occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth
       expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great
       battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the
       24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of
       Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra
       were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of
       Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of
       Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal
       (synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great
       Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in
       1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in
       the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son,
       Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond
       of union or of common interest, except that which had been
       concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal
       dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it,
       had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

          G. B. Malleson,
          Akbar,
          chapters 4-5.

    {1708}

       Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul
       and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran.
       Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and
       at the same time was deprived of the country from which his
       father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early
       Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new
       Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the
       Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of
       India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of
       Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his
       famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542).
       Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the
       rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But,
       under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the
       Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal.
       Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his
       thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate
       battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the
       Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and
       Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again
       for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the
       Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for
       two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen.
       … His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to
       1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own
       Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a
       small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the
       Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a
       reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty
       kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death,
       in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by
       Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan
       population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced
       these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many
       of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their
       independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence
       upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by
       force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the
       Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the
       support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts,
       and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against
       the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan
       faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal
       Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar
       subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious
       annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not
       only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains,
       he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into
       Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or
       viceroy, with full civil and military control."

          W. W. Hunter,
          Brief History of the Indian People,
          chapter 10.

       "I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did
       for the improvement of the country and the people of
       Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or
       rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir
       Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of
       land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land,
       by dividing it into three classes, according to the
       productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third
       of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be
       paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in
       money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce,
       and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding
       years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate
       was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to
       pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the
       collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well
       calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole,
       they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has
       been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no
       principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to
       the rural population, by opening paths by which it might
       spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions
       within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were
       liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly
       administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal
       punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited,
       except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were
       considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well
       organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he
       suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery
       prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the
       burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and
       uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical
       lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was
       derived rather from the personal character of the man than
       from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not
       to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be
       computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to
       be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of
       what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under
       the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up
       the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to
       perfect its internal economy."

          J. W. Kaye,
          The Administration of the East India Company,
          part 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN: 3
          W. Erskine,
          History of India under Baber and Humayun.

          A. Dow,
          History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
          volume 2.

          J. T. Wheeler,
          History of India,
          volume 4, chapter 4.

    INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
       Portuguese trade and settlements.

       In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached
       Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first
       European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape
       of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a
       hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next
       voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the
       following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to
       establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor'
       (or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This
       factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives,
       chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted
       in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory.
       Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received
       with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the
       country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin
       and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar
       pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native
       allies, had to fight desperately for their safety.
    {1709}
       They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504
       large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded
       Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and
       fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India
       generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly
       set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to
       maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of
       Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined
       these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their
       ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from
       Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place,
       and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort
       Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for
       a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval
       victory which once and for all firmly established the
       Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's
       rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession
       of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian
       dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands,
       together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city
       of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The
       next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty
       in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists
       practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe,
       from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years
       after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was
       virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any
       rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at
       the climax of their power in the east. The way in which
       Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of
       the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very
       often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers
       in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of
       course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as
       direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but
       even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate
       commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e.,
       China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was
       reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a
       great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that
       the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The
       merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon,
       bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This
       voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the
       imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of
       accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by
       the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made
       by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese
       merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade
       with other European countries in the goods they had brought
       back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch,
       English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The
       colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly
       acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether
       hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys
       and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their
       whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and
       defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions,
       hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east
       had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal
       was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The
       Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and
       engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only
       of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese
       fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very
       eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept
       to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations
       remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

          H. de B. Gibbins,
          History of Commerce in Europe,
          book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97).

          ALSO IN:
          E. McMurdo,
          History of Portugal,
          volume 3, books 2-5.

          Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque
          (Hakluyt Society Publications).

          E. Grey,
          Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle
          (Hakluyt Society Publications).

          H. M. Stephens,
          Albuquerque.

    INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
       Beginnings of English trade.
       The chartering of the English East India Company.
       Its early footholds in Hindostan.
       The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
       The three Presidencies.

       "For some time it appears to have been thought by other
       European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round
       Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its
       navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal
       by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed
       establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands,
       aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an
       Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum
       was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a
       petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen
       Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh
       entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the
       boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed
       at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the
       title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London
       trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained
       the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the
       monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the
       direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in
       Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of
       the new Company was not only renewed but rendered
       perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any
       national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these
       exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease
       and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the
       new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of
       four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in
       bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin,
       cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of
       smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint
       Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in
       bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their
       capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100
       per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the
       decline of every other branch of trade and industry.
    {1710}
       But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a
       new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges
       but vested in them authority, through their agents in India,
       to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being
       Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as
       prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well
       be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this
       last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period
       of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that
       of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its
       object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and
       supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said
       that the competition of these two Companies with the private
       traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An
       Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to
       their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings
       till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great
       Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and
       separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India
       for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were
       fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the
       grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth
       of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were
       fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal
       sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims
       were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam,
       from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best
       part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants
       were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at
       Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did
       these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the
       Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and
       that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the
       'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and
       confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and
       nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final
       result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam
       and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer
       settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into
       importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a
       Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining
       the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they
       proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. …
       In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About
       twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to
       Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay
       were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's
       dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to
       evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was
       not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was
       compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to
       cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to
       the East India Company, and became one of their principal
       stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and
       richness of that province, a proverb was already current among
       the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and
       not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the
       English had established their factories at or near the town of
       Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the
       Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of
       some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul
       junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found
       it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down
       the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty
       hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of
       India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of
       these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total
       expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he
       was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders,
       and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this
       commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have
       resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new
       station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul,
       on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it
       stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its
       defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter
       there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of
       Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the
       same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast
       of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by
       purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened
       with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras
       for its government. Thus then before the accession of the
       House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William,
       Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into
       Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as
       at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each
       independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and
       a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of
       Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications,
       and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly
       native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were
       either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters
       from other services in India. Among these the descendants of
       the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called
       Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of
       turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were
       known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian
       word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English
       scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope);
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 39 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Mill,
          History of British India,
          book 1 (volume 1).

          P. Anderson,
          The English in Western India,
          chapters 1-10.

          H. Stevens, editor.,
          Dawn of British Trade to East Indies:
          Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603.

          J. W. Kaye,
          The Administration of the East India Company,
          chapters 3-4.

    INDIA: A. D. 1602-1620.
       Rise of the Dutch East India Company.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

    {1711}

    INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
       Jahangir and Nur Mahal.
       Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal.
       Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.

       "Selim, the son and successor of Akbar, reigned from the year
       of his father's death until 1627, having assumed the title of
       Jahangir, or 'Conqueror of the World'; that is to say, he
       reigned, but he did not govern. Before he came to the throne,
       he fell in love with a poor Persian girl," whom his father
       gave in marriage to one of his officers. "On his advent to the
       throne, Jahangir … managed to get the husband killed, and
       took the widow into his harem. He subsequently married her,
       and she ruled, not him alone, but the whole empire. … [She
       was first called Nur Mahal, 'Light of the Harem,' then Nur
       Jahan, 'Light of the World.'] It was during this reign, in
       1615, that the first English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe,
       arrived in Hindustan from James I.; and proceeding to Ajmere,
       where Jahangir was staying at the time with his court, he made
       him several presents, amongst which, we are told, a beautiful
       English coach gave the Emperor the most satisfaction. He
       received the ambassador with great distinction, showed him
       marked attention at all public receptions, and granted a
       firmân to the English to establish a factory at Surat. … The
       later years of Jahangir's reign were disturbed by family
       intrigues, in which the Empress Nur Jehan took a prominent
       part, endeavouring to secure the succession for her
       son-in-law; but after the death of the Emperor, his oldest
       living son, Shah Jahan, pensioned and forced the Empress into
       retirement … and … 'dispatched all the males of the house
       of Timour, so that only himself and his children remained of
       the posterity of Baber, who conquered India.' In some respects
       the reign of Shah Jahan was unfortunate. He lost his Afghan
       dominions, and gained but little by his invasions of the
       Dekhan, which were carried on by his rebellious son and
       successor, Aurungzeb; but in another direction he did more to
       perpetuate the glory of the Mughal dynasty than any other
       emperor of his line. Amongst other handsome buildings, he
       erected the most beautiful the world has ever possessed. …
       This was the well-known Taj Mahal at Agra, a mausoleum for his
       favourite Empress Arjamund, known as Mumtaz-i-Mahal [of which
       name, according to Elphinstone, Taj Mahal is a corruption],
       'the Exalted One of the Seraglio.' … When Shah Jahan had
       attained his 66th year (according to some writers, his 70th),
       he was seized with a sudden illness, the result of his
       debauched life, and as it was reported that he was dead, a
       civil war broke out amongst his sons for the possession of the
       throne. These were four in number, Dara (the oldest), Shuja,
       Aurungzeb, and Murad (the youngest); and in the conflict
       Aurungzeb, the third son, was ultimately successful. Two of
       the brothers, Dara and Murad, fell into the power of the
       last-named and were put to death by his orders. Shuja escaped
       to Arracan, and was murdered there; and as for the Emperor,
       who had recovered, Aurungzeb confined him in the fort at Agra,
       with all his female relatives, and then caused himself to be
       proclaimed in his stead [1658]. Towards the close of Shah
       Jehan's life [which came to an end in 1666], a partial
       reconciliation took place between him and his son, who,
       however, did not release him from his confinement."

          J. Samuelson,
          India, Past and Present,
          part 1, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Wheeler,
          History of India,
          volume 4, chapters 5-7.

          Sir T. Roe,
          Journal of Embassy
          (Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, volume 8).

          M. Elphinstone,
          History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
          book 10.

    INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
       The struggle of Aurungzebe with the Mahrattas.
       The Mahratta empire.
       Invasion of Nadir Shah.
       Sack of Delhi and great Massacre.

       "Aurungzebe had reigned five years before he succeeded in
       destroying all his kinsmen. … About that time, in the year
       1662, a new and extraordinary power in Southern India began to
       attract attention. The Mahrattas appear to have been nothing
       more than the Hindoo peasantry, scattered throughout some of
       the mountainous districts of the Mahomedan kingdoms of
       Ahmednuggur, Beijapoor and Golconda, and united into a body
       only by the prejudices of caste, of which their rank was the
       lowest, that of Sudra. In the confusion incidental to the
       constant wars in which these states were engaged, some of the
       head men of their villages set up for themselves, and one of
       them, Shahji Borla, became powerful enough to play a
       conspicuous part at the time of the annexation of Ahmednuggur
       to the Mogul empire. His son Sevaji, setting out from this
       vantage ground, strengthened his hands by the silent capture
       of some hill forts in Beijapoor, and eventually raising the
       standard of revolt against that government, introduced a
       spirit of union amidst the scattered masses of his people, and
       may thus be considered the founder of the Mahratta empire. In
       1662 he commenced his predatory expeditions into the Mogul
       territory, and in ten years he found himself at the head of a
       regular government with the title of Rajah, and strong enough
       to encounter and defeat the imperial forces in a field battle.
       This was the critical moment in the progress of the Mogul
       empire. Aurungzebe was called away for two years by the
       chronic disturbances beyond the Indus; his strength was wasted
       by the ceaseless wars of the Deccan; and being goaded to
       madness by the casual insurrection of some Hindoo devotees in
       the centre of his dominions, he replaced the capitation tax on
       infidels, and fulminated other decrees against that portion of
       his subjects of such extravagant intolerance that they at
       length looked upon the progress of their co-religionists, the
       Mahrattas, with more longing than alarm. In 1679, the western
       portion of Rajahstan was in arms against the empire, and
       continued in a state of hostility more or less active during
       the whole reign. Even the emperor's eventual successes in the
       Deccan, in overthrowing the kingdoms of Beijapoor and
       Golconda, contributed to his ruin; for it removed the check of
       regular government from that distracted portion of the
       country, and … threw into the arms of the Mahrattas the
       adventurous and the desperate of the population. Sevaji died,
       and successors of less talent filled the throne of the
       robber-king; but this seems to have had no effect upon the
       progress of the inundation, which now bursting over the
       natural barriers of the peninsula, and sweeping away its
       military defences, overflowed Malwa and a portion of Guzerat.
       Aurungzebe fought gallantly and finessed craftily by turns;
       … and thus he struggled with his destiny even to extreme old
       age, bravely and alone. He expired in his 89th year, the 50th
       of his reign, on the 21st of February, 1707. … During the
       next twelve years after the death of Aurungzebe, no fewer than
       five princes sat upon the throne, whose reigns, without being
       distinguished by any great events, exhibited evident
       indications of the gradual decline of the empire.
    {1712}
       During that period the Sikhs, originally a sect of Hindoo
       dissenters, whose peculiarity consisted in their repudiation
       of all religious ceremonies, having first been changed into
       warriors by persecution, began to rise by the spirit of union
       into a nation; but so weak were they at this time that in 1706
       the dying energies of the empire were sufficient almost for
       their extirpation. … Mahomed Shah succeeded to the throne in
       1719. The Mahratta government was by this time completely
       consolidated, and the great families of the race, since so
       celebrated, had begun to rise into eminence: such as that of
       the Peshwa, the official title of a minister of the Rajah; of
       Holkar, the founder of which was a shepherd; and of Sindia,
       which sprang from a menial servant. … A still more
       remarkable personage of the time was Asof Jah, whose
       descendants became the Nizams [regulators or governors—the
       title becoming hereditary in the family of Asof, at Hyderabad]
       of the Deccan. … While the empire was … rent in pieces by
       internal disturbances, a more tremendous enemy even than the
       Mahrattas presented himself from without. A revolution had
       taken place in Persia, which seated a soldier of fortune upon
       the throne; and the famous Nadir Shah, after capturing
       Candahar, found it necessary, according to the fashion of
       conquerors, to seize upon the Mogul territories, Ghizni and
       Cabul, and when at the latter city to continue his march into
       Hindostan. In 1739, he arrived at Kurnaul, within 70 miles of
       Delhi, and defeated the emperor in a general engagement. …
       The two kings then proceeded to Delhi after the battle, where
       Nadir, in consequence, it is said, of an insurrection of the
       populace, set fire to the city and massacred the inhabitants
       to a number which has been variously estimated at from 30,000
       to 150,000. He then proceeded to the main business of his
       invasion, robbing first the treasury and afterwards the
       inhabitants individually, torturing or murdering all who were
       suspected of concealing their riches, and at length returned
       to his own dominions, having obtained a formal cession of the
       country west of the Indus, and carrying with him in money and
       plate at least twelve millions sterling, besides jewels of
       great value, including those of the Peacock Throne [the throne
       of the Great Mogul, made solidly of gold and adorned with
       diamonds and pearls,—the enamelled back of the throne being
       spread in the form of a peacock's tail.]

          Tavernier's Travels,
          translated and edited by V. Ball,
          book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

       From this period to the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah, in
       1748, the interval was filled up with the disturbances which
       might be expected."

          Leitch Ritchie,
          History of the Indian Empire,
          book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

       The Asof or Asaf Jah mentioned above had become, in 1721, the
       Prime Minister of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, "In a little more
       than three years he had thrown up in disgust an office which
       the levity of the young monarch hindered him from discharging
       to his satisfaction; and had repaired to the Deccan, where he
       founded the State which still subsists under the name of 'The
       Nizam's Dominions.' Nominally, it was the Subah [province]
       erected on the ruins of the old Musalman kingdoms; but in the
       decline of the Empire it became a hereditary and
       quasi-independent province, though the ruler never took the
       royal title, but continued to retain the style of an Imperial
       Viceroy, as 'Nizam-ul-mulk,' which his descendant still
       bears."

          H. G. Keene,
          Madhava Rao Sindhia,
          chapter 1.

       "The different provinces and viceroyalties went their own
       natural way; they were parcelled out in a scuffle among
       revolted governors, rebellious chiefs, leaders of insurgent
       tribes or sects, religious revivalists, or captains of
       mercenary bands. The Indian people were becoming a masterless
       multitude swaying to and fro in the political storm, and
       clinging to any power, natural or supernatural, that seemed
       likely to protect them. They were prepared to acquiesce in the
       assumption of authority by anyone who could show himself able
       to discharge the most elementary functions of government in
       the preservation of life and property. In short, the people
       were scattered without a leader or protector; while the
       political system under which they had long lived was
       disappearing in complete disorganization. It was during this
       period of tumultuary confusion that the French and English
       first appeared upon the political arena in India."

          Sir A. Lyall,
          Rise of the British Dominion in India,
          chapter 4, sections 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Lane-Poole,
          Aurangzib,
          chapters 9-12.

          A. Dow,
          History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
          volume 3.

          J. G. Duff,
          History of the Mahrattas,
          volume 1, and volume 2, chapter 1.

          C. R. Markham,
          History of Persia,
          chapter 12.

    INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
       Commercial undertakings of the French.
       Their settlement at Pondicherry.

       "Many expeditions to India had been made [by the French]
       earlier than the time of Colbert's East India Company,
       chartered in the year 1665. The first French ships, of which
       there is any record, that succeeded in reaching India, were
       two despatched from one of the ports of Brittany in 1601.
       These ships were, however, wrecked on the Maldive Islands, and
       their commander did not return to France for ten years.
       Voyages were undertaken in 1616, 1619, and again in 1633, of
       which the most that can be said is that they met with no great
       disaster. The attempt to found settlements in Java and
       Madagascar, which was the object of these voyages, completely
       failed. The first operations of the French East India Company
       were to establish factories in Hindostan. Surat, a large
       commercial city at the mouth of the Taptee, was fixed upon for
       the principal depot. The abuses and lavish waste of the
       officers entrusted to carry out Colbert's plans, brought the
       company to an end in five years. An attempt in 1672 to form a
       colony at Trincomalee, on the north-east coast of Ceylon, was
       frustrated by the hostility of the Dutch. Afterwards the
       French made an attempt on Meliapoor or Thomé, belonging to the
       Portuguese. They were soon expelled, and the survivors sought
       refuge at Pondicherry [1674], a small town which they had
       purchased on the same coast of the Carnatic. In 1693,
       Pondicherry was taken by the Dutch, who improved the
       fortifications and general condition of the town. At the peace
       of Ryswick, in 1697, the settlement was restored to the
       French. For half a century Pondicherry shared the neglect
       common to French colonies, and owed more to the probity and
       discretion of its governors than to the home government. M.
       Martin, and subsequently Dumas, saved the settlement from
       ruin. They added to the defences; and Dumas, being in want of
       money for public purposes, obtained permission from the King
       of Delhi to coin money for the French settlers. He also
       procured the cession of Karikal, a district of Tanjore. On the
       other hand, several stations and forts had to be given up."

          J. Yeats,
          Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
          part 3, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          History of the French in India,
          chapters 1-3.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

    {1713}

    INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
       Struggle of the French and English for supremacy in the Deccan.
       Clive against Dupleix.
       The founding of British empire.

       "England owes the idea of an Indian empire to the French, as
       also the chief means by which she has hitherto sought to
       realize it. The war of the Austrian succession had just broken
       out [1743] between France and England.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

       Dupleix, the governor of the settlements of the French East
       India Company, proposed to the English company a neutrality in
       the eastern seas; it was rejected. The English probably
       repented of their presumption when they saw Captain Peyton,
       the commander of a squadron of three liners and a frigate,
       after an indecisive engagement with the French admiral,
       Labourdonnais, take flight to the Bay of Bengal, leaving
       Madras, then the most flourishing of the English settlements,
       defenceless. Dupleix and Labourdonnais were the first of that
       series of remarkable Frenchmen who, amidst every
       discouragement from home, and in spite of their frequent
       mutual dissensions, kept the French name so prominent in India
       for more than the next half century, only to meet on their
       return with obloquy, punishment, even death. Labourdonnais,
       who was Admiral of the French fleet, was also Governor of
       Mauritius, then called the Isle of France. He had disciplined
       a force of African negroes. With French troops and these, he
       entered the narrow strip of coast, five miles long, one mile
       broad, which was then the territory of Madras, bombarded the
       city, compelled the fort (which had lost five men) to
       surrender. But his terms were honourable; the English were
       placed on parole; the town was to be given up on payment of a
       moderate ransom (1746). Dupleix, however, was jealous; he
       denied Labourdonnais powers; broke the capitulation; paraded
       the Governor and other English gentlemen in triumph through
       Pondicherry. In vain did Admiral Boscawen besiege the latter
       place; time was wasted, the trenches were too far, the rains
       came on; Boscawen raised the siege, crippled in men and
       stores; was recalled by the news of the peace of
       Aix-la-Chapelle, and, to close his career of misfortune, lost
       several ships and 1,200 men on the Coromandel coast (1748-9).
       News of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, however, produced a
       very temporary cessation of hostilities, Madras being
       restored, with fortifications much improved. The English
       fortunes seemed at their lowest in India; the French rising to
       their full height. Dupleix conceived the bold plan of
       interfering in the internal politics of the country.
       Labourdonnais had disciplined the negro; Dupleix disciplined
       the native Indian. … Labourdonnais had beaten off the
       so-called Nawab of the Carnatic, when he attempted to take
       Madras; the event produced an immense sensation; it was the
       first victory obtained for a century by Europeans over the
       natives of India. Dupleix was strong enough to be reckoned a
       valuable ally. But on the English side a young man had
       appeared who was to change the whole course of events in the
       East. Robert Clive, an attorney's son from Market Drayton,
       born in 1725, sent off at eighteen as a writer to Madras—a
       naughty boy who had grown into an insubordinate clerk, who had
       been several times in danger of losing his situation, and had
       twice attempted to destroy himself—ran away from Madras,
       disguised as a Mussulman, after Dupleix's violation of the
       capitulation, obtained an ensign's commission at twenty-one,
       and began distinguishing himself as a soldier under Major
       Lawrence, then the best British officer in India."

          J. M. Ludlow,
          British India,
          lecture 7.

       "Clive and others who escaped [from Madras] betook themselves
       to Fort St. David's—a small English settlement a few miles
       south of Pondicherry. There Clive prepared himself for the
       military vocation for which nature had clearly destined him.
       … At Fort St. David's the English intrigued with the native
       chiefs, much as the French had done, and not more creditably.
       They took sides, and changed sides, in the disputes of rival
       claimants to the province of Tanjore, under the inducement of
       the possession of Devi-cottah, a coast station at the mouth of
       the Coleroon. There was no great honour in the results, any
       more than in the conception, of this first little war. We
       obtained Devi-cottah; but we did not improve our reputation
       for good faith, nor lessen the distance between the French and
       ourselves in military prestige. But Dupleix was meantime
       providing the opportunity for Clive to determine whether the
       Deccan should be under French or English influence. … The
       greatest of the southern princes, the Nizam al Mulk, Viceroy
       of the Deccan, died in 1748; and rivals rose up, as usual, to
       claim both his throne and the richest province under his
       rule—the Carnatic. The pretenders on one side applied to the
       French for assistance, and obtained reinforcements to the
       extent of 400 French soldiers and 2,000 trained sepoys. This
       aid secured victory; the opposing prince was slain; and his
       son, the well-known Mohammed Ali, 'the Nabob of Arcot' of the
       last century, took refuge, with a few remaining troops, at
       Trichinopoly. In a little while, the French seemed to be
       supreme throughout the country. Dupleix was deferred to as the
       arbiter of the destinies of the native princes, while he was
       actually declared Governor of India, from the Kistna to Cape
       Comorin—a region as large as France, inhabited by 30,000,000
       of people, and defended by a force so large that the cavalry
       alone amounted to 7,000 under the command of Dupleix. In the
       midst of this dominion, the English looked like a handful of
       dispirited and helpless settlers, awaiting the disposal of the
       haughty Frenchman. Their native ally had lost everything but
       Trichinopoly; and Trichinopoly itself was now besieged by the
       Nabob of the Carnatic and his French supporters. Dupleix was
       greater than even the Mogul sovereign; he had erected a column
       in his own honour, displaying on its four sides inscriptions
       in four languages, proclaiming his glory as the first man of
       the East; and a town had sprung up round this column, called
       his City of Victory. To the fatalistic mind of the native
       races it seemed a settled matter that the French rule was
       supreme, and that the English must perish out of the land.
       Major Lawrence had gone home; and the small force of the
       English had no commander. Clive was as yet only a commissary,
       with the rank of captain, and regarded more as a civilian than
       a soldier.
    {1714}
       He was only five-and-twenty. His superiors were in extreme
       alarm, foreseeing that when Trichinopoly was taken, the next
       step would be the destruction of Madras. Nothing could make
       their position worse; and they caught at every chance of
       making it better. Clive offered to attack Arcot, the capital
       of the Carnatic, in the hope that this would draw away the
       besiegers from Trichinopoly; and the offer was accepted. The
       force consisted of 200 British and 300 native soldiers,
       commanded, under Clive, by four factors and four military men,
       only two of whom had ever been in action. Everything was
       against them, from numbers and repute to the weather; but
       Clive took Arcot [September 11, 1751], and (what was much more
       difficult) kept it. The garrison had fled in a panic; but it
       was invested by 10,000 men before the British had repaired
       half its dilapidations and deficiencies, or recruited their
       numbers, now reduced to 320 men in all, commanded by four
       officers. For fifty days, amidst fatigue, hunger, and a
       hundred pressing dangers, the little band sustained the siege.
       … A series of victories followed, and men and opinion came
       round to the side of the victors. There was no energy at
       headquarters to sustain Clive in his career. … In his
       absence, the enemy appeared again before Fort George, and did
       much damage; but Clive came up, and 100 of the French soldiers
       were killed or taken. He uprooted Dupleix's boasting monument,
       and levelled the city to the ground, thereby reversing the
       native impression of the respective destinies of the French
       and English. Major Lawrence returned. Dupleix's military
       incapacity was proved, and his personal courage found wanting
       as soon as fortune deserted him. Trichinopoly was relieved,
       and the besiegers were beaten, and their candidate prince put
       to death. Dupleix struggled in desperation for some time
       longer before he gave up the contest; and Clive had his
       difficulties in completing the dislodgement of the French. …
       He did it; but nearly at the sacrifice of his life. When the
       British supremacy in the Deccan was completely established, he
       returned [1752] in bad health to England. … He left behind
       him Dupleix, for whom a summons home in disgrace was on the
       way."

          H. Martineau,
          History of British Rule in India,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          History of the French in India,
          chapters 3-6.

          G. B. Malleson,
          Founders of the Indian Empire: Lord Clive,
          chapters 1-6.

          Colonel Sir C. Wilson,
          Lord Clive,
          chapters 2-4.

    INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
       The Duranee power in Afghanistan.
       Conflict of the Afghans and the Mahrattas.
       Great defeat of the latter at Panniput.
       Fall of the shattered Moghul empire.
       The state of things which invited British conquest.

       On the death of Nadir Shah, who was murdered in 1747, his
       Afghan kingdom was acquired by a native chief, Ahmed Abdalee,
       who, first a prisoner and a slave to Nadir Shah, had become
       one of the trusted officers of his court and army. "Ahmed
       Abdalee had acquired so great an ascendency among the troops
       that upon this event [the death of Nadir Shah] several
       commanders and their followers joined his standard; and he
       drew off toward his own country. He fell in with and seized a
       convoy of treasure, which was proceeding to the camp. This
       enabled him to engage in his pay a still larger body of his
       countrymen. He proclaimed himself king of the Afghauns; and
       took the title of Doordowran, or pearl of the age, which being
       corrupted into Dooranee,[or Duranee], gave one of their names
       to himself and his Abdallees. He marched towards Candahar
       which submitted to his arms; and next proceeded to Cabul …
       and this province also fell into the hands of the Afghaun."
       Lahore was next added to his dominions, and he then, in 1747,
       invaded India, intent upon the capture of Delhi; but met with
       sufficient resistance to discourage his undertaking, and fell
       back to Cabul. In 1748, and again in 1749, he passed the
       Indus, and made himself master of the Punjab. In 1755-6 he
       marched to Delhi, which opened its gates to him and received
       him, pretendedly as a guest, but really as a master. A plague
       breaking out in his army caused him to return to his own
       country. He "left his son Governor of Lahore and Multan;
       disordered by revolutions, wasted and turbulent. A chief …
       incited the Seiks [Sikhs] to join him in molesting the
       Dooranees; and they gained several important advantages over
       their principal commanders. They invited the Mahratta
       generals, Ragonaut Raow, Shumsheer Bahadur, and Holkar, who
       had advanced into the neighbourhood of Delhi, to join them in
       driving the Abdalees from Lahore. No occupation could be more
       agreeable to the Mahrattas. After taking Sirhind, they
       advanced to Lahore, where the Abdalee Prince made but a feeble
       resistance and fled. This event put them in possession of both
       Multan and Lahore. … The whole Indian continent appeared now
       about to be swallowed up by the Mahrattas. … Ahmed Shah [the
       Abdalee, or Dooranee] was not only roused by the loss of his
       two provinces, and the disgrace imprinted on his arms, but he
       was invited by the chiefs and people of Hindustan, groaning
       under the depredations of the Mahrattas, to march to their
       succour and become their King. … For some days the Dooranees
       hovered round the Mahratta camp; when the Mahrattas, who were
       distressed for provisions, came out and offered battle. Their
       army, consisting of 80,000 veteran cavalry, was almost wholly
       destroyed; and Duttah Sindia, their General, was among the
       slain. A detachment of horse sent against another body of
       Mahrattas, who were marauding under Holkar in the
       neighbourhood of Secundra, surprised them so completely that
       Holkar fled naked, with a handful of followers, and the rest,
       with the exception of a few prisoners and fugitives, were all
       put to the sword. During the rainy season, while the Dooranee
       Shah was quartered at Secundra, the news of this disaster and
       disgrace excited the Mahrattas to the greatest exertions. A
       vast army was collected, and … the Mahrattas marched to
       gratify the resentments, and fulfil the unbounded hopes of the
       nation. … They arrived at the Jumna before it was
       sufficiently fallen to permit either the Mahrattas on the
       other side, or the Dooranees, to cross. In the meantime they
       marched to Delhi, of which after some resistance they took
       possession; plundered it with their usual rapacity, tearing
       away even the gold and silver ornaments of the palace;
       proclaimed Sultan Jewan Bukht, the son of Alee Gohur [or Shah
       Alum, absent son of the late nominal Emperor at Delhi,
       Alumgeer II., who had recently been put to death by his own
       vizir], Emperor; and named Sujah ad Dowlah, Nabob of Oude, his
       Vizir.
    {1715}
       Impatient at intelligence of these and some other
       transactions, Ahmed Shah swam the Jumna, still deemed
       impassable, with his whole army. This daring adventure, and
       the remembrance of the late disaster, shook the courage of the
       Mahrattas; and they entrenched their camp on a plain near
       Panniput. The Dooranee, having surrounded their position with
       parties of troops, to prevent the passage of supplies,
       contented himself for some days with skirmishing. At last he
       tried an assault; when the Rohilla infantry … forced their
       way into the Mahratta works, and Bulwant Raow with other
       chiefs was killed; but night put an end to the conflict.
       Meanwhile scarcity prevailed and filth accumulated in the
       Mahratta camp. The vigilance of Ahmed intercepted their
       convoys. In a little time famine and pestilence "raged. A
       battle became the only resource [January 7, 1761]. The Abdalee
       restrained his troops till the Mahrattas had advanced a
       considerable way from their works; when he rushed upon them
       with so much rapidity as left them hardly any time for using
       their cannon. The Bhaow was killed early in the action;
       confusion soon pervaded the army, and a dreadful carnage
       ensued. The field was floated with blood. Twenty-two thousand
       men and women were taken prisoners. Of those who escaped from
       the field of battle, the greater part were butchered by the
       people of the country, who had suffered from their
       depredations. Of an army of 140,000 horse, commanded by the
       most celebrated generals of the nation, only three chiefs of
       any rank, and a mere residue of the troops, found their way to
       Deccan. The Dooranee Shah made but little use of this mighty
       victory. After remaining a few months at Delhi, he recognized
       Alee Gohur as Emperor, by the title of Shah Aulum II.; and
       entrusting Nujeeb ad Dowlah with the superintendence of
       affairs, till his master should return from Bengal, he marched
       back to his capital of Cabul in the end of the year 1760
       [1761]. With Aulum-geer II. the empire of the Moguls may be
       justly considered as having arrived at its close. The unhappy
       Prince who now received the name of Emperor, and who, after a
       life of misery and disaster, ended his days a pensioner of
       English merchants, never possessed a sufficient degree of
       power to consider himself for one moment as master of the
       throne."

          J. Mill,
          History of British India,
          book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

       "The words 'wonderful,' 'strange,' are often applied to great
       historical events, and there is no event to which they have
       been applied more freely than to our [the English] conquest of
       India. … But the event was not wonderful in a sense that it
       is difficult to discover adequate causes by which it could
       have been produced. If we begin by remarking that authority in
       India had fallen on the ground through the decay of the Mogul
       Empire, that it lay there waiting to be picked up by somebody,
       and that all over India in that period adventurers of one kind
       or another were founding Empires, it is really not surprising
       that a mercantile corporation which had money to pay a
       mercenary force should be able to compete with other
       adventurers, nor yet that it should outstrip all its
       competitors by bringing into the field English military
       science and generalship, especially when it was backed over
       and over again by the whole power and credit of England and
       directed by English statesmen. … England did not in the
       strict sense conquer India, but … certain Englishmen, who
       happened to reside in India at the time when the Mogul Empire
       fell, had a fortune like that of Hyder Ali or Runjeet Singh
       and rose to supreme power there."

          J. R. Seeley,
          The Expansion of England,
          course 2, lecture 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. G. Duff,
          History of the Mahrattas,
          volume 2, chapters 2-5.

          G. B. Malleson,
          History of Afghanistan,
          chapter 8.

          H. G. Keene,
          Madhava Rao Sindhia,
          chapter 2.

    INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.
       Capture of Calcutta by Surajah Dowlah.
       The tragedy of the Black Hole.
       Clive's recovery of the Fort and settlement.

       Clive remained three years in England, where he sought an
       election to Parliament, as a supporter of Fox, but was
       unseated by the Tories. On suffering this disappointment, he
       re-entered the service of the East India Company, as governor
       of Fort St. David, with the commission of a lieutenant-colonel
       in the British army, received from the king, and returned to
       India in 1755. Soon after his arrival at Fort St. David, "he
       received intelligence which called forth all the energy of his
       bold and active mind. Of the provinces which had been subject
       to the house of Tamerlane, the wealthiest was Bengal. No part
       of India possessed such natural advantages both for
       agriculture and for commerce. … The great commercial
       companies of Europe had long possessed factories in Bengal.
       The French were settled, as they still are, at Chandernagore
       on the Hoogley. Higher up the stream the Dutch traders held
       Chinsurah. Nearer to the sea, the English had built Fort
       William. A church and ample warehouses rose in the vicinity. A
       row of spacious houses, belonging to the chief factors of the
       East India Company, lined the banks of the river; and in the
       neighbourhood had sprung up a large and busy native town,
       where some Hindoo merchants of great opulence had fixed their
       abode. But the tract now covered by the palaces of Chowringhee
       contained only a few miserable huts thatched with straw. A
       jungle, abandoned to water-fowl and alligators, covered the
       site of the present Citadel, and the Course, which is now
       daily crowded at sunset with the gayest equipages of Calcutta.
       For the ground on which the settlement stood, the English,
       like other great landholders, paid rent to the government; and
       they were, like other great landholders, permitted to exercise
       a certain jurisdiction within their domain. The great province
       of Bengal, together with Orissa and Bahar, had long been
       governed by a viceroy, whom the English called Aliverdy Khan,
       and who, like the other viceroys of the Mogul, had become
       virtually independent. He died in 1756, and the sovereignty
       descended to his grandson, a youth under twenty years of age,
       who bore the name of Surajah Dowlah. … From a child Surajah
       Dowlah had hated the English. It was his whim to do so; and
       his whims were never opposed. He had also formed a very
       exaggerated notion of the wealth which might be obtained by
       plundering them; and his feeble and uncultivated mind was
       incapable of perceiving that the riches of Calcutta, had they
       been even greater than he imagined, would not compensate him
       for what he must lose, if the European trade, of which Bengal
       was a chief seat, should be driven by his violence to some
       other Quarter. Pretexts for a quarrel were readily found.
    {1716}
       The English, in expectation of a war with France, had begun to
       fortify their settlement without special permission from the
       Nabob. A rich native, whom he longed to plunder, had taken
       refuge at Calcutta, and had not been delivered up. On such
       grounds as these Surajah Dowlah marched with a great army
       against Fort William. The servants of the Company at Madras
       had been forced by Dupleix to become statesmen and soldiers.
       Those in Bengal were still mere traders, and were terrified
       and bewildered by the approaching danger. … The fort was
       taken [June 20, 1756] after a feeble resistance; and great
       numbers of the English fell into the hands of the conquerors.
       The Nabob seated himself with regal pomp in the principal hall
       of the factory, and ordered Mr. Holwell, the first in rank
       among the prisoners, to be brought before him. His Highness
       talked about the insolence of the English, and grumbled at the
       smallness of the treasure which he had found; but promised to
       spare their lives, and retired to rest. Then was committed
       that great crime, memorable for its singular atrocity,
       memorable for the tremendous retribution by which it was
       followed. The English captives were left at the mercy of the
       guards, and the guards determined to secure them for the night
       in the prison of the garrison, a chamber known by the fearful
       name of the Black Hole. Even for a single European malefactor,
       that dungeon would, in such a climate, have been too close and
       narrow. The space was only twenty feet square. The air-holes
       were small and obstructed. It was the summer solstice, the
       season when the fierce heat of Bengal can scarcely be rendered
       tolerable to natives of England by lofty halls and by the
       constant waving of fans. The number of the prisoners was 146.
       When they were ordered to enter the cell, they imagined that
       the soldiers were joking; and, being in high spirits on
       account of the promise of the Nabob to spare their lives, they
       laughed and jested at the absurdity of the notion. They soon
       discovered their mistake. They expostulated; they entreated;
       but in vain. The guards threatened to cut down all who
       hesitated. The captives were driven into the cell at the point
       of the sword, and the door was instantly shut and locked upon
       them. Nothing in history or fiction, not even the story which
       Ugolino told in the sea of everlasting ice, after he had wiped
       his bloody lips on the scalp of his murderer, approaches the
       horrors which were recounted by the few survivors of that
       night. They cried for mercy. They strove to burst the door.
       Holwell who, even in that extremity, retained some presence of
       mind, offered large bribes to the gaolers. But the answer was
       that nothing could be done without the Nabob's orders, that
       the Nabob was asleep, and that he would be angry if anybody
       woke him. Then the prisoners went mad with despair. They
       trampled each other down, fought for the places at the
       windows, fought for the pittance of water with which the cruel
       mercy of the murderers mocked their agonies, raved, prayed,
       blasphemed, implored the guards to fire among them. The
       gaolers in the mean time held lights to the bars, and shouted
       with laughter at the frantic struggles of their victims. At
       length the tumult died away in low gaspings and moanings. The
       day broke. The Nabob had slept off his debauch, and permitted
       the door to be opened. But it was some time before the
       soldiers could make a lane for the survivors, by piling up on
       each side the heaps of corpses on which the burning climate
       had already begun to do its loathsome work. When at length a
       passage was made, twenty-three ghastly figures, such as their
       own mothers would not have known, staggered one by one out of
       the charnel-house. A pit was instantly dug. The dead bodies,
       123 in number, were flung into it promiscuously and covered
       up. … One Englishwoman had survived that night. She was
       placed in the harem of the Prince at Moorshedabad. Surajah
       Dowlah, in the mean time, sent letters to his nominal
       sovereign at Delhi, describing the late conquest in the most
       pompous language. He placed a garrison in Fort William,
       forbade Englishmen to dwell in the neighbourhood, and directed
       that, in memory of his great actions, Calcutta should
       thenceforward be called Alinagore, that is to say, the Port of
       God. In August the news of the fall of Calcutta reached
       Madras, and excited the fiercest and bitterest resentment. The
       cry of the whole settlement was for vengeance. Within
       forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence it was
       determined that an expedition should be sent to the Hoogley,
       and that Clive should be at the head of the land forces. The
       naval armament was under the command of Admiral Watson. Nine
       hundred English infantry, fine troops and full of spirit, and
       1,500 sepoys, composed the army which sailed to punish a
       Prince who had more subjects than Lewis XV. or the Empress
       Maria Theresa. In October the expedition sailed; but it had to
       make its way against adverse winds, and did not reach Bengal
       till December. The Nabob was revelling in fancied security at
       Moorshedabad. He was so profoundly ignorant of the state of
       foreign countries that he often used to say that there were
       not ten thousand men in all Europe; and it had never occurred
       to him as possible, that the English would dare to invade his
       dominions. But, though undisturbed by any fear of their
       military power, he began to miss them greatly. His revenues
       fell off. … He was already disposed to permit the company to
       resume its mercantile operations in his country, when he
       received the news that an English armament was in the Hoogley.
       He instantly ordered all his troops to assemble at
       Moorshedabad, and marched towards Calcutta. Clive had
       commenced operations with his usual vigour. He took
       Budgebudge, routed the garrison of Fort William, recovered
       Calcutta, stormed and sacked Hoogley. The Nabob, already
       disposed to make some concessions to the English, was
       confirmed in his pacific disposition by these proofs of their
       power and spirit. He accordingly made overtures to the chiefs
       of the invading armament, and offered to restore the factory,
       and to give compensation to those whom he had despoiled.
       Clive's profession, was war; and he felt that there was
       something discreditable in an accommodation with Surajah
       Dowlah. But his power was limited. … The promises of the
       Nabob were large, the chances of a contest doubtful; and Clive
       consented to treat, though he expressed his regret that things
       should not be concluded in so glorious a manner as he could
       have wished. With this negotiation commences a new chapter in
       the life of Clive. Hitherto he had been merely a soldier
       carrying into effect, with eminent ability and valour, the
       plans of others. Henceforth he is to be chiefly regarded as a
       statesman; and his military movements are to be considered as
       subordinate to his political designs."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Lord Clive (Essays).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir J. Malcolm,
          Life of Lord Clive,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          J. Mill,
          History of British India,
          book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3).

          H. E. Busteed,
          Echoes from Old Calcutta,
          chapter 1.

    {1717}

    INDIA: A. D. 1757.
       A Treacherous conspiracy against Surajah Dowlah.
       His overthrow at the battle of Plassey.
       The counterfeit Treaty with Omichund.
       Elevation of Meer Jaffier to the Subahdar's throne.

       The unsatisfactory treaty entered into with Surajah Dowlah had
       been pressed upon Clive by the Calcutta merchants, who
       "thought the alliance would enable them to get rid of the
       rival French station at Chandernagore. The Subahdar gave a
       doubtful answer to their proposal to attack this settlement,
       which Clive interpreted as an assent. The French were
       overpowered, and surrendered their fort. Surajah Dowlah was
       now indignant against his recent allies; and sought the
       friendship of the French officers. Clive, called by the
       natives 'the daring in war,' was also the most adroit,
       and,—for the truth cannot be disguised,—the most
       unscrupulous in policy. The English resident at the Court of
       Moorshedabad, under Clive's instructions, encouraged a
       conspiracy to depose the Subahdar, and to raise his general,
       Meer Jaffier, to the supreme power. A Hindoo of great wealth
       and influence, Omichund, engaged in this conspiracy. After it
       had proceeded so far as to become the subject of a treaty
       between a Select Committee at Calcutta and Meer Jaffier,
       Omichund demanded that a condition should be inserted in that
       treaty, to pay him thirty lacs of rupees as a reward for his
       service. The merchants at Calcutta desired the largest share
       of any donation from Meer Jaffier, as a consideration for
       themselves, and were by no means willing that £300,000 should
       go to a crafty Hindoo. Clive suggested an expedient to secure
       Omichund's fidelity, and yet not to comply with his
       demands—to have two treaties drawn; a real one on red paper,
       a fictitious one on white. The white treaty was to be shown to
       Omichund, and he was to see with his own eyes that he had been
       properly cared for. Clive and the Committee signed this; as
       well as the red treaty which was to go to Meer Jaffier.
       Admiral Watson refused to sign the treacherous document. On
       the 19th of May, 1773, Clive stood up in his place in the
       House of Commons, to defend himself upon this charge against
       him, amongst other accusations. He boldly acknowledged that
       the stratagem of the two treaties was his invention;—that
       admiral Watson did not sign it; but that he should have
       thought himself authorised to sign for him in consequence of a
       conversation; that the person who did sign thought he had
       sufficient authority for so doing. 'He (Clive) forged admiral
       Watson's name, says lord Macaulay. … The courage, the
       perseverance, the unconquerable energy of Clive have furnished
       examples to many in India who have emulated his true glory.
       Thank God, the innate integrity of the British character has,
       for the most part, preserved us from such exhibitions of 'true
       policy and justice.' The English resident, Mr. Watts, left
       Moorshedabad. Clive wrote a letter of defiance to Surajah
       Dowlah, and marched towards his capital. The Subahdar had come
       forth from his city, as populous as the London of a century
       ago, to annihilate the paltry army of 1,000 English, and their
       2,000 Sepoys disciplined by English officers, who dared to
       encounter his 60,000. He reached the village of Plassey with
       all the panoply of oriental warfare. His artillery alone
       appeared sufficient to sweep away those who brought only eight
       field pieces and two howitzers to meet his fifty heavy guns.
       Each gun was drawn by forty yoke of oxen; and a trained
       elephant was behind each gun to urge it over rough ground or
       up steep ascents. Meer Jaffier had not performed his promise
       to join the English with a division of the Subahdar's army. It
       was a time of terrible anxiety with the English commander.
       Should he venture to give battle without the aid of a native
       force? He submitted his doubt to a Council of War. Twelve
       officers, himself amongst the number, voted for delay. Seven
       voted for instant action. Clive reviewed the arguments on each
       side, and finally cast away his doubts. He determined to
       fight, without which departure from the opinion of the
       majority, he afterwards said, the English would never have
       been masters of Bengal. On the 22nd of June [1757], his little
       army marched fifteen miles, passed the Hooghly, and at one
       o'clock of the morning of the 23rd rested under the
       mangoe-trees of Plassey. As the day broke, the vast legions of
       the Subahdar,—15,000 cavalry, 45,000 infantry,—some armed
       with muskets, some with bows and arrows, began to surround the
       mangoe-grove and the hunting-lodge where Clive had watched
       through the night. There was a cannonade for several hours.
       The great guns of Surajah Dowlah did little execution. The
       small field-pieces of Clive were well served. One of the chief
       Mohammedan leaders having fallen, disorder ensued, and the
       Subahdar was advised to retreat. He himself fled upon a swift
       camel to Moorshedabad. When the British forces began to
       pursue, the victory became complete. Meer Jaffier joined the
       conquerors the next day. Surajah Dowlah did not consider
       himself safe in his capital; and he preferred to seek the
       protection of a French detachment at Patna. He escaped from
       his palace disguised; ascended the Ganges in a small boat; and
       fancied himself secure. A peasant whose ears he had cut off
       recognised his oppressor, and with some soldiers brought him
       back to Moorshedabad. In his presence-chamber now sat Meer
       Jaffier, to whose knees the wretched youth crawled for mercy.
       That night Surajah Dowlah was murdered in his prison, by the
       orders of Meer Jaffier's son, a boy as blood-thirsty as
       himself."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 6, chapter 14.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Founders of the Indian Empire: Clive,
          chapters 8-10.

          G. B. Malleson,
          Lord Clive (Rulers of India).

          G. B. Malleson,
          Decisive Battles of India,
          chapter 3.

          E. Thornton,
          History of British Empire in India,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

    INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
       Clive's Administration in Bengal.
       Decisive war with the Moghul Emperor and the Nawab of Oudh.
       English Supremacy established.

       "The battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757, an
       anniversary afterwards remembered when the Mutiny of 1857 was
       at its height. History has agreed to adopt this date as the
       beginning of the British Empire in the East. But the immediate
       results of the victory were comparatively small, and several
       years passed in hard fighting before even the Bengalis would
       admit the superiority of the British arms.
    {1718}
       For the moment, however, all opposition was at an end. Clive,
       again following in the steps of Dupleix, placed Mir Jafar upon
       the Viceregal throne at Murshidabad, being careful to obtain a
       patent of investiture from the Mughal court. Enormous sums
       were exacted from Mir Jafar as the price of his elevation. …
       At the same time, the Nawab made a grant to the Company of the
       zamindari or landholder's rights over an extensive tract of
       country round Calcutta, now known as the District of the
       Twenty-four Parganas. The area of this tract was 882 square
       miles. In 1757 the Company obtained only the zamindari
       rights—i. e., the rights to collect the cultivator's rents,
       with the revenue jurisdiction attached [see below: A. D.
       1785-1793]. The superior lordship, or right to receive the
       land tax, remained with the Nawab. But in 1759, this also was
       granted by the Delhi Emperor, the nominal Suzerain of the
       Nawab, in favour of Clive, who thus became the landlord of his
       own masters, the Company. … Lord Clive's claims to the
       property as feudal Suzerain over the Company were contested in
       1764; and on the 23d June, 1765, when he returned to Bengal, a
       new deed was issued, confirming the unconditional jagir to
       Lord Clive for ten years, with reversion afterwards to the
       Company in perpetuity. … In 1758, Clive was appointed by the
       Court of Directors the first Governor of all the Company's
       settlements in Bengal. Two powers threatened hostilities. On
       the west, the Shahzada or Imperial prince, known afterwards as
       the Emperor Shah Alam, with a mixed army of Afghans and
       Marhattas, and supported by the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, was
       advancing his own claims to the Province of Bengal. In the
       south, the influence of the French under Lally and Bussy was
       overshadowing the British at Madras. The name of Clive
       exercised a decisive effect in both directions. Mir Jafar was
       anxious to buy off the Shahzada, who had already invested
       Patna. But Clive marched in person to the rescue, with an army
       of only 450 Europeans and 2,500 sepoys, and the Mughal army
       dispersed without striking a blow. In the same year, Clive
       despatched a force southwards under Colonel Forde, which
       recaptured Masulipatam from the French, and permanently
       established British influence throughout the Northern Circars,
       and at the court of Haidarabad. He next attacked the Dutch,
       the only other European nation who might yet prove a rival to
       the English. He defeated them both by land and water; and
       their settlement at Chinsurah existed thenceforth only on
       sufferance. From 1760 to 1765, Clive was in England. He had
       left no system of government in Bengal, but merely the
       tradition that unlimited sums of money might be extracted from
       the natives by the terror of the English name. In 1761, it was
       found expedient and profitable to dethrone Mir Jafar, the
       English Nawab of Murshidabad, and to substitute his
       son-in-law, Mir Kasim, in his place. On this occasion, besides
       private donations, the English received a grant of the three
       Districts of Bardwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong, estimated to
       yield a net revenue of half a million sterling. But Mir Kasim
       soon began to show a will of his own, and to cherish dreams of
       independence. … The Nawab alleged that his civil authority
       was everywhere set at nought. The majority of the Council at
       Calcutta would not listen to his complaints. The Governor, Mr.
       Vansittart, and Warren Hastings, then a junior member of
       Council, attempted to effect some compromise. But the
       controversy had become too hot. The Nawab's officers fired
       upon an English boat, and forthwith all Bengal rose in arms
       [1763]. Two thousand of our sepoys were cut to pieces at
       Patna; about 200 Englishmen, who there and in other various
       parts of the Province fell into the hands of the Muhammadans,
       were massacred. But as soon as regular warfare commenced, Mir
       Kasim met with no more successes. His trained regiments were
       defeated in two pitched battles by Major Adams, at Gheriah and
       at Udha-nala; and he himself took refuge with the Nawab Wazir
       of Oudh, who refused to deliver him up. This led to a
       prolongation of the war. Shah Alam, who had now succeeded his
       father as Emperor, and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab Wazir of
       Oudh, united their forces, and threatened Patna, which the
       English had recovered. A more formidable danger appeared in
       the English camp, in the form of the first sepoy mutiny. This
       was quelled by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro, who
       ordered 24 of the ringleaders to be blown from guns, an old
       Mughal punishment. In 1764, Major Munro won the decisive
       battle of Baxar [or Buxar], which laid Oudh at the feet of the
       conquerors, and brought the Mughal Emperor as a suppliant to
       the English camp. Meanwhile, the Council at Calcutta had twice
       found the opportunity they loved of selling the government of
       Bengal to a new Nawab. But in 1765, Clive (now Baron Clive of
       Plassey in the peerage of Ireland) arrived at Calcutta, as
       Governor of Bengal for the second time. Two landmarks stand
       out in his policy. First, he sought the substance, although
       not the name, of territorial power, under the fiction of a
       grant from the Mughal Emperor. Second, he desired to purify
       the Company's service, by prohibiting illicit gains, and
       guaranteeing a reasonable pay from honest sources. In neither
       respect were his plans carried out by his immediate
       successors. But the beginning of our Indian rule dates from
       this second governorship of Clive, as our military supremacy
       had dated from his victory at Plassey. Clive landed, advanced
       rapidly up from Calcutta to Allahabad, and there settled in
       person the fate of nearly half of India. Oudh was given back
       to the Nawab Wazir, on condition of his paying half a million
       sterling towards the expenses of the war. The Provinces of
       Allahabad and Kora, forming the greater part of the Doab, were
       handed over to Shah Alam himself, who in his turn granted to
       the Company the diwani or fiscal administration of Bengal,
       Behar, and Orissa, and also the territorial jurisdiction of
       the Northern Circars. A puppet Nawab was still maintained at
       Murshidabad, who received an annual allowance from us of
       £600,000. Half that amount, or about £300,000, we paid to the
       Emperor as tribute from Bengal. Thus was constituted the dual
       system of government, by which the English received all the
       revenues and undertook to maintain the army; while the
       criminal jurisdiction, or nizamat, was vested in the Nawab. In
       Indian phraseology, the Company was diwan and the Nawab was
       nizam. The actual collection of the revenues still remained
       for some years in the hands of native officials. … Lord
       Clive quitted India for the third and last time in 1767.
    {1719}
       Between that date and the governorship of Warren Hastings, in
       1772, little of importance occurred in Bengal beyond the
       terrible famine of 1770, which is officially reported to have
       swept away one-third of the inhabitants. The dual system of
       government, established in 1765 by Clive, had proved a
       failure. Warren Hastings, a tried servant of the Company,
       distinguished alike for intelligence, for probity, and for
       knowledge of oriental manners, was nominated Governor by the
       Court of Directors, with express instructions to carry out a
       predetermined series of reforms. In their own words, the Court
       had resolved to 'stand forth as diwan, and to take upon
       themselves, by the agency of their own servants, the entire
       care and administration of the revenues.' In the execution of
       this plan, Hastings removed the exchequer from Murshidabad to
       Calcutta, and appointed European officers, under the now
       familiar title of Collectors, to superintend the revenue
       collections and preside in the courts. Clive had laid the
       territorial foundations of the British Empire in Bengal.
       Hastings may be said to have created a British administration
       for that Empire."

          Sir W. W. Hunter,
          India (article in Imperial Gazetteer of India)
          volume 4, pages 389-394.

          ALSO IN:
          W. M, Torrens,
          Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
          chapters 4-6.

          Sir C. Wilson,
          Lord Clive,
          chapters 7-9.

          G. B. Malleson,
          Decisive Battles of India,
          chapter 7.

    INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
       Overthrow of French domination in the Carnatic.
       The decisive Battle of Wandiwash.

       "In 1758 the fortunes of the French in India underwent an
       entire change. In April a French fleet arrived at Pondicherry.
       It brought a large force under the command of Count de Lally,
       who had been appointed Governor-General of the French
       possessions in India. … No sooner had he landed at
       Pondicherry than he organised an expedition against Fort St.
       David; but he found that no preparations had been made by the
       French authorities. There was a want alike of coolies, draught
       cattle, provisions, and ready money. But the energy of Lally
       overcame all obstacles. … In June, 1758, Lally captured Fort
       St. David. He then prepared to capture Madras as a preliminary
       to an advance on Bengal. He recalled Bussy from the Dekhan to
       help him with his Indian experiences; and he sent the Marquis
       de Conflans to succeed Bussy in the command of the Northern
       Circars. [A strip of territory on the Coromandel coast, which
       had been ceded to the French in 1752 by Salabut Jung, Nizam of
       the Dekhun, was so called; it stretched along 600 miles of
       seaboard, from the Carnatic frontier northwards.] … The
       departure of Bussy from the Northern Circars was disastrous to
       the French. The Raja of Vizianagram revolted against the
       French and sent to Calcutta for help. Clive despatched an
       English force to the Northern Circars, under the command of
       Colonel Forde; and in December, 1758, Colonel Forde defeated
       the French under Conflans [at Condore, or Kondur, December 9],
       and prepared to recover all the English factories on the coast
       which had been captured by Bussy. Meanwhile Count de Lally was
       actively engaged at Pondicherry in preparations for the siege
       of Madras. He hoped to capture Madras, and complete the
       destruction of the English in the Carnatic; and then to march
       northward, capture Calcutta, and expel the English from
       Bengal. … Lally reached Madras on the 12th of December,
       1758, and at once took possession of Black Town. He then began
       the siege of Fort St. George with a vigour and activity which
       commanded the respect of his enemies. His difficulties were
       enormous. … Even the gunpowder was nearly exhausted. At
       last, on the 16th of February, 1759, an English fleet arrived
       at Madras under Admiral Pocock, and Lally was compelled to
       raise the siege. Such was the state of party feeling amongst
       the French in India, that the retreat of Lally from Madras was
       received at Pondicherry with every demonstration of joy. The
       career of Lally in India lasted for two years longer, namely
       from February, 1759, to February, 1761; it is a series of
       hopeless struggles and wearying misfortunes. In the Dekhan,
       Salabut Jung had been thrown into the utmost alarm by the
       departure of Bussy and defeat of Conflans. He was exposed to
       the intrigues and plots of his younger brother, Nizam Ali, and
       he despaired of obtaining further help from the French.
       Accordingly he opened up negotiations with Colonel Forde and
       the English. Forde on his part recovered all the Captured
       factories [taking Masulipatam by storm, April 7, 1759, after a
       fortnight's siege], and drove the French out of the Northern
       Circars. He could not however interfere in the domestic
       affairs of the Dekhan, by helping Salabut Jung against Nizam
       Ali. In 1761 Salabut Jung was dethroned and placed in
       confinement; and Nizam Ali ascended the throne at Hyderabad as
       ruler of the Dekhan. In the Carnatic the French were in
       despair. In January, 1760, Lally was defeated by Colonel Coote
       at Wandiwash, between Madras and Pondicherry. Lally opened up
       negotiations with Hyder Ali, who was rising to power in
       Mysore; but Hyder Ali as yet could do little or nothing. At
       the end of 1760 Colonel Coote began the siege of Pondicherry.
       Lally … was ill in health and worn out with vexation and
       fatigue. The settlement was torn by dissensions. In January,
       1761, the garrison was starved into a capitulation, and the
       town and fortifications were levelled with the ground. A few
       weeks afterwards the French were compelled to surrender the
       strong hill-fortress of Jingi, and their military power in the
       Carnatic was brought to a close." On the return of Count Lally
       to France "he was sacrificed to save the reputation of the
       French ministers. … He was tried by the parliament of Paris.
       … In May, 1766, he was condemned not only to death, but to
       immediate execution."

          J. T. Wheeler,
          Short History of India,
          part 3, chapter 2.

       "The battle of Wandewash, … though the numbers on each side
       were comparatively small, must yet be classed amongst the
       decisive battles of the world, for it dealt a fatal and
       decisive blow to French domination in India."

          G. B. Malleson,
          History of the French in India,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Decisive Battles of India,
          chapter 4.

    INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
       The first war with Hyder Ali.

       "At this period, the main point of interest changes from the
       Presidency of Bengal to the Presidency of Madras. There, the
       English were becoming involved in another war. There, they had
       now, for the first time, to encounter the most skilful and
       daring of all the enemies against whom they ever fought in
       India—Hyder Ali.
    {1720}
       He was of humble origin, the grandchild of a wandering 'fakir'
       or Mahomedan monk. Most versatile in his talents, Hyder was no
       less adventurous in his career; by turns a private man devoted
       to sports of the chase, a captain of free-booters, a
       partisan-chief, a rebel against the Rajah of Mysore, and
       commander-in-chief of the Mysorean army. Of this last position
       he availed himself to dethrone and supplant his master. …
       Pursuing his ambitious schemes, Hyder Ali became, not merely
       the successor of the Rajah, but the founder of the kingdom of
       Mysore. From his palace at Seringapatam, as from a centre, a
       new energy was infused through the whole of Southern India. By
       various wars and by the dispossession of several smaller
       princes, he extended his frontiers to the northward, nearly to
       the river Kistna. His posts on the coast of Malabar, Mangalore
       especially, gave him the means of founding a marine; and he
       applied himself with assiduous skill to train and discipline
       his troops according to the European models. The English at
       Madras were roused by his ambition, without as yet fully
       appreciating his genius. We find them at the beginning of 1767
       engaged, with little care or forethought, in a confederacy
       against him with the Nizam and the Mahrattas. Formidable as
       that confederacy might seem, it was speedily dissipated by the
       arts of Hyder. At the very outset, a well-timed subsidy bought
       off the Mahrattas. The Nizam showed no better faith; he was
       only more tardy in his treason. He took the field in concert
       with a body of English commanded by Colonel Joseph Smith, but
       soon began to show symptoms of defection, and at last drew off
       his troops to join the army of Hyder. A battle ensued near
       Trincomalee, in September, 1767. Colonel Smith had under him
       no more than 1,500 Europeans and 9,000 Sepoys; while the
       forces combined on the other side were estimated, probably
       with much exaggeration, at 70,000 men. Nevertheless, Victory,
       as usual, declared for the English cause. … Our victory at
       Trincomalee produced as its speedy consequence a treaty of
       peace with the Nizam. Hyder was left alone; but even thus
       proved fully a match for the English both of Madras and of
       Bombay. … He could not be prevented from laying waste the
       southern plains of the Carnatic, as the territory of one of
       the staunchest allies of England, Mahomed Ali, the Nabob of
       Arcot. Through such ravages, the British troops often
       underwent severe privations. … At length, in the spring of
       1769, Hyder Ali became desirous of peace, and resolved to
       extort it on favourable terms. First, by a dexterous feint he
       drew off the British forces 140 miles to the southward of
       Madras. Then suddenly, at the head of 5,000 horsemen, Hyder
       himself appeared at St. Thomas's Mount, within ten miles of
       that city. The terrified Members of the Council already, in
       their mind's eye, saw their country-houses given up to plunder
       and to flame, and were little inclined to dispute whatever
       might be asked by an enemy so near at hand. Happily his terms
       were not high. A treaty was signed, providing that a mutual
       restoration of conquests should take place, and that the
       contracting parties should agree to assist each other in all
       defensive wars. In the career of Hyder Ali, this was by no
       means the first, nor yet the last occasion, on which he showed
       himself sincerely desirous of alliance with the English. He
       did not conceal the fact, that, in order to maintain his power
       and secure himself, he must lean either on them or on the
       Mahrattas. … In this war with Hyder, the English had lost no
       great amount of reputation, and of territory they had lost
       none at all. But as regards their wealth and their resources,
       they had suffered severely. Supplies, both of men and of
       money, had been required from Bengal, to assist the government
       at Madras; and both had been freely given. In consequence of
       such a drain, there could not be made the usual investments in
       goods, nor yet the usual remittances to England. Thus at the
       very time when the proprietors of the East India Company had
       begun to wish each other joy on the great reforms effected by
       Lord Clive, and looked forward to a further increase of their
       half-yearly Dividend, they were told to prepare for its
       reduction. A panic ensued. Within a few days, in the spring of
       1769, India Stock fell above sixty per cent."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 67.

          ALSO IN:
          Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,
          History of Hydur Naik,
          chapters 1-17.

          L. B. Bowring,
          Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,
          chapter 8.

    INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
       Climax of English misrule.
       Break-down of the East India Company's government.
       The Indian Act of Lord North.

       "In 1770 Bengal was desolated by perhaps the most terrible of
       the many terrible famines that have darkened its history, and
       it was estimated that more than a third part of its
       inhabitants perished. Yet in spite of all these calamities, in
       spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence of the inadequacy
       of the Indian revenues, the rapacity of the proprietors at
       home prevailed, and dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent., as
       permitted by the last Act, were declared. The result of all
       this could hardly be doubtful. In July, 1772, the Directors
       were obliged to confess that the sum required for the
       necessary payments of the next three months was deficient to
       the extent of no less than £1,293,000, and in August the
       Chairman and Deputy Chairman waited on the Minister to inform
       him that nothing short of a loan of at least one million from
       the public could save the Company from ruin. The whole system
       of Indian government had thus for a time broken down. The
       division between the Directors and a large part of the
       proprietors, and between the authorities of the Company in
       England and those in India, the private and selfish interests
       of its servants in India, and of its proprietors at home, the
       continual oscillation between a policy of conquest and a
       policy of trade, and the great want in the whole organisation
       of any adequate power of command and of restraint, had fatally
       weakened the great corporation. In England the conviction was
       rapidly growing that the whole system of governing a great
       country by a commercial company was radically and incurably
       false. … The subject was discussed in Parliament, in 1772,
       at great length, and with much acrimony. Several propositions
       were put forward by the Directors, but rejected by the
       Parliament; and Parliament, under the influence of Lord North,
       and in spite of the strenuous and passionate opposition of
       Burke, asserted in unequivocal terms its right to the
       territorial revenues of the Company. A Select Committee,
       consisting of thirty-one members, was appointed by Parliament
       to make a full inquiry into the affairs of the Company. It was
       not, however, till 1773 that decisive measures were taken.
    {1721}
       The Company was at this time absolutely helpless. Lord North
       commanded an overwhelming majority in both Houses, and on
       Indian questions he was supported by a portion of the
       Opposition. The Company was on the brink of ruin, unable to
       pay its tribute to the Government, unable to meet the bills
       which were becoming due in Bengal. The publication, in 1773,
       of the report of the Select Committee, revealed a scene of
       maladministration, oppression, and fraud which aroused a
       wide-spread indignation through England; and the Government
       was able without difficulty, in spite of the provisions of the
       charter, to exercise a complete controlling and regulating
       power over the affairs of the Company. … By enormous
       majorities two measures were passed through Parliament in
       1773, which mark the commencement of a new epoch in the
       history of the East India Company. By one Act, the ministers
       met its financial embarrassments by a loan of £1,400,000 at an
       interest of 4 per cent., and agreed to forego the claim of
       £400,000 till this loan had been discharged. The Company was
       restricted from declaring any dividend above 6 per cent. till
       the new loan had been discharged, and above 7 per cent. till
       its bond-debt was reduced to £1,500,000. It was obliged to
       submit its accounts every half-year to the Lords of the
       Treasury; it was restricted from accepting bills drawn by its
       servants in India for above 300,000 a year, and it was obliged
       to export to the British settlements within its limits British
       goods of a specified value. By another Act, the whole
       constitution of the Company was changed, and the great centre
       of authority and power was transferred to the Crown. … All
       the more important matters of jurisdiction in India were to be
       submitted to a new court, consisting of a Chief Justice and
       three puisne judges appointed by the Crown. A Governor-General
       of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, was to be appointed at a salary
       of £25,000 a year, with four Councillors, at salaries of
       £8,000 a year, and the other presidencies were made
       subordinate to Bengal. The first Governor-General and
       Councillors were to be nominated, not by the East India
       Company, but by Parliament; they were to be named in the Act,
       and to hold their offices for five years; after that period
       the appointments reverted to the Directors, but were subject
       to the approbation of the Crown. Everything in the Company's
       correspondence with India relating to civil and military
       affairs was to be laid before the Government. No person in the
       service of the King or of the Company might receive presents,
       and the Governor-General, the Councillors, and the judges were
       excluded from all commercial profits and pursuits. By this
       memorable Act the charter of the East India Company was
       completely subverted, and the government of India passed
       mainly into the hands of the ministers of the Crown. The chief
       management of affairs was vested in persons in whose
       appointment or removal the Company had no voice or share, who
       might govern without its approbation or sanction, but who
       nevertheless drew, by authority of an Act of Parliament, large
       salaries from its exchequer. Such a measure could be justified
       only by extreme necessity and by brilliant success, and it was
       obviously open to the gravest objections from many sides. …
       Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General: Barwell,
       Clavering, Monson, and Philip Francis were the four
       Councillors."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 13 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Mill,
          History of British India,
          book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3).

    INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
       The First English Governor-General.
       Administration of Warren Hastings.
       Execution of Nuncomar.
       The Rohilla War.
       Annexation of Benares.
       Treatment of the Begums of Oudh.

       "The Governor-General was not at once the potential personage
       he has since become. The necessity of ruling by a Dictator (a
       dictator on the spot, though responsible to superiors at home)
       had not yet become obvious; and the Governor-General had no
       superiority in council, except the casting vote in case of an
       equal division. Whether he could govern or not depended
       chiefly on whether he had a party of two in the council. Two
       out of the four, with his own casting vote, were enough; and
       without it, he was not really governor. This is not the place
       in which to follow the history of the first general council
       and its factions, apart from the consequences to British
       interests. It must suffice to say that at the outset, three
       out of four of the council (and those the new officials from
       England) were opposed to Hastings. It has been related that
       the internal administration of Bengal under Clive's 'double
       system' was managed by the Nabob's prime-minister. This
       functionary had a salary of £100,000 a year, and enjoyed a
       high dignity and immense power. One man who aspired to hold
       the office in Clive's time was the great Hindoo, Nuncomar, …
       eminent in English eyes for his wealth, and his abilities, and
       much more in native estimation for his sanctity as a Brahmin,
       and his almost unbounded social power. … The Maharajah
       Nuncomar was a great scoundrel—there is no doubt of that;
       and his intrigues, supported by forgeries, were so flagrant as
       to prevent his appointment to the premiership under the Nabob.
       Such vices were less odious in Bengal than almost anywhere
       else; but they were inconvenient, as well as disgusting, to
       the British; and this was the reason why Clive set aside
       Nuncomar, and appointed his rival competitor, Mohammed Reza
       Khan, though he was highly reluctant to place the highest
       office in Bengal in the hands of a Mussulman. This Mussulman
       administered affairs for seven years before Hastings became
       Governor-General; and he also had the charge of the infant
       Nabob, after Surajah Dowla died. We have seen how dissatisfied
       the Directors were with the proceeds of their Bengal
       dominions. Nuncomar planted his agents everywhere; and in
       London especially; and these agents persuaded the Directors
       that Mohammed Reza Khan was to blame for their difficulties
       and their scanty revenues. Confident in this information, they
       sent secret orders to Hastings to arrest the great Mussulman,
       and everybody who belonged to him, and to hear what Nuncomar
       had to say against him." The Governor-General obeyed the order
       and made the arrests, "but the Mussulman minister was not
       punished, and Nuncomar hated Hastings accordingly. He bided
       his time, storing up materials of accusation with which to
       overwhelm the Governor at the first turn of his fortunes. That
       turn was when the majority of the Council were opposed to the
       Governor-General, and rendered him helpless in his office; and
       Nuncomar then presented himself, with offers of evidence to
       prove all manner of treasons and corruptions against Hastings.
    {1722}
       Hastings was haughty; the councils were tempestuous. Hastings
       prepared to resign, though he was aware that the opinion of
       the English in Bengal was with him; and Nuncomar was the
       greatest native in the country, visited by the Council, and
       resorted to by all his countrymen who ventured to approach
       him. Foiled in the Council, Hastings had recourse to the
       Supreme Court [of which Sir Elijah Impey was the Chief
       Justice]. He caused Nuncomar to be arrested on a charge
       brought ostensibly by a native of having forged a bond six
       years before. After a long trial for an offence which appeared
       very slight to Bengalee natives in those days, the culprit was
       found guilty by a jury of Englishmen, and condemned to death
       by the judges."

          H. Martineau,
          British Rule in India,
          chapter 9.

       "It may perhaps be said that no trial has been so often tried
       over again by such diverse authorities, or in so many
       different ways, as this celebrated proceeding. During the
       course of a century it has been made the theme of historical,
       political, and biographical discussions; all the points have
       been argued and debated by great orators and great lawyers; it
       has formed the avowed basis of a motion in Parliament to
       impeach the Chief-Justice, and it must have weighed heavily,
       though indirectly, with those who decided to impeach the
       Governor-General. It gave rise to rumours of a dark and
       nefarious conspiracy which, whether authentic or not, exactly
       suited the humour and the rhetoric of some contemporary
       English politicians. … Very recently Sir James Stephen,
       after subjecting the whole case to exact scrutiny and the most
       skilful analysis, after examining every document and every
       fact bearing upon this matter with anxious attention, has
       pronounced judgment declaring that Nuncomar's trial was
       perfectly fair, that Hastings had nothing to do with the
       prosecution, and that at the time there was no sort of
       conspiracy or understanding between Hastings and Impey in
       relation to it. Nothing can be more masterly or more effective
       than the method employed by Sir James Stephen to explode and
       demolish, by the force of a carefully-laid train of proofs,
       the loose fabric of assertions, invectives, and ill-woven
       demonstrations upon which the enemies of Hastings and Impey
       based and pushed forward their attacks, and which have never
       before been so vigorously battered in reply. … It may be
       accepted, upon Sir James Stephen's authority, that no evidence
       can be produced to justify conclusions adverse to the
       innocence of Hastings upon a charge that has from its nature
       affected the popular tradition regarding him far more deeply
       than the accusations of high-handed oppressive political
       transactions, which are little understood and leniently
       condemned by the English at large. There is really nothing to
       prove that he had anything to do with the prosecution, or that
       he influenced the sentence. … Nevertheless when Sir James
       Stephen undertakes to establish, by argument drawn from the
       general motives of human action, the moral certainty that
       Hastings was totally unconnected with the business, and that
       the popular impression against him is utterly wrong, his
       demonstration is necessarily less conclusive. … On the whole
       there is no reason whatever to dissent from Pitt's view, who
       treated the accusation of a conspiracy between Impey and
       Hastings for the purpose of destroying Nuncomar, as destitute
       of any shadow of solid proof. Whether Hastings, when Nuncomar
       openly tried to ruin him by false and malignant accusations,
       became aware and made use in self-defence of the fact that his
       accuser had rendered himself liable to a prosecution for
       forgery, is a different question, upon which also no evidence
       exists or is likely to be forthcoming."

          Sir A. Lyall,
          Warren Hastings,
          chapter 3.

       "James Mill says, 'No transaction perhaps of his whole
       administration more deeply tainted the reputation of Hastings
       than the tragedy of Nuncomar.' A similar remark was made by
       William Wilberforce. The most prominent part too in Nuncomar's
       story is played by Sir Elijah Impey. … Impey, in the present
       day, is known to English people in general only by the
       terrible attack made upon him by Lord Macaulay, in his essay
       on Warren Hastings. It stigmatises him as one of the vilest of
       mankind. 'No other such judge has dishonoured the English
       ermine since Jefferies drank himself to death in the Tower.'
       'Impey, sitting as a judge, put a man unjustly to death, in
       order to serve a political purpose.' 'The time had come when
       he was to be stripped of that robe which he had so foully
       dishonoured.' These dreadful accusations I, upon the fullest
       consideration of the whole subject, and, in particular, of
       much evidence which Macaulay seems to me never to have seen,
       believe to be wholly unjust. For Macaulay himself I have an
       affectionate admiration. He was my own friend, and my
       father's, and my grandfather's friend also, and there are few
       injunctions which I am more disposed to observe than the one
       which bids us not to forget such persons. I was, moreover, his
       successor in office, and am better able than most persons to
       appreciate the splendour of the services which he rendered to
       India. These considerations make me anxious if I can to repair
       a wrong done by him, not intentionally, for there never was a
       kinder-hearted man, but because he adopted on insufficient
       grounds the traditional hatred which the Whigs bore to Impey,
       and also because his marvellous power of style blinded him to
       the effect which his language produced. He did not know his
       own strength, and was probably not aware that a few sentences
       which came from him with little effort were enough to brand a
       man's name with almost indelible infamy. … My own opinion is
       that no man ever had, or could have, a fairer trial than
       Nuncomar, and that Impey in particular behaved with absolute
       fairness and as much indulgence as was compatible with his
       duty. In his defence at the bar of the House of Commons, he
       said, 'Conscious as I am how much it was my intention to
       favour the prisoner in everything that was consistent with
       justice; wishing as I did that the facts might turn out
       favourable for an acquittal; it has appeared most wonderful to
       me that the execution of my purpose has so far differed from
       my intentions that any ingenuity could form an objection to my
       personal conduct as bearing hard on the prisoner.' My own
       earnest study of the trial has led me to the conviction that
       every word of this is absolutely true and just. Indeed, the
       first matter which directed my attention to the subject was
       the glaring contrast between Impey's conduct as ascribed in
       the State Trials and his character as described by Lord
       Macaulay.
    {1723}
       There is not a word in his summing-up of which I should have
       been ashamed had I said it myself, and all my study of the
       case has not suggested to me a single observation in
       Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the
       verdict, I think that there was ample evidence to support it.
       Whether it was in fact correct is a point on which it is
       impossible for me to give an unqualified opinion, as it is of
       course impossible now to judge decidedly of the credit due to
       the witnesses, and as I do not understand some part of the
       exhibits."

          J. F. Stephen,
          The Story of Nuncomar,
          pages 2-3, 186-187.

       "Sir John Strachey, in his work on Hastings and the Rohilla
       War, examines in detail one of the chief charges made against
       the conduct of Warren Hastings while Governor-General. The
       Rohilla charge was dropped by Burke and the managers, and was
       therefore not one of the issues tried at the impeachment; but
       it was, in spite of this fact, one of the main accusations
       urged against the Governor-General in Macaulay's famous essay.
       Macaulay, following James Mill, accuses Warren Hastings of
       having hired out an English army to exterminate what Burke
       called 'the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation
       on earth.' According to Macaulay, the Vizier of Oudh coveted
       the Rohilla country, but was not strong enough to take it for
       himself. Accordingly, he paid down forty lakhs of rupees to
       Hastings, on condition that the latter should help to strike
       down and seize his prey. … Sir John Strachey … shows
       beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole story is a delusion.
       … 'The English army was not hired out by Hastings for the
       destruction of the Rohillas; the Rohillas described by Burke
       as belonging to the bravest, the most honourable and generous
       nation on earth, were no nation at all, but a comparatively
       small body of cruel and rapacious Afghan adventurers, who had
       imposed their foreign rule on an unwilling Hindoo population;
       and the story of their destruction is fictitious.' … The
       north-west angle of the great strip of plain which follows the
       course of the Ganges was possessed by a clan which fifty years
       before had been a mere band of Afghan mercenaries, but which
       was now beginning to settle down as a dominant governing
       class, living among a vastly more numerous subject-population
       of Hindoos. This country was Rohilkhand, the warrior-horde the
       Rohillas. It must never be forgotten that the Rohillas were no
       more the inhabitants of Rohilkhand than were the Normans fifty
       years after the Conquest the inhabitants of England. … But
       the fact that the corner of what geographically was our
       barrier State was held by the Rohillas, made it necessary for
       us to keep Rohilkhand as well as Oudh free from the Mahrattas.
       Hence it became the key-note of Warren Hastings' policy to
       help both the Rohillas and the Vizier [of Oudh] to maintain
       their independence against the Mahrattas. In the year 1772,
       however, the Mahrattas succeeded in crossing the Ganges, in
       getting into Rohilkhand, and in threatening the Province of
       Oudh. … Hastings encouraged the Vizier and the Rohilla
       chiefs to make an alliance, under which the Rohillas were to
       be reinstated in their country by aid of the Vizier, the
       Vizier obtaining for such assistance forty lakhs,—that is, he
       coupled the Rohillas and the Vizier, for defence purposes,
       into one barrier-State. … If the Rohillas had observed this
       treaty, all might have been well. Unhappily for them, they
       could not resist the temptation to break faith." They joined
       the Mahrattas against Oudh, and it was after this had occurred
       twice that Hastings lent assistance to the Vizier in expelling
       them from Rohilkhand. "Instead of exterminating the Rohillas,
       he helped make a warrior-clan, but one generation removed from
       a 'free company,' recross the Ganges and release from their grip
       the land they had conquered."

          The Spectator,
          April 2, 1892.

          Sir John Strachey,
          Hastings and the Rohillas.

       "The year 1781 opened for Hastings on a troubled sea of
       dangers, difficulties, and distress. Haidar Ali was raging in
       the Carnatic, Goddard and Camac were still fighting the
       Marathas, and French fleets were cruising in the Bay of
       Bengal. … It was no time for standing upon trifles. Money
       must be raised somehow, if British India was to be saved.
       Among other sources of supply, he turned to the Rajah of
       Banaras [or Benares]. Chait Singh was the grandson of an
       adventurer, who had ousted his own patron and protector from
       the lordship of the district so named. In 1775, his fief had
       been transferred by treaty from the Nawab of Oudh to the
       Company. As a vassal of the Company he was bound to aid them
       with men and money in times of special need. Five lakhs of
       rupees—£50,000—and two thousand horse was the quota which
       Hastings had demanded of him in 1780. In spite of the revenue
       of half-a-million, of the great wealth stored up in his
       private coffers, and of the splendid show which he always made
       in public, the Rajah pleaded poverty, and put off compliance
       with the demands of his liege lord. … Chait Singh had
       repeatedly delayed the payment of his ordinary tribute; his
       body-guard alone was larger than the force which Hastings
       required of him; he was enrolling troops for some warlike
       purpose, and Hastings' agents accused him of secret plottings
       with the Oudh Begams at Faizabad. … The Rajah, in fact, like
       a shrewd, self-seeking Hindu, was waiting upon circumstances,
       which at that time boded ill for his English neighbours. The
       Marathas, the French, or some other power might yet relieve
       him from the yoke of a ruler who restrained his ambition, and
       lectured him on the duty of preserving law and order among his
       own subjects. … It has often been argued that, in his stern
       dealings with the Rajah of Banaras, Hastings was impelled by
       malice and a desire for revenge. But the subsequent verdict of
       the House of Lords on this point, justifies itself to all who
       have carefully followed the facts of his life. … As a matter
       of policy, he determined to make an example of a contumacious
       vassal, whose conduct in that hour of need added a new danger
       to those which surrounded the English in India. A heavy fine
       would teach the Rajah to obey orders, and help betimes to fill
       his own treasury with the sinews of war. … Chait Singh had
       already tried upon the Governor-General those arts which in
       Eastern countries people of all classes employ against each
       other without a blush. He had sent Hastings a peace-offering
       of two lakhs—£20,000. Hastings took the money, but reserved
       it for the Company's use. Presently he received an offer of
       twenty lakhs for the public service. But Hastings was in no
       mood for further compromise in evasion of his former demands.
    {1724}
       He would be satisfied with nothing less than half a million in
       quittance of all dues. In July, 1781, he set out, with
       Wheeler's concurrence, for the Rajah's capital. … Traveling,
       as he preferred to do, with a small escort and as little
       parade as possible, he arrived on the 16th August at the
       populous and stately city. … On his way thither, at Baxar,
       the recusant Rajah had come to meet him, with a large retinue,
       in the hope of softening the heart of the great Lord Sahib. He
       even laid his turban on Hastings' lap. … With the
       haughtiness of an ancient Roman, Hastings declined his prayer
       for a private interview. On the day after his arrival at
       Banaras, the Governor-General forwarded to Chait Singh a paper
       stating the grounds of complaint against him, and demanding an
       explanation on each point. The Rajah's answer seemed to
       Hastings' so offensive in style and unsatisfactory in
       substance;' it was full, in fact, of such transparent, or, as
       Lord Thurlow afterwards called them, 'impudent' falsehoods,
       that the Governor-General issued orders for placing the Rajah
       under arrest. Early the next morning, Chait Singh was quietly
       arrested in his own palace. … Meanwhile his armed retainers
       were flocking into the city from his strong castle of
       Ramnagar, on the opposite bank. Mixing with the populace, they
       provoked a tumult, in which the two companies of Sepoys
       guarding the prisoner were cut to pieces. With unloaded
       muskets and empty pouches—for the ammunition had been
       forgotten—the poor men fell like sheep before their butchers.
       Two more companies, in marching to their aid through the
       narrow streets, were nearly annihilated. During the tumult
       Chait Singh quietly slipped out of the palace, dropped by a
       rope of turbans into a boat beneath, and crossed in safety to
       Ramnagar. … If Chait Singh's followers had not shared
       betimes their master's flight across the river, Hastings, with
       his band of thirty Englishmen and fifty Sepoys, might have
       paid very dearly for the sudden miscarriage of his plans. But
       the rabble of Banaras had no leader, and troops from the
       nearest garrisons were already marching to the rescue. …
       Among the first who reached him was the gallant Popham,
       bringing with him several hundred of his own Sepoys. … The
       beginning of September found Popham strong enough to open a
       campaign, which speedily avenged the slaughters at Banaras and
       Ramnagar, and carried Hastings back into the full stream of
       richly-earned success. … The capture of Bijigarh on the 10th
       November, closed the brief but brilliant campaign. The booty,
       amounting to £400,000, was at once divided among the captors;
       and Hastings lost his only chance of replenishing his treasury
       at the expense of Chait Singh. He consoled himself and
       improved the Company's finances, by bestowing the rebel's
       forfeit lordship on his nephew, and doubling the tribute
       hitherto exacted. He was more successful in accomplishing
       another object of his journey up the country."

          L. J. Trotter,
          Warren Hastings,
          chapter 6.

       "It is certain … that Chait Singh's rebellion was largely
       aided by the Begums or Princesses of Faizabad. On this point
       the evidence contained in Mr. Forrest's volumes ['Selections
       from Letters, Despatches and other State Papers in the Foreign
       Department of the Government of India,' edited by G. W.
       Forrest] leaves no shadow of reasonable doubt. In plain truth,
       the Begums, through their Ministers, the eunuchs, had levied
       war both against the Company and their own kinsmen and master,
       the new Wazir of Oudh. Some years before, when the Francis
       faction ruled in Calcutta, these ladies, the widow and the
       mother of Shuja, had joined with the British Agent in robbing
       the new Wazir, Asaf-ud-daula, of nearly all the rich treasure
       which his father had stored up in Faizabad. Hastings solemnly
       protested against a transaction which he was powerless to
       prevent. The Begums kept their hold upon the treasure, and
       their Jaghirs, or military fiefs, which ought by rights to
       have lapsed to the new Wazir. Meanwhile Asaf-ud-daula had to
       govern as he best could, with an empty treasury, and an army
       mutinous for arrears of pay. At last, with the suppression of
       the Benares revolt, it seemed to Hastings and the Wazir that
       the time had come for resuming the Jaghirs, and making the
       Begums disgorge their ill-gotten wealth. In accordance with
       the Treaty of Chunar, both these objects were carried out by
       the Wazir's orders, with just enough of compulsion to give
       Hastings' enemies a handle for the slanders and
       misrepresentations which lent so cruel a point to Sheridan's
       dazzling oratory, and to one of the most scathing passages in
       Macaulay's most popular essay. There are some points, no
       doubt, in Hastings' character and career about which honest
       men may still hold different opinions. But on all the
       weightier issues here mentioned there ought to be no room for
       further controversy. It is no longer possible to contend, for
       instance, that Hastings agreed, for a handsome bribe, to help
       in exterminating the innocent people of Rohilkhand; that he
       prompted Impey to murder Nand-Kumar; that any desire for
       plunder led him to fasten a quarrel upon Chait Singh; or that
       he engaged with the Oudh Wazir in a plot to rob the Wazir's
       own mother of vast property secured to her under a solemn
       compact, 'formally guaranteed by the Government of Bengal.'"

          L. J. Trotter,
          Warren Hastings and his Libellers
          (Westminster Review, March, 1891).

          ALSO IN:
          W. M. Torrens,
          Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
          chapters 7-11.

          H. E. Busteed,
          Echoes from Old Calcutta.

          G. W. Forrest,
          The Administration of Warren Hastings.

          G. R. Gleig,
          Memoirs of Warren Hastings,
          volume 1, chapters 8-14, and volume 2.

    INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
       The second war with Hyder Ali (Second Mysore War).

       "The brilliant successes obtained by the English over the
       French in Hindostan at the beginning of the war had made all
       direct competition between the two nations in that country
       impossible, but it was still in the power of the French to
       stimulate the hostility of the native princes, and the ablest
       of all these, Hyder Ali, the great ruler of Mysore, was once
       more in the field. Since his triumph over the English, in
       1769, he had acquired much additional territory from the
       Mahrattas. He had immensely strengthened his military forces,
       both in numbers and discipline. … For some years he showed
       no wish to quarrel with the English, but when a Mahratta chief
       invaded his territory they refused to give him the assistance
       they were bound by the express terms of the treaty of 1769 to
       afford, they rejected or evaded more than one subsequent
       proposal of alliance, and they pursued a native policy in some
       instances hostile to his interest.
    {1725}
       As a great native sovereign, too, he had no wish to see the
       balance of power established by the rivalry between the
       British and French destroyed. … Mysore was swarming with
       French adventurers. The condition of Europe made it scarcely
       possible that England could send any fresh forces, and Hyder
       Ali had acquired a strength which appeared irresistible.
       Ominous rumours passed over the land towards the close of
       1779, but they were little heeded, and no serious preparations
       had been made, when in July, 1780, the storm suddenly burst.
       At the head of an army of at least 90,000 men, including
       30,000 horsemen, 100 cannon, many European officers and
       soldiers, and crowds of desperate adventurers from all parts
       of India, Hyder Ali descended upon the Carnatic and devastated
       a vast tract of country round Madras. Many forts and towns
       were invested, captured, or surrendered. The Nabob and some of
       his principal officers acted with gross treachery or
       cowardice, and in spite of the devastations native sympathies
       were strongly with the invaders. … Madras was for a time in
       imminent danger. A few forts commanded by British officers
       held out valiantly, but the English had only two considerable
       bodies of men, commanded respectively by Colonel Baillie and
       by Sir Hector Munro, in the field. They endeavoured to effect
       a junction, but Hyder succeeded in attacking separately the
       small army of Colonel Baillie, consisting of rather more than
       3,700 men, and it was totally defeated [September 10], 2,000
       men being left on the field. Munro only saved himself from a
       similar fate by a rapid retreat, abandoning his baggage, and
       much of his ammunition. Arcot, which was the capital of the
       Nabob, and which contained vast military stores, was besieged
       for six weeks, and surrendered in the beginning of November.
       Velore, Wandewash, Permacoil, and Chingliput, four of the
       chief strongholds in the Carnatic, were invested. A French
       fleet with French troops was daily expected, and it appeared
       almost certain that the British power would be extinguished in
       Madras, if not in the whole of Hindostan. It was saved by the
       energy of the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who, by
       extraordinary efforts, collected a large body of Sepoys and a
       few Europeans in Bengal, and sent them with great rapidity to
       Madras, under the command of Sir Eyre Coote, who had proved
       himself twenty years before scarcely second in military genius
       to Clive himself. I do not propose to relate in detail the
       long and tangled story of the war that followed. … It is
       sufficient to say that Coote soon found himself at the head of
       about 7,200 men, of whom 1,400 were Europeans; that he
       succeeded in relieving Wandewash, and obliging Hyder Ali to
       abandon for the present the siege of Velore; that the French
       fleet, which arrived off the coast in January, 1781, was found
       to contain no troops, and that on July 1, 1781, Coote, with an
       army of about 8,000 men, totally defeated forces at least
       eight times as numerous, commanded by Hyder himself, in the
       great battle of Porto Novo. … The war raged over the
       Carnatic, over Tanjore, in the Dutch settlements to the south
       of Tanjore, on the opposite Malabar coast, and on the coast of
       Ceylon, while at the same time another and independent
       struggle was proceeding with the Mahrattas. … The coffers at
       Calcutta were nearly empty, and it was in order to replenish
       them that Hastings committed some of the acts which were
       afterwards the subjects of his impeachment. … By the skill
       and daring of a few able men, of whom Hastings, Coote, Munro,
       and Lord Macartney were the most prominent, the storm was
       weathered. Hyder Ali died in December, 1782, about four months
       before Sir Eyre Coote. The peace of 1782 withdrew France and
       Holland from the contest, and towards the close of 1783,
       Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, consented to negotiate a peace,
       which was signed in the following March. Its terms were a
       mutual restoration of all conquests, and in this, as in so
       many other great wars, neither of the contending parties
       gained a single advantage by all the bloodshed, the
       expenditure, the desolation, and the misery of a struggle of
       nearly four years."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 14 (volume 5).

       "The centre and heart of the English power lay in Bengal,
       which the war never reached at all, and which was governed by
       a man of rare talent and organizing capacity. No Anglo-Indian
       government of that time could carry on a campaign by war
       loans, as in Europe; the cost had to be provided out of
       revenue, or by requiring subsidies from allied native rulers;
       and it was Bengal that furnished not only the money and the
       men, but also the chief political direction and military
       leadership which surmounted the difficulties and repaired the
       calamities of the English in the western and southern
       Presidencies. And when at last the Marathas made peace, when
       Hyder Ali died, and Suffren, with all his courage and genius,
       could not master the English fleet in the Bay of Bengal, there
       could be no doubt that the war had proved the strength of the
       English position in India, had tested the firmness of its
       foundation. … With the termination of this war ended the
       only period in the long contest between England and the native
       powers, during which our position in India was for a time
       seriously jeoparded. That the English dominion emerged from
       this prolonged struggle uninjured, though not unshaken, is a
       result due to the political intrepidity of Warren Hastings.
       … Hastings had no aristocratic connexions or parliamentary
       influence at a time when the great families and the House of
       Commons held immense power; he was surrounded by enemies in
       his own Council; and his immediate masters, the East India
       Company, gave him very fluctuating support. Fiercely opposed
       by his own colleagues, and very ill obeyed by the subordinate
       Presidencies, he had to maintain the Company's commercial
       establishments, and at the same time to find money for
       carrying on distant and impolitic wars in which he had been
       involved by blunders at Madras or Bombay. These funds he had
       been expected to provide out of current revenues, after buying
       and despatching the merchandise on which the company's home
       dividends depended; for the resource of raising public loans,
       so freely used in England, was not available to him. He was
       thus inevitably driven to the financial transactions, at
       Benares and Lucknow, that were now so bitterly stigmatized as
       crimes by men who made no allowance for a perilous situation
       in a distant land, or for the weight of enormous national
       interests committed to the charge of the one man capable of
       sustaining them. When the storm had blown over in India, and
       he had piloted his vessel into calm water, he was sacrificed
       with little or no hesitation to party exigencies in England;
       the Ministry would have recalled him; they consented to his
       impeachment; they left him to be baited by the Opposition and
       to be ruined by the law's delay, by the incredible
       procrastination and the obsolete formalities of a seven years'
       trial before the House of Lords."

          Sir A. Lyall,
          Rise of the British Dominion in India,
          chapter 11, section 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,
          History of Hydur Naik,
          chapters 27-31.

          G. B. Malleson,
          Decisive Battles of India,
          chapter 8.

          L. B. Bowring,
          Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,
          chapters 14-15.

    {1726}

    INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
       State of India.
       Extent of English rule.
       Administration of Lord Cornwallis.
       War with Tippoo Saib (Third Mysore War).
       The "Permanent Settlement" of Land Revenue in Bengal,
       and its fruit.

       "When Warren Hastings left India, the Mogul Empire was simply
       the phantom of a name. The warlike tribes of the north-west,
       Sikhs, Rajpoots, Jats, were henceforth independent; but the
       Rohillas of the north-east had been subdued and almost
       exterminated. Of the three greatest Soobahs or vice-royalties
       of the Mogul empire, at one time practically independent, that
       of Bengal had wholly disappeared, those of Oude and the Deckan
       had sunk into dependence on a foreign power, were maintained
       by the aid of foreign mercenaries. The only two native powers
       that remained were, the Mahrattas, and the newly-risen
       Mussulman dynasty of Mysore. The former were still divided
       between the great chieftaincies of the Peshwa, Scindia,
       Holkar, the Guicowar, and the Boslas of Berar. But the
       supremacy of the Peshwa was on the wane; that of Scindia, on
       the contrary, in the ascendant. Scindia ruled in the north; he
       had possession of the emperor's person, of Delhi, the old
       Mussulman capital. In the south, Hyder Ali and Tippoo [son of
       Hyder Ali, whom he had succeeded in 1782], Sultan of Mysore,
       had attained to remarkable power. They were dangerous to the
       Mahrattas, dangerous to the Nizam, dangerous, lastly, to the
       English. But the rise of the last-named power was the great
       event of the period. … They had won for themselves the three
       great provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, besides
       Benares,—forming a large compact mass of territory to the
       north-east. They had, farther down the east coast, the
       province of the Northern Circars, and farther still, the
       jagheer [land grant], of Madras; on the west, again, a large
       stretch of territory at the southern extremity of the
       peninsula. The two Mussulman sovereigns of Oude and Hyderabad
       were their dependent allies; they administered the country of
       the Nawab of the Carnatic, besides having hosts of smaller
       potentates under their protection. … The appointed successor
       to Hastings was Lord Macartney. … He lost his office,
       however, by hesitating to accept it, and going to England to
       urge conditions. … The great military event of Lord
       Cornwallis's government was the third Mysore war. It began
       with some disputes about the petty Raja of Cherika, from whom
       the English had farmed the customs of Tellicherry, and taken,
       in security for advances, a district called Randaterra, and by
       Tippoo's attack upon the lines of the Raja of Travancore, an
       ally of the English, consisting of a ditch, wall, and other
       defences, on an extent of about thirty miles. Tippoo was,
       however, repelled with great slaughter in an attack on the
       town (1789). Hearing this, Lord Cornwallis at once entered
       into treaties with the Nizam and the Peshwa for a joint war
       upon Mysore; all new conquests to be equally divided, all
       Tippoo's own conquests from the contracting powers to be
       restored. After a first inconclusive campaign, in which,
       notwithstanding the skill of General Meadows, the advantage
       rather remained to Tippoo, who, amongst other things, gave a
       decided check to Colonel Floyd (1790), Lord Cornwallis took
       the command in person, and carried Bangalore by assault, with
       great loss to both parties, but a tremendous carnage of the
       besieged. However, so wretched had been the English
       preparations, that, the cattle being 'reduced to skeletons,
       and scarcely able to move their own weight,' Lord Cornwallis,
       after advancing to besiege Seringapatam, was forced to retreat
       and to destroy the whole of his battering-train and other
       equipments; whilst General Abercrombie, who was advancing in
       the same direction from the Malabar coast, had to do the same
       (1791). A force of Mahrattas came in, well appointed and well
       provided, but too late to avert these disasters. The next
       campaign was more successful. It began by the taking of
       several of the hill-forts forming the western barrier of
       Mysore. … On the 5th February, 1792, however, Lord
       Cornwallis appeared before Seringapatam, situated in an island
       formed by the Cauvery: the fort and outworks were provided
       with 300 pieces of cannon; the fortified camp, outside the
       river, by six redoubts, with more than 100 pieces of heavy
       artillery. Tippoo's army consisted of 6,000 cavalry and 50,000
       infantry, himself commanding. This first siege, which is
       celebrated in Indian warfare, continued with complete success
       on the English side till the 24th. 10,000 subjects of Coorg,
       whom Tippoo had enlisted by force, deserted. At last, when the
       whole island was carried and all preparations made for the
       siege, Tippoo made peace. The English allies had such
       confidence in Lord Cornwallis, that they left him entire
       discretion as to the terms. They were,—that Tippoo should
       give up half of his territory, pay a large sum for war
       expenses, and give up two of his sons as hostages. The ceded
       territory was divided between the allies, the Company
       obtaining a large strip of the Malabar coast, extending
       eastward to the Carnatic. … Meanwhile, on the breaking out
       of war between England and the French Republic, the French
       settlements in India were all again annexed (1792). Lord
       Cornwallis now applied himself to questions of internal
       government. Properly speaking, there was no English Government
       as yet. Mr. Kaye, the brilliant apologist of the East India
       Company, says, of Lord Cornwallis, that 'he gathered up the
       scattered fragments of government which he found, and reduced
       them to one comprehensive system.' He organized the
       administration of criminal justice, reorganized the police. He
       separated the connection of the revenues from the
       administration of justice, organizing civil justice in turn.
       … He next proceeded to organize the financial system of the
       Company's government. … Hence the famous 'Permanent
       Settlement' of Lord Cornwallis (22nd March, 1793)."

          J. M. Ludlow,
          British India,
          lecture 9 (volume 1).

    {1727}

       "In 1793 the so-called Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue
       was introduced. We found in Bengal, when we succeeded to the
       Government, a class of middle-men, called Zemindars [or
       Zamindars-see, also, TALUKDARS], who collected the land
       revenue and the taxes, and we continued to employ them. As a
       matter of convenience and expediency, but not of right, the
       office of zemindar was often hereditary. The zemindars had
       never been in any sense the owners of the land, but it was
       supposed by Lord Cornwallis and the English rulers of the time
       that it would be an excellent thing for Bengal to have a class
       of landlords something like those of England; the zemindars
       were the only people that seemed available for the purpose,
       and they were declared to be the proprietors of the land. It
       was by no means intended that injustice should thus be done to
       others. Excepting the State, there was only one great class,
       that of the ryots or actual cultivators, which, according to
       immemorial custom, could be held to possess permanent rights
       in the land. The existence of those rights was recognised,
       and, as it was supposed, guarded by the law. … There has
       been much dispute as to the exact nature of the rights given
       to the zemindars, but everyone agrees that it was not the
       intention of the authors of the Permanent Settlement to
       confiscate anything which, according to the customs of the
       country, had belonged to the cultivators. The right of
       property given to the zemindars was a portion of those rights
       which had always been exercised by the State, and of which the
       State was at liberty to dispose; it was not intended that they
       should receive anything else. The land revenue, representing
       the share of the produce or rental to which the State was
       entitled, was fixed in perpetuity. The ryots were to continue
       to hold their lands permanently at the 'rates established in
       the purgunnah;' when the amount of these rates was disputed it
       was to be settled by the courts; so long as rents at those
       rates were paid, the ryot could not be evicted. The intention
       was to secure to the ryot fixity of tenure and fixity of rent.
       Unfortunately, these rights were only secured upon paper. …
       The consequences at the present time are these:—Even if it
       be assumed that the share of the rent which the State can
       wisely take is smaller than the share which any Government,
       Native or English, has ever taken or proposed to take in
       India, the amount now received by the State from the land in
       Bengal must be held to fall short of what it might be by a sum
       that can hardly be less than £5,000,000 a year; this is a
       moderate computation; probably the loss is much more. This is
       given away in return for no service to the State or to the
       public; the zemindars are merely the receivers of rent; with
       exceptions so rare as to deserve no consideration, they take
       no part in the improvement of the land, and, until a very few
       years ago, they bore virtually no share of the public burdens.
       The result of these proceedings of the last century, to the
       maintenance of which for ever the faith of the British
       Government is said to have been pledged, is that the poorer
       classes in poorer provinces have to make good to the State the
       millions which have been thrown away in Bengal. If this were
       all, it would be bad enough, but worse remains to be told. …
       'The original intention of the framers of the Permanent
       Settlement (I am quoting from Sir George Campbell) was to
       record all rights. The Canoongoes (District Registrars) and
       Putwarees (Village Accountants) were to register all holdings,
       all transfers, all rent-rolls, and all receipts and payments;
       and every five years there was to be filed in the public
       offices a complete register of all land tenures. But the task
       was a difficult one; there was delay in carrying it out. …
       The putwarees fell into disuse or became the mere servants of
       the zemindars; the canoongoes were abolished. No record of the
       rights of the ryots and inferior holders was ever made, and
       even the quinquennial register of superior rights, which was
       maintained for a time, fell into disuse.' … The consequences
       of the Permanent Settlement did not become immediately
       prominent. … But, as time went on, and population and wealth
       increased, as cultivators were more readily found, and custom
       began to give way to competition, the position of the ryots
       became worse and that of the zemindars became stronger. Other
       circumstances helped the process of confiscation of the rights
       of the peasantry. … The confiscation of the rights of the
       ryots has reached vast proportions. In 1793 the rental left to
       the zemindars under the Permanent Settlement, after payment of
       the land revenue, is supposed not to have exceeded £400,000;
       according to some estimates it was less. If the intentions of
       the Government had been carried out, it was to the ryots that
       the greater portion of any future increase in the annual value
       of the land would have belonged, in those parts at least of
       the province which were at that time well cultivated. It is
       not possible to state with confidence the present gross annual
       rental of the landlords of Bengal. An imperfect valuation made
       some years ago showed it to be £13,000,000. It is now called
       £17,000,000, but there can be little doubt that it is much
       more. Thus, after deducting the land revenue, which is about
       £3,800,000, the net rental has risen from £400,000 in the last
       century to more than £13,000,000 at the present time. No
       portion of this increase has been due to the action of the
       zemindars. It has been due to the industry of the ryots, to
       whom the greater part of it rightfully belonged, to the
       peaceful progress of the country, and to the expenditure of
       the State, an expenditure mainly defrayed from the taxation of
       poorer provinces. If ever there was an 'unearned increment,'
       it is this."

          Sir J. Strachey,
          India,
          lecture 12.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Kaye,
          The Administration of the East India Co.,
          part 2, chapter 2.

          J. Mill,
          History of British India,
          book 6, chapter 4 (volume 5).

          W. S. Seton-Karr,
          The Marquess Cornwallis,
          chapter 2.

          Sir R. Temple,
          James Thomason,
          chapter 9.

    INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.
       The Impeachment and Trial of Warren Hastings.

       "Warren Hastings returned to England in the summer of 1785,
       and met with a distinguished reception. "I find myself," he
       wrote to a friend, "every where and universally treated with
       evidences, apparent even to my own observation, that I possess
       the good opinion of my country." But underneath this
       superficial "good opinion" there existed a moral feeling which
       had been outraged by the unscrupulous measures of the
       Governor-General of India, and which began soon to speak aloud
       through the eloquent lips of Edmund Burke. Joined in the
       movement by Fox and Sheridan, Burke laid charges before
       Parliament which forced the House of Commons, in the session
       of 1787 to order the impeachment of Hastings before the Lords.
       On the 13th of February, 1788, the sittings of the Court
       commenced.
    {1728}
       There have been spectacles more dazzling to the eye, more
       gorgeous with jewellery and cloth of gold, more attractive to
       grown-up children, than that which was then exhibited at
       Westminster; but, perhaps, there never was a spectacle so well
       calculated to strike a highly cultivated, a reflecting, an
       imaginative mind. All the various kinds of interest which
       belong to the near and to the distant, to the present and to
       the past, were collected on one spot and in one hour. All the
       talents and all the accomplishments which are developed by
       liberty and civilisation were now displayed, with every
       advantage that could be derived both from co-operation and
       from contrast. Every step in the proceedings carried the mind
       either backward, through many troubled centuries, to the days
       when the foundations of our constitution were laid; or far
       away, over boundless seas and deserts, to dusky nations living
       under strange stars, worshipping strange gods, and writing
       strange characters from right to left. The High Court of
       Parliament was to sit, according to forms handed down from the
       days of the Plantagenets, on an Englishman accused of
       exercising tyranny over the lord of the holy city of Benares,
       and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude. The place
       was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William
       Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the
       inauguration of thirty kings, the hall which had witnessed the
       just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers, the
       hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed
       and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment,
       the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of
       Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his
       fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues
       were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by
       cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled
       by the heralds under Garter King-at-arms. The judges in their
       vestments of state attended to give advice on points of law.
       Near a hundred and seventy lords, three fourths of the Upper
       House as the Upper House then was, walked in solemn order from
       their usual place of assembling to the tribunal. … The grey
       old walls were hung with scarlet. The long galleries were
       crowded by an audience such as has rarely excited the fears or
       the emulations of an orator. There were gathered together,
       from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous
       empire, grace and female loveliness, wit and learning, the
       representatives of every science and of every art. … The
       Serjeants made proclamation. Hastings advanced to the bar, and
       bent his knee. The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that
       great presence. He had ruled an extensive and populous
       country, had made laws and treaties, had sent forth armies,
       had set up and pulled down princes. And in his high place he
       had so borne himself, that all had feared him, that most had
       loved him, and that hatred itself could deny him no title to
       glory, except virtue. He looked like a great man, and not like
       a bad man. … His counsel accompanied him, men all of whom
       were afterwards raised by their talents and learning to the
       highest posts in their profession, the bold and strong-minded
       Law, afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench; the more
       humane and eloquent Dallas, afterwards Chief Justice of the
       Common Pleas; and Plomer who, near twenty years later,
       successfully conducted in the same high court the defence of
       Lord Melville, and subsequently became Vice-chancellor and
       Master of the Rolls. But neither the culprit nor his advocates
       attracted so much notice as the accusers. In the midst of the
       blaze of red drapery, a space had been fitted up with green
       benches and tables for the Commons. The managers, with Burke
       at their head, appeared in full dress. The collectors of
       gossip did not fail to remark that even Fox, generally so
       regardless of his appearance, had paid to the illustrious
       tribunal the compliment of wearing a bag and sword. Pitt had
       refused to be one of the conductors of the impeachment; and
       his commanding, copious, and sonorous eloquence was wanting to
       that great muster of various talents. … The charges and the
       answers of Hastings were first read. The ceremony occupied two
       whole days, and was rendered less tedious than it would
       otherwise have been by the silver voice and just emphasis of
       Cowper, the clerk of the court, a near relation of the amiable
       poet. On the third day Burke rose. Four sittings were occupied
       by his opening speech, which was intended to be a general
       introduction to all the charges. With an exuberance of thought
       and a splendour of diction, which more than satisfied the
       highly raised expectation of the audience, he described the
       character and institutions of the natives of India, recounted
       the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had
       originated, and set forth the constitution of the Company and
       of the English presidencies. … When the Court sat again, Mr.
       Fox, assisted by Mr. Grey, opened the charge respecting Cheyte
       Sing, and several days were spent in reading papers and
       hearing witnesses. The next article was that relating to the
       Princesses of Oude. The conduct of this part of the case was
       intrusted to Sheridan. The curiosity of the public to hear him
       was unbounded. His sparkling and highly finished declamation
       lasted two days; but the Hall was crowded to suffocation
       during the whole time. It was said that fifty guineas had been
       paid for a single ticket. Sheridan, when he concluded,
       contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father
       might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the
       arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous
       admiration. June was now far advanced. The session could not
       last much longer; and the progress which had been made in the
       impeachment was not very satisfactory. There were twenty
       charges. On two only of these had even the case for the
       prosecution been heard; and it was now a year since Hastings
       had been admitted to bail. The interest taken by the public in
       the trial was great when the Court began to sit, and rose to
       the height when Sheridan spoke on the charge relating to the
       Begums. From that time the excitement went down fast. The
       spectacle had lost the attraction of novelty. The great
       displays of rhetoric were over. … The trial in the Hall went
       on languidly. In the session of 1788, when the proceedings had
       the interest of novelty, and when the Peers had little other
       business before them, only thirty-five days were given to the
       impeachment. In 1789 … during the whole year only
       seventeen days were given to the case of Hastings. … At
       length, in the spring of 1795, the decision was pronounced,
       near eight years after Hastings had been brought by the
       Serjeant-at-arms of the Commons to the bar of the Lords.
    {1729}
       … Only twenty-nine Peers voted. Of these only six found
       Hastings guilty on the charges relating to Cheyte Sing and to
       the Begums. On other charges, the majority in his favour was
       still greater. On some he was unanimously absolved. He was
       then called to the bar, was informed from the woolsack that
       the Lords had acquitted him, and was solemnly discharged. He
       bowed respectfully and retired. We have said that the decision
       had been fully expected. It was also generally approved. …
       It was thought, and not without reason, that, even if he was
       guilty, he was still an ill-used man, and that an impeachment
       of eight years was more than a sufficient punishment. It was
       also felt that, though, in the ordinary course of criminal
       law, a defendant is not allowed to set off his good actions
       against his crimes, a great political cause should be tried on
       different principles, and that a man who had governed an
       empire during thirteen years might have done some very
       reprehensible things, and yet might be on the whole deserving
       of rewards and honours rather than of fine and imprisonment."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Warren Hastings (Essays).

       "The trial had several beneficial results. It cleared off a
       cloud of misconceptions, calumnies, exaggerations, and false
       notions generally on both sides; it fixed and promulgated the
       standard which the English people would in future insist upon
       maintaining in their Indian administration; it bound down the
       East India Company to better behaviour; it served as an
       example and a salutary warning, and it relieved the national
       conscience. But the attempt to make Hastings a sacrifice and a
       burnt-offering for the sins of the people; the process of
       loading him with curses and driving him away into the
       wilderness; of stoning him with every epithet and metaphor
       that the English language could supply for heaping ignominy on
       his head; of keeping him seven years under an impeachment that
       menaced him with ruin and infamy—these were blots upon the
       prosecution and wide aberrations from the true course of
       justice which disfigured the aspect of the trial, distorted
       its aim, and had much to do with bringing it to the lame and
       impotent conclusion that Burke so bitterly denounced."

          Sir A. Lyall,
          Warren Hastings,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Burke,
          Works,
          volumes 8-12.

          Speeches of Managers and Counsel
          in the Trial of Warren Hastings,
          edited by E. A. Bond.

    INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
       The administration and imperial policy of the Marquis Wellesley.
       Treaty with the Nizam.
       Overthrow and death of Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore.
       War with the Mahrattas.
       Assaye and Laswari.
       Territorial acquisitions.

       "The period of Sir John Shore's rule as Governor-General, from
       1793 to 1798 [after which he became Lord Teignmouth], was
       uneventful. In 1798, Lord Mornington, better known as the
       Marquis of Wellesley, arrived in India, already inspired with
       imperial projects which were destined to change the map of the
       country. Mornington was the friend and favourite of Pitt, from
       whom he is thought to have derived his far-reaching political
       vision, and his antipathy to the French name. From the first
       he laid down as his guiding principle, that the English must
       be the one paramount power in the peninsula, and that Native
       princes could only retain the insignia of sovereignty by
       surrendering their political independence. The history of
       India since his time has been but the gradual development of
       this policy, which received its finishing touch when Queen
       Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on the 1st of
       January, 1877. To frustrate the possibility of a French
       invasion of India, led by Napoleon in person, was the
       governing idea of Wellesley's foreign policy. France at this
       time, and for many years later, filled the place afterwards
       occupied by Russia in the minds of Indian statesmen. Nor was
       the danger so remote as might now be thought. French regiments
       guarded and overawed the Nizam of Haidarabad. The soldiers of
       Sindhia, the military head of the Marhatta Confederacy, were
       disciplined and led by French adventurers. Tipu Sultan of
       Mysore carried on a secret correspondence with the French
       Directorate, allowed a tree of liberty to be planted in his
       dominions, and enrolled himself in a republican club as
       'Citizen Tipu.' The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon afforded
       a convenient half-way rendezvous for French intrigue and for
       the assembling of a hostile expedition. Above all, Napoleon
       Buonaparte was then in Egypt, dreaming of the conquests of
       Alexander, and no man knew in what direction he might turn his
       hitherto unconquered legions. Wellesley conceived the scheme
       of crushing for ever the French hopes in Asia, by placing
       himself at the head of a great Indian confederacy. In Lower
       Bengal, the sword of Clive and the policy of Warren Hastings
       had made the English paramount. Before the end of the century,
       our power was consolidated from the seaboard to Benares, high
       up the Gangetic valley. … In 1801, the treaty of Lucknow
       made over to the British the Doab, or fertile tract between
       the Ganges and the Jumna, together with Rohilkhand. In
       Southern India, our possessions were chiefly confined, before
       Lord Wellesley, to the coast Districts of Madras and Bombay.
       Wellesley resolved to make the British supreme as far as Delhi
       in Northern India, and to compel the great powers of the south
       to enter into subordinate relations to the Company's
       government. The intrigues of the Native princes gave him his
       opportunity for carrying out this plan without breach of
       faith. The time had arrived when the English must either
       become supreme in India, or be driven out of it. The Mughal
       Empire was completely broken up; and the sway had to pass
       either to the local Muhammadan governors of that empire, or to
       the Hindu Confederacy represented by the Marhattas, or to the
       British. Lord Wellesley determined that it should pass to the
       British. His work in Northern India was at first easy. The
       treaty of Lucknow in 1801 made us territorial rulers as far as
       the heart of the present North-Western Provinces, and
       established our political influence in Oudh. Beyond those
       limits, the northern branches of the Marhattas practically
       held sway, with the puppet emperor in their hands. Lord
       Wellesley left them untouched for a few years, until the
       second Marhatta war (1802-1804) gave him an opportunity for
       dealing effectively with their nation as a whole. In Southern
       India, he saw that the Nizam at Haidarabad stood in need of
       his protection, and he converted him into a useful follower
       throughout the succeeding struggle. The other Muhammadan power
       of the south, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, could not be so easily
       handled.
    {1730}
       Lord Wellesley resolved to crush him, and had ample
       provocation for so doing. The third power of Southern
       India—namely, the Marhatta Confederacy—was so loosely
       organized, that Lord Wellesley seems at first to have hoped to
       live on terms with it. When several years of fitful alliance
       had convinced him that he had to choose between the supremacy
       of the Marhattas or of the British in Southern India, he did
       not hesitate to decide. Lord Wellesley first addressed himself
       to the weakest of the three southern powers, the Nizam of
       Haidarabad. Here he won a diplomatic success, which turned a
       possible rival into a subservient ally. The French battalions
       at Haidarabad were disbanded, and the Nizam bound himself by
       treaty not to take any European into his service without the
       consent of the English Government,—a clause since inserted in
       every engagement entered into with Native powers. Wellesley
       next turned the whole weight of his resources against Tipu,
       whom Cornwallis had defeated, but not subdued. Tipu's
       intrigues with the French were laid bare, and he was given an
       opportunity of adhering to the new subsidiary system. On his
       refusal, war was declared, and Wellesley came down in
       viceregal state to Madras to organize the expedition in
       person, and to watch over the course of events. One English
       army marched into Mysore from Madras, accompanied by a
       contingent from the Nizam. Another advanced from the western
       coast. Tipu, after a feeble resistance in the field, retired
       into Seringapatam, and, when his capital was stormed, died
       fighting bravely in the breach (1799). Since the battle of
       Plassey, no event so greatly impressed the Native imagination
       as the capture of Seringapatam, which won for General Harris a
       peerage, and for Wellesley an Irish marquisate. In dealing
       with the territories of Tipu, Wellesley acted with moderation.
       The central portion, forming the old state of Mysore, was
       restored to an infant representative of the Hindu Rajas, whom
       Haidar Ali had dethroned; the rest of Tipu's dominion was
       partitioned between the Nizam, the Marhattas, and the English.
       At about the same time, the Karnatic, or the part of
       South-Eastern India ruled by the Nawab of Arcot, and also the
       principality of Tanjore, were placed under direct British
       administration, thus constituting the Madras Presidency almost
       as it has existed to the present day. … The Marhattas had
       been the nominal allies of the English in both their wars with
       Tipu. But they had not rendered active assistance, nor were
       they secured to the English side as the Nizam now was. The
       Marhatta powers at this time were five in number. The
       recognised head of the confederacy was the Peshwa of Poona,
       who ruled the hill country of the Western Ghats, the cradle of
       the Marhatta race. The fertile Province of Guzerat was
       annually harried by the horsemen of the Gaekwar of Baroda. In
       Central India, two military leaders, Sindhia of Gwalior and
       Holkar of Indore, alternately held the pre-eminence. Towards
       the east, the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur reigned from Berar to the
       coast of Orissa. Wellesley laboured to bring these several
       Marhatta powers within the net of his subsidiary system. In
       1802, the necessities of the Peshwa, who had been defeated by
       Holkar, and driven as a fugitive into British territory,
       induced him to sign the treaty of Bassein. By this he pledged
       himself to the British to hold communications with no other
       power, European or Native, and granted to us Districts for the
       maintenance of a subsidiary force. This greatly extended the
       English territorial influence in the Bombay Presidency. But it
       led to the second Marhatta war, as neither Sindhia nor the
       Raja of Nagpur would tolerate the Peshwa's betrayal of the
       Marhatta independence. The campaigns which followed are
       perhaps the most glorious in the history of the British arms
       in India. The general plan, and the adequate provision of
       resources, were due to the Marquis of Wellesley, as also the
       indomitable spirit which refused to admit of defeat. The
       armies were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of
       Wellington) and General (afterwards Lord) Lake. Wellesley
       operated in the Deccan, where in a few short months, he won
       the decisive victories of Assaye [September 23, 1803] and
       Argaum [November 28], and captured Ahmednagar. Lake's campaign
       in Hindustan was equally brilliant, although it has received
       less notice from historians. He won pitched battles at Aligarh
       [August 29] and Laswari [November 1, 1803], and took the
       cities of Delhi and Agra. He scattered the French troops of
       Sindhia, and at the same time stood forward as the champion of
       the Mughal Emperor in his hereditary capital. Before the end
       of 1803, both Sindhia and the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur sued for
       peace. Sindhia ceded all claims to the territory north of the
       Jumna, and left the blind old Emperor Shah Alam once more
       under British protection. The Bhonsla forfeited Orissa to the
       English, who had already occupied it with a flying column in
       1803, and Berar to the Nizam, who gained fresh territory by
       every act of complaisance to the British Government. … The
       concluding years of Wellesley's rule were occupied with a
       series of operations against Holkar, which brought little
       credit on the British name. The disastrous retreat of Colonel
       Monson through Central India (1804) recalled memories of the
       convention of Wargaum, and of the destruction of Colonel
       Baillie's force by Haidar Ali. The repulse of Lake in person
       at the siege of Bhartpur (Bhurtpore) is memorable as an
       instance of a British army in India having to turn back with
       its object unaccomplished (1805). Bhartpur was not finally
       taken till 1827. Lord Wellesley during his six years of office
       carried out almost every part of his territorial scheme. In
       Northern India, Lord Lake's campaigns brought the
       North-Western provinces (the ancient Madhyadesa) under British
       rule, together with the custody of the puppet emperor. The new
       Districts were amalgamated with those previously acquired from
       the Nawab Wazir of Oudh into the 'Ceded and Conquered
       Provinces.' This partition of Northern India remained till the
       Sikh wars of 1844 and 1847 gave us the Punjab."

          W. W. Hunter,
          Brief History of the Indian People,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Maxwell,
          Life of the Duke of Wellington,
          volume 1, chapters 2-12.

          J. M. Wilson.
          Memoir of Wellington,
          volume 1, chapters 2-9.

          G. B. Malleson,
          Decisive Battles of India,
          chapters 9-10.

          W. H. Hutton,
          The Marquess Wellesley.

          J. S. Cotton,
          Mountstuart Elphinstone,
          chapter 4.

    {1731}

    INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
       Reversal of Lord Wellesley's policy.
       Sepoy revolt at Vellore.
       Influence established with Runjeet Singh and the Sikhs.
       Conquest of the Mauritius.
       The Ghorka War.

       "The retreat of Monson was not only a disastrous blow to
       British prestige, but ruined for a while the reputation of
       Lord Wellesley. Because a Mahratta freebooter had broken loose
       in Hindustan, the Home authorities imagined that all the
       Mahratta powers had risen against the imperial policy of the
       Governor-General. Lord Wellesley was recalled from his post,
       and Lord Cornwallis was sent out to take his place, to reverse
       the policy of his illustrious predecessor, to scuttle out of
       Western Hindustan, to restore all the ceded territories, to
       surrender all the captured fortresses, and to abandon large
       tracts of country to be plundered and devastated by the
       Mahrattas, as they had been from the days of Sivaji to those
       of Wellesley and Lake. Before Lord Cornwallis reached Bengal
       the political outlook had brightened. … But Lord Cornwallis
       was sixty-seven years of age, and had lost the nerve which he
       had displayed in his wars against Tippu; and he would have
       ignored the turn of the tide, and persisted in falling back on
       the old policy of conciliation and non-intervention, had not
       death cut short his career before he had been ten weeks in the
       country. Sir George Barlow, a Bengal civilian, succeeded for a
       while to the post of Governor-General, as a provisional
       arrangement. He had been a member of Council under both
       Wellesley and Cornwallis, and he halted between the two. He
       refused to restore the conquered territories to Sindia and the
       Bhonsla, but he gave back the Indore principality to Holkar,
       together with the captured fortresses. Worst of all, he
       annulled most of the protective treaties with the Rajput
       princes on the ground that they had deserted the British
       government during Monson's retreat from Jaswant Rao Holkar.
       For some years the policy of the British government was a
       half-hearted system of non-intervention. … The Mahratta
       princes were left to plunder and collect chout [a blackmail
       extortion, levied by the Mahrattas for a century] in
       Rajputana, and practically to make war on each other, so long
       as they respected the territories of the British government
       and its allies. … All this while an under-current of
       intrigue was at work between Indian courts, which served in
       the end to revive wild hopes of getting rid of British
       supremacy, and rekindling the old aspirations for war and
       rapine. In 1806 the peace of India was broken by an alarm from
       a very different quarter. In those days India was so remote
       from the British Isles that the existence of the British
       government mainly depended on the loyalty of its sepoy armies.
       Suddenly it was discovered that the Madras army was on the
       brink of mutiny. The British authorities at Madras had
       introduced an obnoxious head-dress resembling a European hat,
       in the place of the old time-honoured turban, and had,
       moreover, forbidden the sepoys to appear on parade with
       earrings and caste marks. India was astounded by a revolt of
       the Madras sepoys at the fortress of Vellore, about eight
       miles to the westward of Arcot. … The garrison at Vellore
       consisted of about 400 Europeans and 1,500 sepoys. At
       midnight, without warning, the sepoys rose in mutiny. One body
       fired on the European barracks until half the soldiers were
       killed or wounded. Another body fired on the houses of the
       British officers, and shot them down as they rushed out to
       know the cause of the uproar. All this while provisions were
       distributed amongst the sepoys by the Mysore princes, and the
       flag of Mysore was hoisted over the fortress. Fortunately the
       news was carried to Arcot, where Colonel Gillespie commanded a
       British garrison. Gillespie at once galloped to Vellore with a
       troop of British dragoons and two field guns. The gates of
       Vellore were blown open; the soldiers rushed in; 400 mutineers
       were cut down, and the outbreak was over. … In 1807 Lord
       Minto succeeded Barlow as Governor-General. He broke the spell
       of non-intervention. … Lord Minto's main work was to keep
       Napoleon and the French out of India. The north-west frontier
       was still vulnerable, but the Afghans had retired from the
       Punjab, and the once famous Runjeet Singh had founded a Sikh
       kingdom between the Indus and the Sutlej. As far as the
       British were concerned, the Sikhs formed a barrier against the
       Afghans; and Runjeet Singh was apparently friendly, for he had
       refused to shelter Jaswant Rao Holkar in his flight from Lord
       Lake. But there was no knowing what Runjeet Singh might do if
       the French found their way to Lahore. To crown the perplexity,
       the Sikh princes on the British side of the river Sutlej, who
       had done homage to the British government during the campaigns
       of Lord Lake, were being conquered by Runjeet Singh, and were
       appealing to the British government for protection. In 1808-9
       a young Bengal civilian, named Charles Metcalfe, was sent on a
       mission to Lahore. The work before him was difficult and
       complicated, and somewhat trying to the nerves. The object was
       to secure Runjeet Singh as a useful ally against the French
       and Afghans, whilst protecting the Sikh states on the British
       side of the Sutlej, namely, Jhind, Nabha, and Patiala. Runjeet
       Singh was naturally disgusted at being checked by British
       interference. It was unfair, he said, for the British to wait
       until he had conquered the three states, and then to demand
       possession. Metcalfe cleverly dropped the question of justice,
       and appealed to Runjeet Singh's self-interest. By giving up
       the three states, Runjeet Singh would secure an alliance with
       the British, a strong frontier on the Sutlej, and freedom to
       push his conquests on the north and west. Runjeet Singh took
       the hint. He withdrew his pretensions from the British side of
       the Sutlej, and professed a friendship which remained unbroken
       until his death in 1839; but he knew what he was about. He
       conquered Cashmere on the north, and he wrested Peshawar from
       the Afghans; but he refused to open his dominions to British
       trade, and he was jealous to the last of any attempt to enter
       his territories. … Meanwhile the war against France and
       Napoleon had extended to eastern waters. The island of the
       Mauritius had become a French depot for frigates and
       privateers, which swept the seas from Madagascar to Java,
       until the East India Company reckoned its losses by millions,
       and private traders were brought to the brink of ruin. Lord
       Minto sent one expedition [1810], which wrested the Mauritius
       from the French; and he conducted another expedition in
       person, which wrested the island of Java from the Dutch, who
       at that time were the allies of France. The Mauritius has
       remained a British possession until this day, but Java was
       restored to Holland at the conclusion of the war. …
       Meanwhile war clouds were gathering on the southern slopes of
       the Himalayas.
    {1732}
       Down to the middle of the 18th century, the territory of Nipal
       had been peopled by a peaceful and industrious race of
       Buddhists known as Newars, but about the year 1767, when the
       British had taken over the Bengal provinces, the Newars were
       conquered by a Rajput tribe from Cashmere, known as Ghorkas.
       The Ghorka conquest of Nipal was as complete as the Norman
       conquest of England. The Ghorkas established a military
       despotism with Brahmanical institutions, and parcelled out the
       country amongst feudal nobles known as Bharadars. … During
       the early years of the 19th century the Ghorkas began to
       encroach on British territory, annexing villages and revenues
       from Darjeeling to Simla without right or reason. They were
       obviously bent on extending their dominion southward to the
       Ganges, and for a long time aggressions were overlooked for
       the sake of peace. At last two districts were appropriated to
       which the Ghorkas had not a shadow of a claim, and it was
       absolutely necessary to make a stand against their
       pretensions. Accordingly, Lord Minto sent an ultimatum to
       Khatmandu, declaring that unless the districts were restored
       they would be recovered by force of arms. Before the answer
       arrived, Lord Minto was succeeded in the post of
       Governor-General by Lord Moira, better known by his later
       title of Marquis of Hastings. Lord Moira landed at Calcutta in
       1813. Shortly after his arrival an answer was received from
       the Ghorka government, that the disputed districts belonged to
       Nipal, and would not be surrendered. Lord Moira at once fixed
       a day on which the districts were to be restored; and when the
       day had passed without any action being taken by the Ghorkas,
       a British detachment entered the districts and set up police
       stations. … The council of Bharadars resolved on war, but
       they did not declare it in European fashion. A Ghorka army
       suddenly entered the disputed districts, surrounded the police
       stations, and murdered many of the constables, and then
       returned to Khatmandu to await the action of the British
       government in the way of reprisals. The war against the
       Ghorkas was more remote and more serious than the wars against
       the Mahrattas. … Those who have ascended the Himalayas to
       Darjeeling or Simla may realise something of the difficulties
       of an invasion of Nipal. The British army advanced in four
       divisions by four different routes. … General David
       Ochterlony, who advanced his division along the valley of the
       Sutlej, gained the most brilliant successes. He was one of the
       half-forgotten heroes of the East India Company. … For five
       months in the worst season of the year he carried one fortress
       after another, until the enemy made a final stand at Maloun on
       a shelf of the Himalayas. The Ghorkas made a desperate attack
       on the British works, but the attempt failed; and when the
       British batteries were about to open fire, the Ghorka garrison
       came to terms, and were permitted to march out with the
       honours of war. The fall of Maloun shook the faith of the
       Ghorka government in their heaven-built fortresses.
       Commissioners were sent to conclude a peace. Nipal agreed to
       cede Kumaon in the west, and the southern belt of forest and
       jungle known as the Terai. It also agreed to receive a British
       Resident at Khatmandu. Lord Moira had actually signed the
       treaty, when the Ghorkas raised the question of whether the
       Terai included the forest or only the swamp. War was renewed.
       Ochterlony advanced an army within fifty miles of Khatmandu,
       and then the Ghorkas concluded the treaty [1816], and the
       British army withdrew from Nipal. The Terai, however, was a
       bone of contention for many years afterwards. Nothing was said
       about a subsidiary army, and to this day Nipal is outside the
       pale of subsidiary alliances; but Nipal is bound over not to
       take any European into her service without the consent of the
       British government."

          J. T. Wheeler,
          India under British Rule,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. D. Cunningham,
          History of the Sikhs,
          chapters 5-6.

          E. Thornton,
          History of British Empire in India,
          chapters 21-24 (volume 4).

    INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
       Suppression of the Pindaris.
       Overthrow of the Mahratta power.
       The last of the Peshwas.

       "For some time past the Pindaris, a vast brotherhood of
       mounted freebooters, who were ready to fight under any
       standard for the chance of unbounded plunder, had been playing
       a more and more prominent part in the wars of native princes.
       As Free Lances, they had fought for the Peshwa at Panipat, had
       shared in the frequent struggles of the Sindhias and Holkars
       in Hindustan and Southern India, and made war on their own
       account with every native prince whose weakness at any moment
       seemed to invite attack. … From the hills and glens of
       Central India thousands of armed ruffians sallied forth year
       after year in quest of plunder, sparing no cruelty to gain
       their ends, and widening the circle of their ravages with each
       new raid, until in 1811 the smoke of their camp-fires could be
       seen from Gaya and Mirzapur. … To thwart Maratha intrigues
       and punish Pindari aggressions was the Governor-General's next
       aim. In spite of hindrances offered by his own council and the
       Court of Directors, he set himself to revive and extend Lord
       Wellesley's policy of securing peace and order throughout
       India by means of treaties, which placed one native prince
       after another in a kind of vassalage to the paramount power
       that ruled from Fort William. … By means of a little timely
       compulsion, the able and accomplished Elphinstone baffled for
       a while the plots which the Peshwa, Baji Rao, and his
       villainous accomplice, Trimbakji Danglia, had woven against
       their English allies. The treaty of June, 1817, left Lord
       Hastings master of Sagar and Bundalkhand, while it bound the
       Peshwa to renounce his friend Trimbakji, his own claims to the
       headship of the Maratha League, to make no treaties with any
       other native prince, and to accept in all things the counsel
       and control of the Company's Government. Hard as these terms
       may seem, there was no choice, averred Lord Hastings, between
       thus crippling a secret foe and depriving him of the crown he
       had fairly forfeited. Meanwhile Lord Hastings' fearless energy
       had already saved the Rajputs of Jaipur from further suffering
       at the hands of their Pathan oppressor, Amir Khan, and forced
       from Sindia himself a reluctant promise to aid in suppressing
       the Pindari hordes, whose fearful ravages had at length been
       felt by the peaceful villagers in the Northern Sarkars. In the
       autumn of 1817 Hastings took the field at the head of an army
       which, counting native contingents, mustered nearly 120,000
       strong, with some 300 guns. From east, west, north, and south,
       a dozen columns set forth to hunt down the merciless ruffians
       who had so long been allowed to harry the fairest provinces of
       India.
    {1733}
       In spite of the havoc wrought among our troops by the great
       cholera outbreak of that year, and of a sudden rising among
       the Maratha princes for one last struggle with their former
       conquerors, our arms were everywhere successful against
       Marathas and Pindaris alike. The latter, hunted into the hills
       and jungles of Central India, found no safety anywhere except
       in small bodies and constant flight … and the famous
       robber-league passed into a tale of yore. Not less swift and
       sure was the punishment dealt upon the Maratha leaders who
       joined the Peshwa in his sudden uprising against the British
       power. His late submission had been nothing but a mask for
       renewed plottings. Elphinstone, however, saw through the mask
       which had taken in the confiding Malcolm. Before the end of
       October an English regiment, summoned in hot haste from
       Bombay, pitched its camp at Kirki, about two miles from Puna,
       beside the small Sepoy brigade already quartered there. In the
       first days of November Baji Rao began to assume a bolder tone
       as his plans grew ripe for instant execution. On the 5th, a
       body of Marathas attacked and destroyed the Residency, which
       Elphinstone had quitted in the nick of time. A great Maratha
       army then marched forth to overwhelm the little garrison at
       Kirki, before fresh troops could come up to its aid from
       Sirur. Elphinstone, however, who knew his foe, had no idea of
       awaiting the attack. Colonel Burr at once led out his men, not
       3,000 all told. A brilliant charge of Maratha horse was
       heavily repulsed by a Sepoy regiment, and the English steadily
       advancing drove the enemy from the field. A few days later
       General Smith, at the head of a larger force, advanced on
       Puna, occupied the city, and pursued the frightened Peshwa
       from place to place. The heroic defence of Karigaum, a small
       village on the Bhima, by Captain Staunton and 800 Sepoys, with
       only two light guns, against 25,000 Marathas during a whole
       day, proved once more how nobly native troops could fight
       under English leading. Happily for Staunton's weary and
       diminished band, Smith came up the next morning, and the
       desponding Peshwa continued his retreat. Turn where he would,
       there was no rest for his jaded soldiers. Munro with a weak
       force, partly of his own raising, headed him on his way to the
       Carnatic, took several of his strong places, and drove him
       northwards within reach of General Smith. On the 19th
       February, 1818, that officer overtook and routed the flying
       foe at the village of Ashti. Bapu Gokla, the Peshwa's
       staunchest and ablest follower, perished in the field, while
       covering the retreat of his cowardly master. For some weeks
       longer Baji Rao fled hither and thither before his resolute
       pursuers. But at length all hope forsook him as the circle of
       escape grew daily narrower; and in the middle of May the
       great-grandson of Balaji Vishwanath yielded himself to Sir
       John Malcolm at Indor, on terms far more liberal than he had
       any reason to expect. Even for the faithful few who still
       shared his fortunes due provision was made at his request. He
       himself spent the rest of his days a princely pensioner at
       Bithur, near Cawnpore; but the sceptre which he and his sires
       had wielded for a hundred years passed into English hands,
       while the Rajah of Satara, the long-neglected heir of the
       house of Sivaji, was restored to the nominal headship of the
       Maratha power. Meanwhile Appa Sahib, the usurping Rajah of
       Berar, had no sooner heard of the outbreak at Puna, than he,
       too, like the Peshwa, threw off his mask. On the evening of
       the 24th November, 1817, his troops, to the number of 18,000,
       suddenly attacked the weak English and Sepoy force of 1,400
       men with four guns, posted on the Sitabaldi Hills, outside
       Nagpur. A terrible fight for eighteen hours ended in the
       repulse of the assailants, with a loss to the victors of more
       than 300 men and twelve officers. A few weeks later Nagpur
       itself was occupied after another fight. Even then the Rajah
       might have kept his throne, for his conquerors were merciful
       and hoped the best. But they hoped in vain. It was not long
       before Appa Sahib, caught out in fresh intrigues, was sent off
       a prisoner towards Allahabad. Escaping from his captors, he
       wandered about the country for several years, and died at
       Lahor a pensioner on the bounty of Ranjit Singh. The house of
       Holkar had also paid the penalty of its rash resistance to our
       arms. … On the 6th January, 1818, the young Holkar was glad
       to sign a treaty which placed him and his heirs under English
       protection at the cost of his independence and of some part of
       his realm. Luckily for himself, Sindia had remained quiet, if
       not quite loyal, throughout this last struggle between the
       English and his Maratha kinsfolk. Thus in one short and
       decisive campaign, the great Maratha power, which had survived
       the slaughter of Panipat, fell shattered to pieces by the same
       blow which crushed the Pindaris, and raised an English
       merchant-company to the paramount lordship of all India. The
       last of the Peshwas had ceased to reign, the Rajah of Berar
       was a discrowned fugitive, the Rajah of Satara a king only in
       name, while Sindia, Holkar, and the Nizam were dependent
       princes who reigned only by sufferance of an English
       Governor-General at Calcutta. The Moghal Empire lingered only
       in the Palace of Dehli; its former viceroy, the Nawab of Audh,
       was our obedient vassal; the haughty princes of Rajputana
       bowed their necks, more or less cheerfully, to the yoke of
       masters merciful as Akbar and mightier than Aurangzib. Ranjit
       Singh himself cultivated the goodwill of those powerful
       neighbours who had sheltered the Sikhs of Sirhind from his
       ambitious inroads. With the final overthrow of the Marathas a
       new reign of peace, order, and general progress began for
       peoples who, during a hundred and fifty years, had lived in a
       ceaseless whirl of anarchy and armed strife. With the capture
       of Asirgarh in April, 1819, the fighting in Southern India
       came to an end."

          L. J. Trotter,
          History of India,
          book 5, chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          W. M. Torrens,
          Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
          chapters 19-20.

          J. G. Duff,
          History of the Mahrattas,
          volume 3, chapters 17-20.

          Major Ross-of-Bladensburg,
          The Marquess of Hastings,
          chapters 4-7.

    INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
       The first Burmese War.
       English acquisition of Assam and Aracan.
       Suppression of Suttee and Thuggee.
       Rechartering of the East India Company.
       It is deprived of its last trading monopoly.

       "On Hastings' retirement, in 1823, the choice of the ministry
       fell upon Canning. … Canning ultimately resigning the
       Governor-Generalship, the choice of the authorities fell upon
       Lord Amherst. The new Governor-General reached India at a time
       when the authorities in London had a right to expect a long
       period of peace.
    {1734}
       In fact, both in Hindostan and in the Deccan, the victories of
       Hastings had left the Company no more enemies to conquer.
       Unfortunately, however, for the prospects of peace, nature,
       which had given India an impenetrable boundary on the north,
       had left her with an undefined and open frontier on the east.
       On the shores of the Bay of Bengal, opposite Calcutta, a
       struggle had raged during the eighteenth century between the
       inhabitants of Ava and Pegu. The former, known as Burmans or
       Burmese, had the good fortune to find a capable leader, who
       rapidly ensured their own victory and founded a Burmese
       Empire. The successful competitors were not satisfied with
       their own predominance in Pegu—they conquered Aracan, they
       overran Assam, and they wrested from Siam a considerable
       territory on the Tenasserim coast. The conquest of Aracan
       brought the Burmese to the confines of the Company's dominions
       in Chittagong. The conquered people, disliking the severe rule
       of the conquerors, crossed the frontier and settled in British
       territory. Many of them used their new home as a secure basis
       for hostile raids on the Burmese. … The river Naf ran for a
       portion of its course between the possessions of the British
       in Chittagong and those of the Burmese in Aracan. With the
       object of preventing the repetition of outrages, which had
       occurred on the river, a small British guard was stationed on
       a little island, called Shaporee, near its mouth. The Burmese,
       claiming the island as their own, attacked the guard and drove
       it from the post. It was impossible to ignore such a
       challenge. The island was reoccupied; but the
       Governor-General, still anxious for peace, offered to treat
       its occupation by the Burmese as an action unauthorised by the
       Burmese Government. The Burmese Court, however, instead of
       accepting this offer, sent an army to reoccupy the island;
       collisions almost simultaneously occurred between the British
       and the Burmese on other parts of the frontier, and in
       February 1824 the first Burmese war began. … If the war of
       1824 may be excused as inevitable, its conduct must be
       condemned as careless. No pains were taken to ascertain the
       nature of the country which it was requisite to invade, or the
       strength of the enemy whom it was decided to encounter. …
       Burma is watered by two great rivers, the Irawaddy and the
       Salwen. … In its upper waters the Irawaddy is a rapid
       stream; in its lower waters it flows through alluvial plains,
       and finds its way through a delta with nine mouths into the
       Bay of Bengal. On one of its western mouths is the town of
       Bassein, on one of its eastern mouths the great commercial
       port of Rangoon. The banks of the river are clothed with
       jungle and with forest; and malaria, the curse of all
       low-lying tropical lands, always lingers in the marshes. The
       authorities decided on invading Burma through the Rangoon
       branch of the river. They gave Sir Archibald Campbell, an
       officer who had won distinction in the Peninsula, the command
       of the expedition, and, as a preliminary measure, they
       determined to seize Rangoon. Its capture was accomplished with
       ease, and the Burmese retired from the town. But the victory
       was the precursor of difficulty. The troops dared not advance
       in an unhealthy season; the supplies which they had brought
       with them proved insufficient for their support; and the men
       perished by scores during their period of forced inaction. …
       When more favourable weather returned with the autumn,
       Campbell was again able to advance. Burma was then attacked
       from three separate bases. A force under Colonel Richards,
       moving along the valley of the Bramaputra, conquered Assam; an
       expedition under General Morrison, marching from Chittagong,
       occupied Aracan; while Campbell himself, dividing his army
       into two divisions, one moving by water, the other by land,
       passed up the Irawaddy and captured Donabue and Prome. The
       climate improved as the troops ascended the river, and the hot
       weather of 1825 proved less injurious than the summer of 1824.
       … The operations in 1825-6 drove home the lesson which the
       campaign of 1824-5 had already taught. The Burmese realised
       their impotence to resist, and consented to accept the terms
       which the British were still ready to offer them. Assam,
       Aracan, and the Tenasserim Coast were ceded to the Company;
       the King of Burma consented to receive a Resident at his
       capital, and to pay a very large sum of
       money—£1,000,000—towards the expenses of the war. … The
       increasing credit which the Company thus acquired did not add
       to the reputation of the Governor-General. … The Company
       complained of the vast additions which his rule had made to
       expenditure, and they doubted the expediency of acquiring new
       and unnecessary territory beyond the confines of India itself.
       The ministry thought that these acquisitions were opposed to
       the policy which Parliament had laid down, and to the true
       interests of the empire. It decided on his recall. … William
       Bentinck, whom Canning selected as Amherst's successor, was no
       stranger to Indian soil. More than twenty years before he had
       served as Governor of Madras. … Bentinck arrived in Calcutta
       in difficult times. Amherst's war had saddled the Government
       with a debt, and his successor with a deficit. …
       Retrenchment, in the opinion of every one qualified to judge,
       was absolutely indispensable, and Bentinck, as a matter of
       fact, brought out specific instructions to retrench. … In
       two other matters … Bentinck effected a change which
       deserves to be recollected with gratitude. He had the courage
       to abolish flogging in the native Indian army; he had the
       still higher courage to abolish suttee. … In Bengal the
       suttee, or 'the pure and virtuous woman,' who became a widow,
       was required to show her devotion to her husband by
       sacrificing herself on his funeral pile. … Successive
       Governors-General, whose attention had been directed to this
       barbarous practice, had feared to incur the unpopularity of
       abolishing it. … Cornwallis and Wellesley, Hastings and
       Amherst, were all afraid to prohibit murder which was
       identified with religion, and it was accordingly reserved to
       Bentinck to remove the reproach of its existence. With the
       consent of his Council, suttee was declared illegal. The
       danger which others had apprehended from its prohibition
       proved a mere phantom. The Hindoos complied with the order
       without attempting to resist it, and the horrible rite which
       had disgraced the soil of India for centuries became entirely
       unknown. For these humane regulations Bentinck deserves to be
       remembered with gratitude. Yet it should not be forgotten that
       these reforms were as much the work of his age as of himself.
       … One other great abuse was terminated under Bentinck.
    {1735}
       In Central India life was made unsafe and travelling dangerous
       by the establishment of a secret band of robbers known as
       Thugs. The Thugs mingled with any travellers whom they met,
       disarmed them by their conversation and courtesy, and availed
       themselves of the first convenient spot in their journey to
       strangle them with a rope and to rob them of their money. The
       burial of the victim usually concealed all traces of the
       crime; the secrecy of the confederates made its revelation
       unlikely; and, to make treachery more improbable, the Thugs
       usually consecrated their murders with religious rites, and
       claimed their god as the patron of their misdoings. Bentinck
       selected an active officer, Major Sleeman, whom he charged to
       put down Thuggee. Sleeman's exertions were rewarded by a
       gratifying success. The Thugs, like all secret societies, were
       assailable in one way. The first discovery of crime always
       produces an approver. The timid conspirator, conscious of his
       guilt, is glad to purchase his own safety by sacrificing his
       associates, and when one man turns traitor every member of the
       band is anxious to secure the rewards and immunity of
       treachery. Hence the first clue towards the practices of the
       Thugs led to the unveiling of the whole organisation; and the
       same statesman, who had the merit of forbidding suttee,
       succeeded in extirpating Thuggee from the dominions over which
       he ruled. Social reforms of this character occupy the greater
       portion of the history of Bentinck's government. In politics
       he almost always pursued a policy of non-intervention. The
       British during his rule made few additions to their
       possessions; they rarely interfered in the affairs of Native
       states. … The privileges which the East India, Company
       enjoyed had from time to time been renewed by the British
       Parliament. The charter of the Company had been extended for a
       period of twenty years in 1773, in 1793, and in 1813. But the
       conditions on which it was continued in 1813 were very
       different from those on which it had been originally granted.
       Instead of maintaining its exclusive right of trade,
       Parliament decided on throwing open the trade with India to
       all British subjects. It left the Company a monopoly of the
       China trade alone. The Act of 1813 of course excited the
       strenuous opposition of the Company. The highest authorities
       were brought forward to prove that the trade with India would
       not be increased by a termination of the monopoly. Their
       views, however, were proved false by the result, and the stern
       logic of facts consequently pointed in 1833 to the further
       extension of the policy of 1813 [see CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842].
       … The inclination towards free trade was, in fact, so
       prevalent, that it is doubtful whether, even if the Tories had
       remained in office, they would have consented to preserve the
       monopoly. … The fall of the Wellington administration made
       its termination a certainty [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833].
       … The Government consented to compensate the Company for the
       loss of its monopoly by an annuity of £630,000 charged on the
       territorial revenues of India. It is a remarkable circumstance
       that the change of ministry which deprived the Company of its
       trade possibly preserved its political power for nearly a
       quarter of a century. … The Whig ministry shrank from
       proposing an alteration for which the country was not
       prepared, and which might have aroused the opposition by which
       the Coalition of 1783 had been destroyed. Though, however, it
       left the rule with Leadenhall Street, it altered the machinery
       of government. The Governor-General of Bengal was made
       Governor-General of India. A fourth member—an English
       jurist—was added to his Council, and the Governor-General in
       Council was authorised to legislate for the whole of India. At
       the same time the disabilities which still clung to the
       natives were in theory swept away, and Europeans were for the
       first time allowed to hold land in India. These important
       proposals were carried at the close of the first session of
       the first reformed Parliament."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 25 (volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Kaye,
          Administration of the East India Company,
          parts 3-4.

          Sir C. Trevelyan,
          The Thugs
          (Edin. Review, January, 1837).

          Illustrations of the History of the Thugs.

          M. Taylor,
          Confessions of a Thug, introduction.

          D. C. Boulger,
          Lord William Bentinck,
          chapters 4-6.

    INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
       The first Afghan war and its catastrophe.
       Conquest and annexation of Scinde.
       Threatened trouble with the Sikhs.

       "With the accession of Lord Auckland, Bentinck's successor,
       began a new era in Anglo-Indian history, in which the
       long-sown seeds of fresh political complications, which even
       now seem as far from solution as ever, began to put forth
       fruit. All danger from French ambition had passed away: but
       Russian intrigue was busy against us. We had brought the
       danger on ourselves. False to an alliance with Persia, which
       dated from the beginning of the century, we had turned a deaf
       ear to her entreaties for help against Russian aggression, and
       had allowed her to fall under the power of her tyrant, who
       thenceforth used her as an instrument of his ambition. The
       result of our selfish indifference appeared in 1837, when
       Persia, acting under Russian influence, laid siege to Herat,
       which was then under Afghan rule. While Herat was still
       holding out, the Shah was at last threatened with war, and
       raised the siege. Then was the time for Auckland to destroy
       the Russian danger once for all, by making a friend of the
       power which seemed to be the natural barrier against invasion
       from the north-west. After a long series of revolutions, Dost
       Mahomed, the representative of the now famous tribe of
       Baruckzyes, had established himself upon the throne, with the
       warm approval of the majority of the people; while Shah Sooja,
       the leader of the rival Suddozyes, was an exile. The ruling
       prince did not wait for Auckland to seek his friendship. He
       treated the Russian advances with contempt, and desired
       nothing better than to be an ally of the English. Auckland was
       urged to seize the opportunity. It was in his power to deal
       Russia a crushing blow, and to avert those troubles which are
       even now harassing British statesmen. He did not let slip the
       opportunity. He flung it from him, and clutched at a policy
       that was to bring misery to thousands of families in England,
       in India, and in Afghanistan, and to prove disastrous to the
       political interests of all three countries. … Those who are
       least interested in Indian history are not likely to forget
       how the Afghan mob murdered the British Envoy and his
       associates; how the British commander, putting faith in the
       chiefs of a people whom no treaties can bind, began that
       retreat from which but one man escaped to tell how 16,000 had
       perished; how poor Auckland, unmanned by the disaster, lacked
       the energy to retrieve it; how the heroic Sale held out at
       Jellalabad till Pollock relieved him; how Auckland's
       successor, Lord Ellenborough, dreading fresh disasters,
       hesitated to allow his generals to act till, yielding to their
       indignant zeal, he threw upon them the responsibility of that
       advance to Cabul which retrieved the lost prestige of our
       arms.

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842, and 1842-1869.

    {1736}

       Thus closed the first act of a still unfinished drama. After
       celebrating the triumph of the victorious army, Ellenborough
       sent Charles Napier to punish the Ameers of Scinde [see
       SCINDE], who, emboldened by the retreat from Cabul, had
       violated a treaty which they had concluded with the British
       Government. The result of the war was the annexation of the
       country: but the whole series of transactions is only
       remembered now as having given rise to the dispute on the
       question of the guilt of the Ameers between Napier and James
       Outram. Less talked of at the time, but historically more
       important, was Ellenborough's reconstitution of the British
       relations with the Sindia of the day. Political disturbances
       had for some time agitated that prince's court, while his army
       had swollen to a dangerous size, and, like the Sikh army since
       Runjeet Singh's death, which had taken place a few years
       before, had passed beyond the control of the civil power. In
       these two armies Ellenborough saw a danger which might disturb
       the peace of Hindostan. He foresaw that the Sikh soldiers,
       released from the stern discipline of Runjeet Singh, would
       soon force a government which they despised to let them cross
       the Sutlej in quest of plunder. Two years later his character
       as a prophet was vindicated; and, if he had not now, in
       anticipation of the invasion which then took place, disbanded
       the greater part of Sindia's army, and over-awed the remainder
       by a native contingent under the command of British officers,
       the Sikhs would probably have joined their forces with the
       Mahrattas. … But the Directors took a different view of
       their Governor-General's conduct of affairs. In June, 1844,
       all India was astonished by the news that Ellenborough had
       been recalled. He had helped to bring about his own downfall,
       for in the controversies with his masters in which he, like
       some of the ablest of his predecessors, had found himself
       involved, he had shown an unfortunate want of discretion; but,
       though by bombastic proclamations and a theatrical love of
       display he had sometimes exposed himself to ridicule, many of
       his subordinates felt that in him they had lost a vigorous and
       able ruler. Sir Henry Hardinge, who was raised to the peerage
       before the close of his administration, succeeded to the
       office of Governor-General, and waited anxiously for the
       breaking of the storm which his predecessor had seen
       gathering. The Sikhs, the Puritans of India [see SIKHS], who
       were not strictly speaking a nation, but a religious
       brotherhood of warriors called the Khalsa, were animated by
       two passions equally dangerous to the peace of those around
       them, a fierce enthusiasm, half military, half religious, for
       the glory of their order, and an insatiable desire for
       plunder. By giving them full scope for the indulgence of these
       passions, and by punishing all disobedience with merciless
       severity, Runjeet Singh had governed his turbulent subjects
       for forty years: but, when he died, they broke loose from all
       control; and the weak Government of Lahore found that they
       could only save their own capital from being plundered by the
       Khalsa army by sending it to seek plunder in British
       territory. Thus began the first Sikh war."

          T. R. E. Holmes,
          History of the Indian Mutiny,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir L. Griffin,
          Ranjit Singh.

          L. J. Trotter,
          The Earl of Auckland,
          chapters 4-13.

    INDIA: A. D. 1843.
       Conquest of Scinde.

          See SCINDE.

    INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
       The Sikh Wars.
       Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

       "There had always been an expectation that whenever Runjeet
       Singh died, there would be trouble with his soldiery; and it
       soon appeared that some incursion was in contemplation, for
       which the Sikh troops were prepared by an able European
       training under French officers. While the strife about the
       succession was going on in the Punjaub, the military element
       of society there became supreme; and the government at
       Calcutta considered it necessary to move troops to the
       frontier to preserve peace, and reassure the inhabitants of
       whole districts which dreaded the incursions of a haughty and
       lawless soldiery. The Sikhs were alarmed at the approach of
       English troops, and adopted the same course towards us that we
       had tried with their western neighbours—they crossed the
       frontier to forestall our doing it. Whether this move was a
       device of the Sikh chiefs, as some say it was, to get rid of
       the army, and perhaps to cause its destruction by the British,
       and thus to clear the field for their own factions; or whether
       war with the British was considered so inevitable that the
       invasion of our territory was intended as a measure of
       prudence, we need not here decide. The fact was that the Sikh
       soldiery gathered round the tomb of Runjeet Singh, preparing
       themselves for a great battle soon to happen; and that war was
       virtually declared at Lahore in November, 1845, and fairly
       begun by the troops crossing the Sutlej on the 11th of
       December, and taking up a position near Ferozepore. The old
       error prevailed in the British councils, the mistake denounced
       by Charles Metcalfe as fatal—that of undervaluing the enemy.
       The Sikhs had been considered unworthy to be opposed to the
       Afghans in Runjeet's time; and now we expected to drive them
       into the Sutlej at once; but we had never yet, in India, so
       nearly met with our match. The battle of Moodkee was fought
       under Sir Hugh Gough, on the 18th of December, and 'the
       rabble' from the Punjaub astonished both Europeans and Sepoys
       by standing firm, manœuvring well, and rendering it no easy
       matter to close the day with honour to the English arms. This
       ill-timed contempt was truly calamitous, as it had caused
       miscalculations about ammunition, carriage, hospital-stores,
       and everything necessary for a campaign. All these things were
       left behind at Delhi or Agra; and the desperate necessity of
       winning a battle was only enough barely to save the day. The
       advantage was with the British in the battle of Moodkee, but
       not so decisively as all parties had expected. After a
       junction with reinforcements, the British fought the invaders
       again on the 21st and 22nd, at Ferozeshur. On the first night
       our troops were hardly masters of the ground they stood on,
       and had no reserve, while their gallant enemy had large
       reinforcements within reach.
    {1737}
       The next day might easily have been made fatal to the English
       army, at times when their ammunition fell short; but the Sikhs
       were badly commanded at a critical moment, then deserted by a
       traitorous leader, and finally driven back. For a month after
       this nothing was done by the British, and the Sikhs crossed
       the Sutlej at their ease. The valour of Gough and of Hardinge,
       who, while Governor-General, had put himself under the orders
       of the Commander-in-Chief, had saved the honour of the
       English; but their prestige was weakened among their own
       Sepoys, and even the European regiments; much more among the
       Sikhs; and most of all in the eyes of the vigilant surrounding
       states. It was a matter of life and death now to bring up
       guns, ammunition and treasure. A considerable portion fell
       into the enemy's hands on the 21st of January, on its way to
       the relief of Loodeeana; but the battle of Aliwal on the 28th
       was again a true British fight. The Sikhs were driven into the
       Sutlej; and as soon as they had collected in their stronghold
       of Sobraon on the other side, they were driven thence by a
       closing struggle on the 10th of February. The Sikhs were
       beaten, with a slaughter of 5,000 (some say 8,000) men;
       against 320 killed and 2,000 wounded on our side. The
       Maharajah submitted, the road to Lahore lay open, and the
       Governor-General could make his own terms. He flattered
       himself that he had arranged a protectorate of the Punjaub
       which would render annexation unnecessary; and all who could
       believe in it rejoiced that means had been found to escape the
       necessity of adding new conquests to a territory already much
       too large. As the Punjaub could not pay its amount of tribute
       to the Company, Cashmere and some other territory was accepted
       instead, and given, as a kingdom, to Gholab Singh … on his
       paying a portion of the debt, thus reimbursing the Company,
       and lessening the overgrown power of the Punjaub rulers. When,
       at the close of 1846, the English troops should be withdrawing
       from Lahore, the Sikh chiefs begged that they might remain,
       and take care of the Punjaub till the young Maharajah should
       grow up to manhood."

          H. Martineau,
          British Rule in India,
          chapter 20.

       "Lord Hardinge entrusted the government of the Punjab to a
       Council of Regency, consisting of Sikh nobles under the
       guidance of Sir Henry Lawrence as British Resident. He refused
       to create a subsidiary army, but he left a British force to
       protect the government until the boy Dhuleep Singh reached his
       majority. Two-thirds of the Sikh army of the Khalsa were
       disbanded. The Jullunder Doab between the Sutlej and the Beyas
       was added to the British empire. … Lord Dalhousie succeeded
       Lord Hardinge in 1848. Shortly afterwards the Punjab was again
       in commotion. Sikh government under British protection had
       failed to keep the peace. The army of the Khalsa had
       disappeared, but the old love of license and plunder was
       burning in the hearts of the disbanded soldiery. The Sikh
       governor of Multan revolted; two Englishmen were murdered. A
       British force besieged the rebels in Multan. It was joined by
       a Sikh force in the service of the Council of Regency
       commanded by Shere Singh. So far the revolt at Multan was
       regarded as a single outbreak which would be soon suppressed
       by the capture of the fortress. In reality it was the
       beginning of a general insurrection. Shere Singh, who
       commanded the Sikh force in the besieging army, suddenly
       deserted the British force and joined his father Chutter
       Singh, who was already in open rebellion. The revolt was
       secretly promoted by the queen mother, and spread over the
       Punjab like wildfire. The old soldiers of the Khalsa rallied
       round Shere Singh and his father. The half-and-half government
       set up by Lord Hardinge was unable to cope with a revolution
       which was restoring the old anarchy. In November, 1848, Lord
       Gough advanced against the rebel army. Then followed the
       famous campaign between the Chenab and Jhelum rivers about 100
       miles to the north of Lahore. In January, 1849, Lord Gough
       fought the dubious battle of Chillianwallah, near the spot
       where Alexander the Great crossed the Jhelum and defeated the
       army of Porus. Meanwhile Multan surrendered, and the besieging
       force joined Lord Gough. In February the Sikh army was utterly
       defeated at Gujerat."

          J. T. Wheeler,
          Indian History,
          chapter 11.

       "Gujrat was essentially a forenoon battle, with the whole day
       before the combatants to finish their work. It commenced with
       a magnificent duel of artillery; the British infantry
       occupying post after post as they were abandoned by the enemy;
       and the British cavalry breaking up the Sikh masses and
       scattering them by pursuit. Of the sixty Sikh guns engaged,
       fifty-three were taken. Lord Dalhousie resolved to make the
       victory a final one. 'The war,' he declared, 'must be
       prosecuted now to the entire defeat and dispersion of all who
       are in arms against us, whether Sikhs or Afghans.' General
       Gilbert hurried out with a pursuing force of 12,000, horse,
       foot and artillery, the day after the battle. In the
       breathless chase which followed across the plains of the
       Punjab to the frontier mountain-wall, the Sikh military power
       was destroyed for ever. On the 12th of March, 1849, General
       Gilbert received the submission of the entire Sikh army at
       Rawal Pindi, together with the last forty-one of the 160 Sikh
       cannon captured by the British during the war. While the Sikh
       army heaped up their swords and shields and matchlocks in
       submissive piles, and salamed one by one as they passed
       disarmed along the British line, their Afghan allies were
       chased relentlessly westwards, and reached the safety of the
       Khaibar Pass panting, and barely twenty miles in front of the
       English hunters. The horsemen of Afghanistan, it was said,
       'had ridden down through the hills like lions and ran back
       into them like dogs.' The question remained what to do with
       the Punjab. The victory of Sobraon in 1846 gave to Lord
       Hardinge the right of conquest: the victory at Gujrat in 1849
       compelled Lord Dalhousie to assert that right. Lord Hardinge
       at the end of the first Punjab war in 1846, tried, as we have
       seen, an intermediate method of ruling the province by British
       officers for the benefit of the infant prince. This method had
       failed. … In determining the future arrangements for the
       Punjab, Lord Dalhousie had as his advisers the two Lawrences.
       Sir Henry Lawrence, the former Resident at Lahore; hurried
       back from his sick-leave in England on the breaking out of the
       war. He was of opinion that the annexation of the Punjab might
       perhaps be just, but that it would be inexpedient. His brother
       John, afterwards Lord Lawrence, who had also acted as
       Resident, although as much averse in general principle to
       annexation as Henry, was convinced that, in this case,
       annexation was not only just, but that its expediency was
       'both undeniable and pressing.'
    {1738}
       Lord Dalhousie, after a full review of the efforts which had
       been made to convert the Sikh nation into a friendly power
       without annexation, decided that no course now remained to the
       British Government but to annex. … The annexation of the
       Punjab was deliberately approved of by the Court of Directors,
       by Parliament, and by the English nation."

          W. W. Hunter,
          The Marquess of Dalhousie,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir H. B. Edwardes and H. Merivale,
          Life of Sir Henry Lawrence.

          R. B. Smith,
          Life of Lord Lawrence,
          volume 1, chapters 7-11.

          E. Arnold,
          The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
          volume 1, chapters 1-7.

          H. B. Edwardes,
          A Year on the Punjab Frontier, 1848-49.

          Sir R. Temple,
          Men and Events of My Time in India,
          chapters 3-4.

    INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856.
       Lord Dalhousie's minor annexations.
       The lapse of dependent Native States.
       The case of Nana Sahib.

       "In applying the doctrine of lapse to the Hindu chiefdoms, on
       default of natural successors or of an heir legally adopted
       with the sanction of the Ruling Power, Lord Dalhousie merely
       carried out the declared law of the case, and the deliberately
       formulated policy of the Government of India, years before he
       arrived in the country. In so doing, however, Lord Dalhousie
       became the unconscious but effective instrument by which the
       old India of Lord Wellesley at the beginning of the century
       was prepared for its conversion, in 1858, into the new India
       of the Queen. … The fundamental question was whether we
       should allow the government of a dependent State, in absence
       of natural heirs, to pass like mere private property to an
       adopted son. The Court of Directors had at one time permitted
       the adoption of a successor in special cases to a principality
       on failure of natural heirs. It declared, however, in 1834,
       that such an 'indulgence should be the exception, not the
       rule.' … As the evils of the old system of government by
       sham royalties further developed themselves, the Government of
       India determined in 1841 to enforce a more uniform policy. …
       What Lord Dalhousie did, therefore, was not to invent a new
       principle of Indian law, but to steadily apply an old
       principle. … The first case in which this principle came to
       be applied, shortly after Lord Dalhousie's arrival, was the
       Native State of Satara. That Maratha principality had been
       constituted by the British Government on the general break up
       of the Maratha power in 1818, and confirmed to the 'sons and
       heirs, and successors' of the recipient in 1819. In 1839 the
       reigning prince was deposed for misconduct by the British
       Government in the exercise of its Suzerain rights. By the same
       rights the British Government then set up the brother of the
       deposed prince on the throne. … The Raja, whom in 1839 we
       had placed on the throne, applied for permission to adopt a
       son. The British Government deliberately withheld the
       permission; and in the last hours of his life the Raja, in
       1848, hastily adopted a son without the consent of the
       Government." Lord Dalhousie, with the advice of the Court of
       Directors, declared in this case that the territory of Satara
       had lapsed, on the death of the Raja, by failure of heirs, to
       the Power which deposed, and it was annexed, accordingly, to
       the British dominions. Under kindred circumstances the Native
       States of Sambalpur, on the south-western frontier of Lower
       Bengal, and Jhansi, a fragment of the Maratha dominions in
       Northern India, were absorbed. "The same principle of lapse on
       failure of heirs was applied by Lord Dalhousie to several
       other dependent States. Jaitpur in Bundelkhand, Baghat a petty
       hill Chiefdom of 36 square miles in the Punjab, Udaipur on the
       Western frontier of Lower Bengal, and Budawal in Khandesh,
       passed under direct British rule from this cause. The fort and
       military fief of Tanjore were annexed after Lord Dalhousie's
       departure from India, but practically on the grounds set forth
       by his government. … By far the largest accession of
       territory made during Lord Dalhousie's rule, to the British
       dominions on the failure of heirs, was the great central tract
       of India known as Nagpur. This Maratha principality as now
       constituted into the Central Provinces, and after various
       rectifications of frontier, has an area of 113,279 square
       miles, with a population of 12,000,000 souls. The territories
       annexed by Lord Dalhousie in 1854 make nearly four-fifths of
       the present Central Provinces. … It is difficult to find any
       ground for the charge which Mr. Kaye brought in 1865 against
       Lord Dalhousie, for 'harshness' towards the man afterwards
       known as the infamous Nana Sahib [see below: A. D. 1857
       (MAY-AUGUST)]. As this charge, however, is still occasionally
       repeated, and as it has even been suggested that Lord
       Dalhousie was to some extent responsible for the Mutiny of
       1857, in consequence of his action towards Nana Sahib in 1851,
       I must briefly state the facts. In 1818, the Peshwa of the
       Marathas, completely beaten in the field, threw himself on the
       generosity of the British. Sir John Malcolm, then the
       Governor-General's Agent in the Deccan, assured him of his
       protection, and engaged that he should receive an allowance of
       £80,000 a year for his support. … There could not be the
       slightest pretension that it was ever anything more than a
       personal annuity; and from first to last all mention of heirs
       is carefully excluded. The records show that the ex-Peshwa,
       Baji Rao, was well aware of this. Baji Rao lived until 1851,
       leaving to his adopted son, Nana Sahib, an immense fortune
       admitted to amount to £280,000, and believed by the Government
       of the North-western Provinces to greatly exceed that sum. The
       Government of India at once acknowledged the adopted son's
       title to this splendid heritage, and out of its own
       beneficence added to it the Jaghir, or grant of land, on which
       his father had resided in the North-western Provinces. But the
       pension, paid out of the tax-payers' pockets, lapsed upon the
       death of the annuitant."

          Sir W. W. Hunter,
          The Marquess of Dalhousie,
          chapters 6-7.

          Duke of Argyll,
          India under Dalhousie and Canning.

    INDIA: A. D. 1849-1893.
       The life in exile of Dhuleep Singh, heir to the Sikh throne.

       "Few careers have ever been more instructive to those who can
       see than that of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, who died in
       Paris on Sunday [October 22, 1893] of apoplexy. He finished
       life a despised exile, but no man of modern days ever had such
       chances, or had seen them snatched, partly by fate, partly by
       fault, so completely from his lips. But for an accident, if
       there is such a thing as accident, he would have been the
       Hindoo Emperor of India.
    {1739}
       His father, Runjeet Singh, that strange combination of Louis
       XI. and Charles the Bold, had formed and knew how to control
       an army which would have struck down all the native powers of
       India much more easily than did any of the Tartar conquerors.
       Without its master at its head, that army defeated the
       British, and but for a magnificent bribe paid to its General
       (vide Cunningham's 'History of the Sikhs') would have driven
       the English from India, and placed the child, Dhuleep Singh,
       upon the throne of the Peninsula, to be supported there by
       Sikh and Rajpoot, Mahratta, and Beharee. Apart from the
       English, there was nothing to resist them; and they were
       guided by a woman, the Ranee Chunda Kour; who of all modern
       women was most like Mary of Scots as her enemies have painted
       her, and of whom, after her fall, Lord Dalhousie said that her
       capture would be worth the sacrifice of a brigade. How Dhuleep
       Singh would have reigned had Runjeet Singh's destiny completed
       itself is another matter—probably like a Hindoo Humayoon—for
       even if not the son of Runjeet Singh, who, be it remembered,
       acknowledged him, he inherited ability from his mother; he was
       a bold man, and he was, as his career showed, capable of wild
       and daring adventure. He fell, however, from his throne under
       the shock of the second Sikh War, and began a new and, to all
       appearance, most promising career. Lord Dalhousie had a pity
       for the boy, and the English Court—we never quite understood
       why—an unusually kindly feeling. A fortune of £40,000 a year
       was settled on him, he was sent to England, and he was granted
       rank hardly less than that of a Prince of the Blood. He turned
       Christian—apparently from conviction, though subsequent
       events throw doubt on that—a tutor, who was quite competent,
       devoted himself to his education, and from the time he became
       of age he was regarded as in all respects a great English
       noble. He knew, too, how to sustain that character,—made no
       social blunders, became a great sportsman, and succeeded in
       maintaining for years the sustained stateliness of life which
       in England is held to confer social dignity. Confidence was
       first shaken by his marriage, which, though it did not turn
       out unsuccessfully, and though the lady was in after-life
       greatly liked and respected, was a whim, his bride being a
       half Coptic, half English girl whom he saw in an Egyptian
       school-room, and who, by all English as well as Indian ideas
       of rank, was an unfitting bride. Then he began over-spending,
       without the slightest necessity, for his great income was
       unburdened by a vast estate; and at last reduced his finances
       to such a condition that the India Office, which had made him
       advance after advance, closed its treasury and left him, as he
       thought, face to face with ruin. Then the fierce Asiatic blood
       in him came out. He declared himself wronged, perhaps believed
       himself oppressed, dropped the whole varnish of civilisation
       from him, and resolved to make an effort for the vengeance
       over which he had probably brooded for years. He publicly
       repudiated Christianity, and went through a ceremony intended
       to readmit him within the pale of the Sikh variety of the
       Hindoo faith. Whether it did readmit him, greater doctors than
       we must decide. That an ordinary Hindoo who has eaten beef
       cannot be readmitted to his own caste, even if the eating is
       involuntary, is certain, as witness the tradition of the
       Tagore family; but the rights of the Royal are, even in
       Hindooism, extraordinarily wide, and we fancy that, had
       Dhuleep Singh succeeded in his enterprise, Sikh doctors of
       theology would have declared his re-admission legal. He did
       not, however, succeed. He set out for the Punjab intending, it
       can hardly be doubted, if the Sikhs acknowledged him, to make
       a stroke for the throne, if not of India, at least of Runjeet
       Singh; but he was arrested at Aden, and after months of fierce
       dispute, let go, on condition that he should not return to
       India. He sought protection in Russia, which he did not
       obtain, and at last gave up the struggle, made his peace with
       the India Office, took his pension again, and lived, chiefly
       in Paris, the life of a disappointed but wealthy idler. There
       was some spirit in his adventure, though it was unwisely
       carried out. The English generally thought it a bit of
       foolhardiness, or a dodge to extract a loan from the India
       Office; but those who were responsible held a different
       opinion, and would have gone nearly any length to prevent his
       reaching the Punjab. They were probably wise. The heir of
       Runjeet might have been ridiculed by the Sikhs as a Christian,
       but he might also have been accepted as a reconverted man; and
       one successful skirmish in a district might have called to
       arms all the 'children of the sugar and the sword,' and set
       all India on fire. The Sikhs are our very good friends, and
       stood by us against any revival of the Empire of Delhi, their
       sworn hereditary foe; but they have not forgotten Runjeet
       Singh, and a chance of the Empire for themselves might have
       turned many of their heads."

          The Spectator,
          October 28, 1893.

    INDIA: A. D. 1852.
       The second Burmese War.
       Annexation of Pegu.

       "While Lord Dalhousie was laying out the Punjab like a Scotch
       estate, on the most approved principles of planting,
       road-making, culture, and general management, the chance of
       another conquest at the opposite extremity of his vice-kingdom
       summoned him to Calcutta. The master of a trading barque from
       Chittagong, who was charged unjustly with cruelty to a pilot,
       had been fined £100 by the authorities of Rangoon, and the
       captain of a brig had in like manner been amerced for alleged
       ill-treatment of his crew. To support a claim for restitution,
       two English ships of war had been sent to the mouth of the
       Irrawadi. … Misunderstandings arose on some inexplicable
       point of etiquette;" the British commodore seized a royal
       yacht which lay in the river; the angry Burmese opened fire on
       his ships from their forts; and, "with an unprecedented
       economy of time and trouble in the discovery or making of
       plausible pretexts, a second war with Burmah was thus begun. A
       long catalogue of affronts, wrongs, and injuries, now for the
       first time poured in. … The subjects of the 'Golden Foot'
       … must make an official apology for their misbehaviour, pay
       ten lacs compensation, and receive a permanent Resident at
       Rangoon. If these demands were not met within five weeks,
       further reparation would be exacted otherwise, and as there
       was no fear that they would, preparations were made for an
       expedition. … The Governor-General threw himself with
       enthusiasm into an undertaking which promised him another
       chance of gratifying, as his biographer says, his 'passion for
       imperial symmetry.'
    {1740}
       He resolved 'to take in kingdoms wherever they made a gap in
       the red line running round his dominions or broke its internal
       continuity.' There was a gap in the ring-fence between Arracan
       and Moulmein, which Pegu would fill. The logical inference was
       clear, the duty of appropriation obvious. Let us have Pegu.
       Ten millions of silver happening just then to lie in the
       coffers of Fort William, how could they be better invested
       than in a jungle on the sea coast, inhabited by quadrupeds and
       bipeds after their various kinds, alike unworthy of being
       consulted as to their future destiny? … In April, Martaban
       and Rangoon were taken with trifling loss. Operations being
       suspended during the rainy season, the city of Prome was not
       attacked till October, and after a few hours' struggle it
       fell, with the loss of a single sepoy on the side of the
       victors. There was in fact no serious danger to encounter,
       save from the climate; but that unfailing ally fought with
       terrible effect upon the side of Ava. … On the 20th
       December, 1852, a proclamation was issued, which, after
       reciting undisguisedly the ineffably inadequate pretext for
       the war, informed the inhabitants that the Governor in Council
       had resolved that the maritime province of Pegu should
       henceforth form a portion of the British territories in the
       East, and warning the King of Ava, 'should he fail to renew
       his former relations of friendship with the British
       Government, and seek to dispute its quiet possession of the
       province, the Governor-General would again put forth the power
       he held, which would lead to the total subversion of the
       Burman State, and to the ruin and exile of the King and his
       race.' But no depth of humiliation could bring the Sovereign
       or his Ministers to acknowledge the hopelessness of defeat or
       the permanency of dismemberment. … Twenty years have passed,
       and no treaty recognising the alienation of Pegu has yet [in
       1872] been signed."

          W. M. Torrens,
          Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
          chapter 24.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Arnold,
          The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
          chapters 15-16 (volume 2).

    INDIA: A. D. 1856.
       The annexation of Oudh.

          See OUDH.

    INDIA: A. D. 1857.
       Causes of the Sepoy Mutiny.

       "The various motives assigned for the Mutiny appear inadequate
       to the European mind. The truth seems to be that Native
       opinion throughout India was in a ferment, predisposing men to
       believe the wildest stories, and to rush into action in a
       paroxysm of terror. Panic acts on an Oriental population like
       drink upon a European mob. The annexation policy of Lord
       Dalhousie, although dictated by the most enlightened
       considerations, was distasteful to the Native mind. The spread
       of education, the appearance at the same moment of the
       steam-engine and the telegraph wire, seemed to reveal a deep
       plan for substituting an English for an Indian civilisation.
       The Bengal sepoys especially thought that they could see
       further than the rest of their countrymen. Most of them were
       Hindus of high caste; many of them were recruited from Oudh.
       They regarded our reforms on Western lines as attacks on their
       own nationality, and they knew at first hand what annexation
       meant. They believed it was by their prowess that the Punjab
       had been conquered, and that all India was held. The numerous
       dethroned princes, or their heirs and widows, were the first
       to learn and to take advantage of this spirit of disaffection
       and panic. They had heard of the Crimean war, and were told
       that Russia was the perpetual enemy of England. Our munificent
       pensions had supplied the funds with which they could buy the
       aid of skilful intriguers. They had much to gain, and little
       to lose, by a revolution. In this critical state of affairs,
       of which the Government had no official knowledge, a rumour
       ran through the cantonments that the cartridges of the Bengal
       army had been greased with the fat of pigs,—animals unclean
       alike to Hindu and Muhammadan. No assurances could quiet the
       minds of the sepoys. Fires occurred nightly in the Native
       lines; officers were insulted by their men; confidence was
       gone, and only the form of discipline remained. In addition,
       the outbreak of the storm found the Native regiments denuded
       of many of their best officers. The administration of the
       great empire to which Dalhousie put the corner-stone, required
       a larger staff than the civil service could supply. The
       practice of selecting able military men for civil posts, which
       had long existed, received a sudden and vast development.
       Oudh, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, British Burma, were
       administered to a large extent by picked officers from the
       Company's regiments. Good and skilful commanders remained; but
       the Native army had nevertheless been drained of many of its
       brightest intellects and firmest wills at the very crisis of
       its fate."

          W. W. Hunter,
          Brief History of the Indian People,
          chapter 15.

       "The annexation of Oudh had nothing to do with the Mutiny in
       the first place, though that measure certainly did add to the
       number of our enemies after the Mutiny commenced. The old
       government of Oudh was extremely obnoxious to the mass of our
       native soldiers of the regular army, who came from Oudh and
       the adjacent province of Behar, and with whom the Mutiny
       originated. These men were the sons and kinsmen of the Hindu
       yeomen of the country, all of whom benefited more or less by
       annexation; while Oudh was ruled by a Muhammadan family which
       had never identified itself with the people, and whose
       government was extremely oppressive to all classes except its
       immediate creatures and followers. But when the introduction
       of the greased cartridges had excited the Native Army to
       revolt, when the mutineers saw nothing before them short of
       escape on the one hand or destruction on the other, they, and
       all who sympathised with them, were driven to the most
       desperate measures. All who could be influenced by love or
       fear rallied round them. All who had little or nothing to lose
       joined their ranks. All that dangerous class of religious
       fanatics and devotees who abound in India, all the political
       intriguers, who in peaceful times can do no mischief, swelled
       the numbers of the enemy, and gave spirit and direction to
       their measures. India is full of races of men, who, from time
       immemorial, have lived by service or by plunder, and who are
       ready to join in any disturbance which may promise them
       employment. Oudh was full of disbanded soldiers who had not
       had time to settle down. Our gaols furnished thousands of
       desperate men let loose on society. The cry throughout the
       country, as cantonment after cantonment became the scene of
       triumphant mutiny was, 'The English rule is at an end. Let us
       plunder and enjoy ourselves.' The industrious classes
       throughout India were on our side, but for a long time feared
       to act.
    {1741}
       On the one side they saw the few English in the country shot
       down or flying for their lives, or at the best standing on the
       defensive, sorely pressed; on the other side they saw summary
       punishment, in the shape of the plunder and destruction of
       their houses, dealt out to those who aided us. But when we
       evinced signs of vigour, when we began to assume the offensive
       and vindicate our authority, many of these people came forward
       and identified themselves with our cause."

          Lord Lawrence,
          Speech at Glasgow, 1860 (quoted by Sir O. T. Burne,
          in "Clyde and Strathnairn," chapter 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Kaye,
          History of the Sepoy War in India,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          G. B. Malleson,
          The Indian Mutiny of 1857,
          chapters 1-5.

    INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May).
       The outbreak at Meerut.
       Seizure of Delhi by the Mutineers.
       Massacre of Europeans.
       Explosion of the magazine.

       "The station of Meerut, some 40 miles north-east of Delhi, was
       one of the very few in India where adequate means existed for
       quelling an outbreak of native troops. There was a regiment of
       English Dragoons, a battalion of the 60th Rifles, and a strong
       force of Horse and Foot Artillery, far more than sufficient to
       deal with the three native regiments who were also quartered
       in the cantonment. The court-martial on … eighty-five men of
       the 3rd N. C., who had refused to take their cartridges, had
       by this time completed its inquiry. The men were sentenced to
       long terms of imprisonment. The sentence was carried out with
       impressive solemnity. On a morning [May 9] presently to become
       historical—the heavens sombre with rolling clouds—the
       brigade assembled to hear their comrades' doom—to see them
       stripped of their uniform and secured with felons' manacles.
       The scene produced intense emotion. Resistance was impossible.
       There were entreaties, tears, imprecations, as the prisoners
       were marched away to jail. Discipline had been vindicated by a
       terrible example. The next day was Sunday. In the evening, as
       the European Riflemen were gathering for Church, a sudden
       movement took place in the native quarters. The Cavalry dashed
       off to the jail to rescue their imprisoned companions. The two
       Infantry regiments, after a moment's wavering, threw in their
       lot with the mutineers. Then ensued a scene such as,
       unhappily, became too familiar in Upper India within the next
       few weeks. Officers were shot, houses fired, Europeans—men,
       women, and children, wherever found, were put to the sword. A
       crowd of miscreants from the jail, suddenly set free, made a
       long night of pillage. Meanwhile, paralysed by the sudden
       catastrophe, the English General of the Division and the
       Brigadier of the Station forbore to act, refused to let their
       subordinates act, and the Sepoys who had fled, a disorganised
       mob, in different directions, soon found themselves gathering
       on the march for Delhi. In the early morning at Delhi, where
       courts and offices had already begun the day's work, a line of
       horsemen were descried galloping on the Meerut road. They
       found their way into the city, into the presence of the King;
       cut down the European officials, and, as they were gradually
       reinforced by the arrival of fresh companions, commenced a
       general massacre of the Christian population. A brave
       telegraph clerk, as the mutineers burst in upon him, had just
       time to flash the dreadful tidings to Lahore. Before evening,
       the native regiments fired upon their officers and joined the
       mutineers. After weary hours of hope for the help from Meerut
       which never came, the British officers in command were
       compelled to recognise that the only chance of safety lay in
       flight. Ere the day closed, every European who had risen that
       morning in Delhi, was dead, or awaiting death, or wandering
       about the country in the desperate endeavor to reach a place
       of safety. A day dark with disaster was, however, illumined by
       the first of those heroic acts which will make the siege of
       Delhi immortal. The insurgents had their first taste of the
       quality of the race whose ascendancy they had elected to
       assail. Lieutenant Willoughby, the officer in charge of the
       Magazine, and eight gallant companions, resolved, early in the
       day, that, if they could not defend their invaluable supply of
       ammunition, they would destroy it, though its destruction
       would almost certainly involve their own. For hours they
       defended their stronghold against an overpowering crowd of
       assailants. The train was laid: the sergeant who was to fire
       it stood ready: Willoughby took a last look out upon the
       Meerut road: the assailants were swarming on the walls. The
       word was spoken: a vast column of flame and smoke shot upward.
       Two thousand of the assailants were blown into the air [and
       five of the defenders perished, while Willoughby and three of
       his companions escaped]. The thunder of that explosion
       announced to the mutineers that one great object in the
       seizure of Delhi had escaped their grasp."

          H. S. Cunningham,
          Earl Canning,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Kaye,
          History of the Sepoy War in India,
          book 4, chapters 1-3 (volume 2).

    INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May-August).
       The situation at Delhi.
       Siege of the English at Cawnpur.
       Their surrender and massacre.
       The siege of Lucknow.

       "A few days of inactivity allowed the flame to blaze up beyond
       possibility of immediate extinction. The unchallenged
       occupation of the Mughal capital by rebel sepoys and badmashes
       was followed by risings and massacres in almost every station
       within range of the example; and from Firozpur, Bareilly,
       Moradabad, Shahjahanpur, Cawnpur, and numerous other places
       came harrowing tales of massacre, suffering, and heroism. When
       this terrible news reached army head-quarters, it was received
       with a perhaps natural incredulity. Nevertheless, a force was
       hastily assembled at Ambala; and with the troops thus
       mobilised, General Anson, then Commander-in-Chief, made
       preparations to march against the renowned city of the Mughal.
       The little force had hardly started, however, when its leader
       died of cholera (May 27th). It was not until the 1st of June
       that General Barnard, who had succeeded temporarily to the
       chief command, advanced in earnest against the now jubilant
       rebels. Meanwhile, a small body of troops under Brigadier
       Archdale Wilson marched out from Meerut, after a disastrous
       delay; and the combined force, amounting to about 3,000
       Europeans and one battalion of Gurkhas, fought its way onwards
       till it reached the outskirts of the city on the 8th of June,
       1857. We may now refer to the three great points,—Delhi,
       Cawnpur, and Lucknow, round which the Mutiny was, so to speak,
       centred during the earlier period of the revolt; namely, from
       May, 1857, till the arrival in India of Sir Colin Campbell in
       August of that year.
    {1742}
       The modern city of Delhi was founded by the Emperor Jahangir
       in 1631. Situated on the right bank of a branch of the Jumna
       river it was, as it still is, surrounded by a high wall some
       seven miles in extent, strengthened by bastions and by a
       capacious dry ditch. The British force held the elevated
       ground known as the Ridge, which extends two miles along the
       northern and western faces of the city—a position taken up
       some centuries before by Timur Shah and his Tartar hordes when
       advancing to attack old Delhi. At intervals along the Ridge
       stood the Flagstaff Tower, the Observatory, a large mansion
       called Hindu Rao's house, and other defensible buildings. The
       space between the city and the Ridge was thickly planted, for
       the most part with trees and shrubs; in the midst of which
       might be seen numerous mosques and large houses, and the ruins
       of older buildings. It soon became evident that the position
       held by the British force on the Ridge was a false one; and
       the question arose whether the city might not be taken by a
       coup de main, seeing that it was impossible either to invest
       it or to attempt a regular siege with any chance of success. A
       plan of assault, to be carried out on the 12th of June, was
       drawn up by a young Engineer officer and sanctioned. Had this
       assault been delivered the city would in all likelihood have
       been taken and held. … But owing to a series of accidents,
       the plan fell through—a miscarriage the more to be regretted
       because the early recapture of the city would in all human
       probability have put a stop to further outbreaks. As matters
       stood, however, the gallant little force before Delhi could
       barely hold its own. It was an army of observation perpetually
       harassed by an active enemy. As time went on, therefore, the
       question of raising the siege in favour of a movement towards
       Agra was more than once seriously discussed, but was
       fortunately abandoned. On July 5th, 1857, General Barnard
       died, worn out with fatigue and anxiety. He was succeeded in
       command by General Archdale Wilson, an officer who, possessing
       no special force of character, did little more than secure the
       safe defence of the position until the arrival of Brigadier
       Nicholson from the Punjab, August 14th, 1857, with a moveable
       column of 2,500 men, Europeans and Sikhs. And here we may
       leave Delhi, for the moment, deferring till later any further
       details of the siege. The city of Cawnpur, situated on the
       south bank of the river Ganges, 42 miles south-west of Lucknow
       and 270 miles from Delhi, lies about a mile from the river in
       a large sandy plain. On the strip of land between the river
       and the town, a space broken by ravines, stretched the Civil
       Station and cantonments. A more difficult position to hold in
       an extremity cannot well be conceived, occupied as it was by
       four disaffected Sepoy regiments with but sixty European
       artillerymen to overawe them. There was, moreover, an
       incompetent commander. Realising after the disasters at Meerut
       and Delhi that his native garrison was not to be trusted, Sir
       Hugh Wheeler threw up a make-shift entrenchment close to the
       Sepoy lines. Commanded on all sides, it was totally unfitted
       to stand a siege. But a worse mistake was to follow. Alarmed
       as time went on at his growing difficulties, Sir Hugh Wheeler
       at length asked the notorious Nana Sahib [see above: A. D.
       1848-1856], who lived a few miles off at Bithur, to assist him
       with troops to guard the Treasury. For some months previously
       this archtraitor's emissaries had been spreading discontent
       throughout India, but he himself had taken care to remain on
       good terms with his European neighbours. He now saw his
       opportunity. Cawnpur, delivered into his hands by the
       misplaced confidence of its defenders, was virtually in his
       keeping. Of European succour there was no immediate hope. The
       place was doomed. The crash came three days before General
       Barnard's force reached Delhi. With the exception of a few
       devoted natives who remained faithful to their salt, the whole
       Sepoy force on the 5th of June rose in revolt, opened the
       doors of the jail, robbed the treasury, and made themselves
       masters of the magazine. The Nana cast aside all further
       pretence of friendship and, joined by the mutinous troops,
       laid siege to the entrenchment already mentioned, which with
       culpable military ignorance had been thrown up in one of the
       worst positions that could have been chosen. The besieging
       army numbered some 3,000 men. The besieged could only muster
       about 400 English soldiers, more than 70 of which number were
       invalids. For twenty-one days the little garrison suffered
       untold horrors from starvation, heat, and the onslaughts of
       the rebels; until the General in command listened to overtures
       for surrender, and the garrison marched out on the 27th of
       June, to the number of about 450 souls, provided with a
       promise of safeguard from the Nana, who would allow them, as
       they thought, to embark in country boats for Allahabad. Tantia
       Topi, who afterwards became notorious in Central India,
       superintended the embarkation. No sooner, however, were the
       Europeans placed in the boats, in apparent safety, than a
       battery of guns concealed on the river banks opened fire,
       while at the same time a deadly fusillade of musketry was
       poured on the luckless refugees. The Nana at length ordered
       the massacre to cease. He celebrated what he called his
       glorious victory by proclaiming himself Peshwa or Maratha
       Sovereign, and by rewarding his troops for their 'splendid
       achievements,' while the wretched survivors of his treachery,
       numbering about 5 men and 206 women and children, were taken
       back to Cawnpur and confined in a small building for further
       vengeance and insult. On the 15th of July came the last act of
       this tragedy. The Nana, having suffered a crushing defeat at
       the hands of Brigadier Havelock's force within a day's march
       of Cawnpur, as will presently be recorded, put the whole of
       his prisoners to death. The men were brought out and killed in
       his presence, while the women and children were hacked to
       pieces by Muhammadan butchers and others in their prison.
       Their bodies were thrown into what is now known as the
       Cawnpur Well.' Lucknow, at the time of the Mutiny, was in
       population, in extent, and in the number and importance of its
       principal buildings, one of the foremost cities of India. …
       The Residency stood on a hill gently sloping towards the
       river, and was an imposing edifice of three stories. Near it
       were the iron and stone bridges over the river. … At the
       outbreak of the Mutiny the Sepoy regiments were stationed in
       various localities within the city; while the 32nd Foot, the
       only European regiment on the spot, was quartered in a barrack
       about a mile or so from the Residency.
    {1743}
       As was the case elsewhere, so it happened at Lucknow. While
       the population and native garrison were seething with
       sedition, the British authorities were hampered by ignorance
       of popular feeling, by the want of European troops, and by
       divided counsels. So, by the end of May, 1857, the rebellion
       in Oudh became an accomplished fact, although matters went on
       with comparative smoothness in Lucknow itself. At length,
       after a serious disaster at Chinhat, the British garrison was
       forced to withdraw to the Residency and its adjacent
       buildings; and on the 1st of July commenced the famous
       investment of this position by the rebel forces. The position
       was ill adapted for defence; for the lofty windows of the
       Residency itself not only allowed free access to the enemy's
       missiles, but its roof was wholly exposed. On the opposite
       side of the street, leading from the Bailey Guard Gate, was
       the house of the Residency Surgeon, Dr. (now Sir Joseph)
       Fayrer. It was a large but not lofty building with a flat roof
       which, protected by sand bags, afforded a good cover for our
       riflemen, and with a tyekhana, or underground story, that
       afforded good shelter for the women and children. But as a
       whole, the defences of the Residency were more formidable in
       name than in reality, and were greatly weakened by the
       proximity of high buildings from which the rebels without
       danger to themselves poured an unceasing fire. The siege had
       an ominous commencement. On July 4th the much-beloved Sir
       Henry Lawrence, the Resident, died of a wound received two
       days before from an enemy's shell that had fallen into his
       room. Brigadier Inglis succeeded him in command; and for three
       months the heroic garrison of about 1,700 souls held their
       weak position, amid inconceivable hardships and dangers,
       against thousands of the rebels who were constantly reinforced
       by fresh levies. It was well said in a general order by Lord
       Canning that there could not be found in the annals of war an
       achievement more heroic than this defence."

          General Sir O. T. Burne,
          Clyde and Strathnairn,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Kaye,
          History of the Sepoy War,
          book 9, chapters 1-3 (volume 3).

          G. O. Trevelyan,
          Cawnpore.

          T. R. E. Holmes,
          History of the Indian Mutiny,
          chapters 8-10.

          Lady Inglis,
          The Siege of Lucknow.

    INDIA: A. D. 1857 (June-September).
       The siege, the storming and the capture of Delhi.
       Murder of the Moghul princes.

       "During the four months that followed the revolt at Delhi on
       the 11th of May, all political interest was centred at the
       ancient capital of the sovereigns of Hindustan. The public
       mind was occasionally distracted by the current of events at
       Cawnpore and Lukhnow, as well as at other stations which need
       not be particularised; but so long as Delhi remained in the
       hands of the rebels, the native princes were bewildered and
       alarmed; and its prompt recapture was deemed of vital
       importance to the prestige of the British government, and the
       re-establishment of British sovereignty in Hindustan. The
       Great Moghul had been little better than a mummy for more than
       half a century, and Bahadur Shah was a mere tool and puppet in
       the hands of rebel sepoys; but nevertheless the British
       government had to deal with the astounding fact that the
       rebels were fighting under his name and standard, just as
       Afghans and Mahrattas had done in the days of Ahmad Shah
       Durani and Mahadaji Sindia. To make matters worse, the roads
       to Delhi were open from the south and east; and nearly every
       outbreak in Hindustan was followed by a stampede of mutineers
       to the old capital of the Moghuls. Meanwhile, in the absence
       of railways, there were unfortunate delays in bringing up
       troops and guns to stamp out the fires of rebellion at the
       head centre. The highway from Calcutta to Delhi was blocked up
       by mutiny and insurrection; and every European soldier sent up
       from Calcutta was stopped for the relief of Benares,
       Allahabad, Cawnpore, or Lukhnow. But the possession of the
       Punjab at this crisis proved to be the salvation of the
       empire. Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner, was called
       upon to perform almost superhuman work:—to maintain order in
       a newly conquered province; to suppress mutiny and
       disaffection amongst the very sepoy regiments from Bengal who
       were supposed to garrison the country; and to send
       reinforcements of troops and guns, and supplies of all
       descriptions, to the siege of Delhi. Fortunately the Sikhs had
       been only a few short years under British administration; they
       had not forgotten the miseries that prevailed under the native
       government, and could appreciate the many blessings they
       enjoyed under British rule. They were staunch to the British
       government, and eager to be led against the rebels. In some
       cases terrible punishment was meted out to mutinous Bengal
       sepoys within the Punjab; but the imperial interests at stake
       were sufficient to justify every severity, although all must
       regret the painful necessity that called for such extreme
       measures. … The defences of Delhi covered an area of three
       square miles. The walls consisted of a series of bastions,
       about sixteen feet high, connected by long curtains, with
       occasional martello towers to aid the flanking fire. … There
       were seven gates to the city, namely, Lahore gate, Ajmir gate,
       Turkoman gate, Delhi gate, Mori gate, Kabul gate, and Kashmir
       gate. The principal street was the Chandni Chouk, which ran in
       a direct line from the Delhi gate to the palace of the
       Moghuls. … For many weeks the British army on the Ridge was
       unable to attempt siege operations. It was, in fact, the
       besieged, rather than the besiegers; for, although the bridges
       in the rear were blown up, the camp was exposed to continual
       assaults from all the other sides. On the 23rd of June, the
       hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassy, the enemy made
       a greater effort than ever to carry the British position. The
       attack began on the right from the Subzi Mundi, its object
       being to capture the Mound battery. Finding it impossible to
       carry the battery, the rebels confined themselves to a hand to
       hand conflict in the Subzi Mundi. The deadly struggle
       continued for many hours; and as the rebels came up in
       overwhelming numbers, it was fortunate that the two bridges in
       the rear had been blown up the night before, or the assault
       might have had a different termination. It was not until after
       sunset that the enemy was compelled to retire with the loss of
       a thousand men. Similar actions were frequent during the month
       of August; but meanwhile reinforcements were coming up, and
       the end was drawing nigh. In the middle of August, Brigadier
       John Nicholson, one of the most distinguished officers of the
       time, came up from the Punjab with a brigade and siege train.
       On the 4th of September a heavy train of artillery was brought
       in from Ferozepore.
    {1744}
       The British force on the Ridge now exceeded 8,000 men.
       Hitherto the artillery had been too weak to attempt to breach
       the City walls; but now fifty-four heavy guns were brought
       into position and the siege began in earnest. From the 8th to
       the 12th of September four batteries poured in a constant
       storm of shot and shell; number one was directed against the
       Kashmir bastion, number two against the right flank of the
       Kashmir bastion, number three against the Water bastion, and
       number four against the Kashmir and Water gates and bastions.
       On the 13th of September the breaches were declared to be
       practicable, and the following morning was fixed for the final
       assault upon the doomed city. At three o'clock in the morning
       of the 14th September, three assaulting columns were formed in
       the trenches, whilst a fourth was kept in reserve. The first
       column was led by Brigadier Nicholson; the second by Brigadier
       Jones; the third by Colonel Campbell; and the fourth, or
       reserve, by Brigadier Longfield. The powder bags were laid at
       the Kashmir gate by Lieutenants Home and Salkeld. The
       explosion followed, and the third column rushed in, and pushed
       towards the Juma Musjid. Meanwhile the first column under
       Nicholson escaladed the breaches near the Kashmir gate, and
       pushed along the ramparts towards the Kabul gate, carrying the
       several bastions in the way. Here it was met by the second
       column under Brigadier Jones, who had escaladed the breach at
       the Water bastion. The advancing columns were met by a
       ceaseless fire from terraced houses, mosques, and other
       buildings; and John Nicholson, the hero of the day, whilst
       attempting to storm a narrow street near the Kabul gate, was
       struck down by a shot and mortally wounded."

          J. T. Wheeler,
          Short History of India,
          part 3, chapter 25.

       "The long autumn day was over, and we were in Delhi. But Delhi
       was, by no means, ours. Sixty-six officers and 1,100 men—
       nearly a third, that is, of the whole attacking force—had
       fallen; while, as yet, not a sixth part of the town was in our
       power. How many men, it might well be asked, would be left to
       us by the time that we had conquered the remainder? We held
       the line of ramparts which we had attacked and the portions of
       the city immediately adjoining, but nothing more. The Lahore
       Gate and the Magazine, the Jumma Musjid and the Palace, were
       still untouched, and were keeping up a heavy fire on our
       position. Worse than this, a large number of our troops had
       fallen victims to the temptation which, more formidable than
       themselves, our foes had left behind them, and were wallowing
       in a state of bestial intoxication. The enemy, meanwhile, had
       been able to maintain their position outside the town; and if
       only, at this supreme hour, a heaven-sent General had appeared
       amongst them, they might have attacked our camp, defended as
       it was mainly by the sick, and the maimed, and the halt. …
       Never, perhaps, in the history of the Mutiny were we in quite
       so perilous a position as on the night which followed our
       greatest military success. General Wilson, indeed, proposed,
       as might have been expected from a man in his enfeebled
       condition of mind and body, to withdraw the guns, to fall back
       on the camp and wait for reinforcements there; a step which,
       it is needless to point out, would have given us all the
       deadly work to do over again, even if our force should prove
       able to maintain itself on the Ridge till reinforcements came.
       But the urgent remonstrances of Baird Smith and others, by
       word of mouth; of Chamberlain, by letter; and, perhaps, also,
       the echoes which may have reached him from the tempest-tossed
       hero who lay chafing against his cruel destiny on his
       death-bed, and exclaimed in a wild paroxysm of passion, when
       he heard of the move which was in contemplation, 'Thank God, I
       have strength enough left to shoot that man,' turned the
       General once more from his purpose. On the following day, the
       15th, vast quantities of the intoxicating drinks, which had
       wrought such havoc amongst our men, were destroyed by General
       Wilson's order, and the streets literally ran with rivers of
       beer, and wine, and brandy. Meanwhile, the troops were
       sleeping off their drunken debauch; and on the 16th active
       operations were resumed. On that day the Magazine was taken,
       and its vast stores of shot and shell, and of all the
       'material' of war, fell once more into the hands of their
       proper owners. By sapping gradually from house to house we
       managed, for three days more, to avoid the street-fighting
       which, once and again, has proved so demoralising to
       Englishmen; and, slowly but surely, we pressed back the
       defenders into that ever-narrowing part of the city of which,
       fortunately for themselves, they still held the bolt-holes.
       Many of them had already begun, like rats, to quit the sinking
       vessel. And now the unarmed population of the city flocked in
       one continuous stream out of the open gates, hoping to save
       their lives, if nothing else, from our avenging swords. On the
       19th, the palace of the Moguls, which had witnessed the last
       expiring flicker of life in an effete dynasty, and the cruel
       murder of English men, and women, and children, fell into our
       hands; and by Sunday, the 20th, the whole of the city—in
       large part already a city of the dead—was at our mercy. But
       what of the King himself and the Princes of the royal house?
       They had slunk off to the tomb of Humayoun, a huge building,
       almost a city in itself, some miles from the modern Delhi, and
       there, swayed this way and that, now by the bolder spirits of
       his army who pressed him to put himself at their head and
       fight it out to the death, as became the descendant of
       Tamerlane and Baber, now by the entreaties of his young wife,
       who was anxious chiefly for her own safety and that of her
       son, the heir of the Moguls; and now, again, by the plausible
       suggestions of a double-dyed traitor of his own house who was
       in Hodson's pay, and who, approaching the head of his family
       with a kiss of peace, was endeavoring to detain him where he
       was till he could hand him over to his employer and receive
       the price of blood, the poor old monarch dozed or fooled away
       the few hours of his sovereignty which remained, the hours
       which might still make or mar him, in paroxysms of imbecile
       vacillation and despair. The traitor gained the day, and
       Hodson, who could play the game of force as well as of fraud,
       and was an equal adept at either, learning from his
       craven-hearted tool that the King was prepared to surrender on
       the promise of his life, went to Wilson and obtained leave, on
       that condition, to bring him into Delhi. The errand, with such
       a promise tacked on to it, was only half to Hodson's taste.
    {1745}
       'If I get into the Palace,' he had written in cool blood some
       days before, 'the house of Timour will not be worth five
       minutes' purchase, I ween.' … After two hours of bargaining
       for his own life and that of his queen and favourite son, the
       poor old Priam tottered forth and was taken back, in a
       bullock-cart, a prisoner, to his own city and Palace, and was
       there handed over to the civil authorities. But there were
       other members of the royal family, as Hodson knew well from
       his informants, also lurking in Humayoun's tomb. … With a
       hundred of his famous horse Hodson started for Humayoun's
       tomb, and, after three hours of negotiation, the three
       princes, two of them the sons, the other the grandson of the
       King, surrendered unconditionally into his hands. … Their
       arms were taken from them, and, escorted by some of his
       horsemen, they too were despatched in bullock-carts towards
       Delhi. With the rest of his horse, Hodson stayed behind to
       disarm the large and nerveless crowd, who, as sheep having no
       shepherd, and unable, in their paralysed condition, to see
       what the brute weight even of a flock of sheep might do by a
       sudden rush, were overawed by his resolute bearing. This done,
       he galloped after his prey and caught them up just before the
       cavalcade reached the walls of Delhi. He ordered the princes
       roughly to get out of the cart and strip,—for, even in his
       thirst for their blood, he had, as it would seem, an eye to
       the value of their outer clothes,—he ordered them into the
       cart again, he seized a carbine from one of his troopers, and
       then and there, with his own hand, shot them down deliberately
       one after the other. It was a stupid, cold-blooded, three-fold
       murder. … Had they been put upon their trial, disclosures of
       great importance as to the origin of the Mutiny could hardly
       fail to have been elicited. Their punishment would have been
       proportioned to their offence, and would have been meted out
       to them with all the patient majesty of offended law."

          R. B. Smith,
          Life of Lord Lawrence,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir R. Temple,
          Lord Lawrence,
          chapter 7.

          Sir R. Temple,
          Men and Events of my Time in India,
          chapter 7.

          J. Cave-Brown,
          The Punjab and Delhi in 1857.

          G. B. Malleson,
          History of the Indian Mutiny,
          book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          Major Hodson,
          Twelve Years of a Soldier's Life in India,
          part 2: The Delhi Campaign.

    INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (July-June).
       General Havelock's campaign.
       Sir Colin Campbell's.
       The Relief of Lucknow.
       Substantial suppression of the Mutiny.

       "Meanwhile the greatest anxiety prevailed with regard to our
       countrymen and countrywomen at Lucknow and Cawnpore. The
       Indian government made every effort to relieve them; but the
       reinforcements which had been despatched from England and
       China came in slowly, and the demands made for assistance far
       exceeded the means at the disposal of the government. … The
       task of relieving the city was entrusted to the heroic General
       Havelock, who marched out with a mere handful of men, of whom
       only 1,400 were British soldiers, to encounter a large army
       and a whole country in rebellion. At Futtehpore, on the 12th
       of July, he defeated a vastly superior force, posted in a very
       strong position. After giving his men a day's rest, he
       advanced again on the 14th, and routed the enemy in two
       pitched battles. Next morning he renewed his advance, and with
       a force of less than 900 men attacked 5,000 strongly
       entrenched, and commanded by Nana Sahib. They were
       outmanœuvred, out-flanked, beaten and dispersed. But for this
       signal defeat they wreaked their vengeance on the unfortunate
       women and children who still remained at Cawnpore. On the very
       day on which the battle occurred, they were massacred under
       circumstances of cruelty over which we must throw a veil. The
       well of Cawnpore, in which their hacked and mutilated bodies
       were flung, presented a spectacle from which soldiers who had
       regarded unmoved the carnage of numerous battle-fields shrank
       with horror. Of all the atrocities perpetrated during this
       war, so fruitful in horrors, this was the most awful; and it
       was followed by a terrible retribution. It steeled the hearts,
       and lent a furious and fearless energy to the arms, of the
       British soldiery. Wherever they came, they gave no quarter to
       the mutineers; a few men often frantically attacked hundreds,
       frantically but vainly defending themselves; and never ceased
       till all had been bayoneted, or shot, or hewn in pieces. All
       those who could be shown to have been accomplices in the
       perpetration of the murders that had been committed were hung,
       or blown from the cannon's mouth. Though the intrepid Havelock
       was unable to save the women and children who had been
       imprisoned in Cawnpore, he pressed forward to Lucknow. But the
       force under his command was too small to enable him to drive
       off the enemy. Meanwhile Sir J. Outram, who was now returning
       from the Persian war, which had been brought to a successful
       conclusion, was sent to Oude as chief commissioner, with full
       civil and military power. This appointment was fully deserved;
       but it had the effect, probably not thought of by those who
       made it, of superseding Havelock just as he was about to
       achieve the crowning success of his rapid and glorious career.
       Outram, however, with a generosity which did him more real
       honour than a thousand victories would have conferred, wrote
       to Havelock to inform him that he intended to join him with
       adequate reinforcements; adding: 'To you shall be left the
       glory of relieving Lucknow, for which you have already
       struggled so much. I shall accompany you only in my civil
       capacity as commissioner, placing my military service at your
       disposal, should you please, and serving under you as a
       volunteer.' Thus Havelock, after gaining no fewer than twelve
       battles against forces far superior in numbers to the little
       band he originally led, was enabled at length, on the 25th of
       August, to preserve the civilians, the women, and children of
       Lucknow from the impending horrors of another massacre, which
       would no doubt have been as fearful as that of Cawnpore. The
       Highlanders were the first to enter, and were welcomed with
       grateful enthusiasm by those whom they had saved from a fate
       worse than death. However, the enemy, recovering from the
       panic which the arrival of Havelock and his troops had caused,
       renewed the siege. Sir Colin Campbell, who had assumed the
       command of the Indian army, had determined to march to the
       relief of Lucknow. He set out from Cawnpore on the 9th of
       November, but was obliged to wait till the 14th for
       reinforcements, which were on the way to join him, and which
       raised the force under his command to 5,000—a force
       numerically far inferior to that which it was to attack.
    {1746}
       On the 17th of November the relief of Lucknow was effected.
       The music of the Highland regiments, playing 'The Campbells
       are coming,' announced to their delighted countrymen inside
       the city that the commander-in-chief himself was with the
       relieving force. Little time, however, was allowed for
       congratulations and rejoicings. The ladies, the civilians, and
       the garrison were quietly withdrawn; the guns, which it was
       thought not desirable to remove, were burst; and a retreat
       effected, without affording the enemy the slightest suspicion
       of what was going on until some hours after the town had been
       evacuated by its defenders. The retreating force reached
       Dilhasha on the 24th, without having sustained any serious
       molestation. There the gallant Havelock sank under the trials
       and hardships to which he had been exposed, and yielded up the
       life which was instrumental in preserving so many others from
       the most terrible of deaths. While Sir Colin Campbell was
       engaged in effecting the relief of Lucknow, intelligence
       reached Cawnpore that a large hostile army was making towards
       it. General Windham, who commanded there, unacquainted with
       the number or the position of the approaching force, marched
       forth to meet it, in the hope that he should be able to rout
       and cut up the advanced guard before the main body of the
       enemy could come to its assistance. But in this expectation he
       was disappointed. Instead of having to deal with the van, he
       engaged with the whole rebel army, and his little force,
       assailed on all sides, was obliged to retire. He at once
       despatched a letter to the commander-in-chief, requesting him
       to hasten to his assistance; but it was intercepted by the
       enemy. Fortunately Sir Colin Campbell, though ignorant of the
       critical position of his subordinate, came up just at the
       moment when the danger was at its height. This was on the 28th
       of November. He was, however, in no haste to attack the foe,
       and was content for the present merely to hold them in check.
       His first care was for the safety of the civilians, the women,
       and the children, which was not secured till the 30th; and he
       continued to protect them till the 5th of December, when they
       were all safely lodged at Allahabad. The enemy, unaware of the
       motive of his seeming inaction, imputed it to fear, and became
       every day more confident and audacious. On the 6th he at
       length turned fiercely on them, completely defeated them, and
       seized their baggage; he then dispersed and drove away another
       large force, under the command of Nana Sahib, which was
       watching the engagement at a little distance. The army entered
       the residence of Nana Sahib at Bithoor, and took possession of
       much treasure, which had been concealed in a well. Nearly the
       whole of the enemy's artillery was captured; and the army,
       being overtaken as they were in the act of crossing into Oude,
       great numbers of them were destroyed. Of course, for the
       moment Lucknow, being no longer garrisoned, had fallen into
       the hands of the insurgents; but they were not long permitted
       to retain it. Strong reinforcements arrived, and the Indian
       government was enabled to send a force against Lucknow
       sufficient to overwhelm all resistance; and on the 15th of
       December this important city was in the undisputed possession
       of the British troops. This final recovery of the capital of
       Oude decided the reconquest of that country. A struggle was,
       indeed, maintained for some time longer; innumerable battles
       were fought; and the final subjugation of the country was
       effected in the month of June, 1858."

          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Forbes,
          Havelock,
          chapters 5-7.

          General Sir O. T. Burne,
          Clyde and Strathnairn.

          General Shadwell,
          Life of Colin Campbell, Lord Clyde,
          volume 1, chapter 11,
          and volume 2, chapters 1-18.

          T. Lowe,
          Central India during 1857-8.

    INDIA: A. D. 1858.
       The Governor-General's Proclamation,
       Termination of the rule of the East India Company.
       The government transferred to the Crown.

       "By a singular circumstance, when the mutiny was suppressed in
       1858, the Governor-General, who in the previous year had been
       condemned for leniency which was thought ill-timed, was
       destined to receive censure for harshness which was declared
       unnecessary. On the eve of the fall of Lucknow, he drew up a
       proclamation confiscating the lands of all the great
       landowners in Oudh. Exceptions were, indeed, made to this
       sweeping decree. Landowners who could prove their loyalty were
       promised exemption from it, just as rebels who unconditionally
       surrendered, and whose hands were not stained with British
       blood, were offered pardon. There is no doubt that Canning, in
       drawing up this proclamation, relied on the exceptions which
       it contained, while there is equally no doubt that the critics
       who objected to it overlooked its parentheses. But its issue
       was made the basis of an attack which well-nigh proved fatal
       to the Governor-General's administration. The chances of party
       warfare had replaced Palmerston with Derby; and the
       Conservative minister had entrusted the Board of Control to
       the brilliant but erratic statesman who, fifteen years before,
       had astonished India with pageant and proclamation. …
       Ellenborough thought proper to condemn Canning's proclamation
       in a severe despatch, and to allow his censure to be made
       public. For a short time it seemed impossible that the
       Governor-General who had received such a despatch could
       continue his government. But the lapse of a few days showed
       that the minister who had framed the despatch, and not the
       Viceroy who had received it, was to suffer from the
       transaction. The public, recollecting the justice of Canning's
       rule, the mercy of his administration, almost unanimously
       considered that he should not have been hastily condemned for
       a document which, it was gradually evident, had only been
       imperfectly understood; and Ellenborough, to save his
       colleagues, volunteered to play the part of Jonah, and retired
       from the ministry. His retirement closes, in one sense, the
       history of the Indian Mutiny. But the transactions of the
       Mutiny had, almost for the first time, taught the public to
       consider the anomalies of Indian government. In the course of
       a hundred years a Company had been suffered to acquire an
       empire nearly ten times as large and as populous as Great
       Britain. It was true that the rule of the Company was in many
       respects nominal. The President of the Board of Control was
       the true head of the Indian Government, and spoke and acted
       through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. But
       this very circumstance only accentuated the anomaly. If the
       President of the Board of Control was in fact Indian minister,
       it was far simpler to make him Indian minister by name, and to
       do away with the clumsy expedient which alone enabled him to
       exercise his authority.
    {1747}
       Hence it was generally decided that the rule of the Company
       should cease, and that India should thenceforward become one
       of the possessions of the crown. … A great danger thus led
       to the removal of a great anomaly, and the vast Indian empire
       which Englishmen had won was thenceforward taken into a
       nation's keeping."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 27 (volume 5).

       The act "for the better government of India," which was passed
       in the autumn of 1858, "provided that all the territories
       previously under the government of the East India Company were
       to be vested in her Majesty, and all the Company's powers to
       be exercised in her name. One of her Majesty's principal
       Secretaries of State was to have all the power previously
       exercised by the Company, or by the Board of Control. The
       Secretary was to be assisted by a Council of India, to consist
       of fifteen members, of whom seven were to be elected by the
       Court of Directors from their own body, and eight nominated by
       the Crown. The vacancies among the nominated were to be filled
       up by the Crown; those among the elected by the remaining
       members of the Council for a certain time, but afterward by
       the Secretary of State for India. The competitive principle
       for the Civil Service was extended in its application, and
       made thoroughly practical. The military and naval forces of
       the Company were to be deemed the forces of her Majesty. A
       clause was introduced declaring that, except for the purpose
       of preventing or repelling actual invasion of India, the
       Indian revenues should not, without the consent of both Houses
       of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any
       military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of
       her Majesty's Indian possessions. Another clause enacted that
       whenever an order was sent to India directing the commencement
       of hostilities by her Majesty's forces there, the fact should
       be communicated to Parliament within three months, if
       Parliament were then sitting, or, if not, within one month
       after its next meeting. These clauses were heard of more than
       once in later days. The Viceroy and Governor-General was to be
       supreme in India, but was to be assisted by a Council. India
       now has nine provinces, each under its own civil government,
       and independent of the others, but all subordinate to the
       authority of the Viceroy. In accordance with this Act the
       government of the Company, the famed 'John Company,' formally
       ceased on September 1st, 1858; and the Queen was proclaimed
       throughout India in the following November, with Lord Canning
       for her first Viceroy."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 36 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir H. S. Cunningham,
          Earl Canning,
          chapters 7-9.

          Duke of Argyll,
          India Under Dalhousie and Canning.

    INDIA: A. D. 1861.
       Institution of the Order of the Star of India.

          See STAR OF INDIA.

    INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.
       Vice-regal administrations of
       Lords Lawrence, Mayo and Northbrook.

       Lord Canning was succeeded as Viceroy by Lord Elgin, in 1862;
       but Elgin only lived until November, 1863, and his successor
       was Sir John Lawrence, the savior of the Punjab. "Sir John
       Lawrence's Viceroyalty was an uneventful time. Great natural
       calamities by famine and cyclone fell upon the country, which
       called forth the philanthropic energies of Government and
       people. Commerce passed through an unexampled crisis, taxing
       skill and foresight. But the political atmosphere was calm.
       With the exception of little frontier wars, wasteful of
       resources that were sorely needed, there was nothing to divert
       the Government from the prosecution of schemes for the
       improvement of the physical and moral condition of the
       people." Sir John Lawrence held the Viceroyalty until January,
       1869, when he was succeeded by Lord Mayo and returned to
       England. He was raised, in that year, to the peerage, under
       the title of Baron Lawrence of Punjab and Grateley. He died
       ten years later.

          Sir C. Aitchison,
          Lord Lawrence,
          chapters 7-12.

       Lord Lawrence's immediate successor, Lord Mayo, was
       assassinated, while Viceroy, in 1872, by a convict—a
       Highlander—at the convict settlement on the Andaman Islands,
       for no reason of personal hatred, but only because he
       represented the governing authority which had condemned the
       man. Lord Mayo was succeeded by Lord Northbrook, who held the
       office from 1872 to 1876.

          Sir W. W. Hunter,
          The Earl of Mayo.

    INDIA: A. D. 1876.
       Lord Lytton, Viceroy.

       The successor of Lord Northbrook in the Vice-regal
       office was Lord Lytton, appointed in 1876.

    INDIA: A. D. 1877.
       The Native States and their quasi feudatory relation to the
       British Crown.
       Queen Victoria's assumption of the title of Empress of India.

       "In some sense the Indians were accustomed to consider the
       Company, as they now consider the Queen, to be the heir of the
       Great Mughal, and therefore universal suzerain by right of
       succession. But it is easy to exaggerate the force of this
       claim, which is itself a mere restatement of the fact of
       conquest. Politically, India is divided into two parts,
       commonly known as British territory and the native states. The
       first portion alone is ruled directly by English officials,
       and its inhabitants alone are subjects of the Queen. The
       native states are sometimes called feudatory—a convenient
       term to express their vague relation to the British crown. To
       define that relation precisely would be impossible. It has
       arisen at different times and by different methods; it varies
       from semi-independence to complete subjection. Some chiefs are
       the representatives of those whom we found on our first
       arrival in the country; others owe their existence to our
       creation. Some are parties to treaties entered into as between
       equal powers; others have consented to receive patents from
       their suzerain recording their limited rights; with others,
       again, there are no written engagements at all. Some have
       fought with us and come out of the struggle without dishonour.
       Some pay tribute; others pay none. Their extent and power vary
       as greatly as their political status. The Nizam of Haidarabad
       governs a kingdom of 80,000 square miles and 10,000,000
       inhabitants. Some of the petty chieftains of Kathiawar
       exercise authority over only a few acres. It is, however,
       necessary to draw a line sharply circumscribing the native
       states, as a class, from British territory. Every native chief
       possesses a certain measure of local authority, which is not
       derivative but inherent. English control, when and as
       exercised, is not so much of an administrative as of a
       diplomatic nature. In Anglo-Indian terminology this shade of
       meaning is expressed by the word 'political.' … As a general
       proposition, and excepting the quite insignificant states, it
       may be stated that the government is carried on not only in
       the name but also by the initiative of the native chief.
    {1748}
       At all the large capitals, and at certain centres round which
       minor states are grouped, a British officer is stationed under
       the style of Resident or Agent. Through him all diplomatic
       affairs are conducted. He is at once an ambassador and a
       controller. His duty is to represent the majesty of the
       suzerain power, to keep a watchful eye upon abuses, and to
       encourage reforms."

          J. S. Cotton,
          Colonies and Dependencies,
          part 1, chapter 3.

       "The supremacy of the British Government over all the Native
       States in India was declared in 1877, in a more emphatic form
       than it had received before, by the assumption by the Queen of
       the title of Kaisar-i-Hind, Empress of India. No such
       gathering of chiefs and princes has taken place in historical
       times as that seen at Delhi in January, 1877, when the rulers
       of all the principal States of India formally acknowledged
       their dependence on the British Crown. The political effect of
       the assertion of the supremacy of the paramount power, thus
       formally made for the first time in India, has been marked and
       extremely important."

          Sir J. Strachey,
          India,
          lecture 11.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Historical Sketch of the Native States of India.

    INDIA: A. D. 1878-1881.
       The second Afghan War.

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

    INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.
       Recent Viceroys.

       On the defeat of the Conservative Beaconsfield Ministry in
       England, in 1880, Lord Lytton resigned the Viceroyalty and was
       succeeded by the Marquis of Ripon, who gave place in turn to
       the Marquis of Dufferin in 1884. In 1888, the Marquis of
       Lansdowne succeeded Lord Dufferin, and was himself succeeded
       in 1893 by Sir Henry Norman.

    INDIA: A. D. 1893.
       Suspension of the free coinage of silver.

       In June, 1893, the Indian Government, with the approval of the
       British Cabinet, stopped the free coinage of silver, with a
       view to the introduction of a gold standard. The Government,
       it was announced, while stopping the coinage of the declining
       metal for private persons, would continue on its own account
       to coin rupees in exchange for gold at a ratio then fixed at
       sixteen pence sterling per rupee. "The closing of the mints of
       British India to the coinage of silver coins of
       full-debt-paying power is the most momentous event in the
       monetary history of the present century. It is the final and
       disastrous blow to the use of silver as a measure of value and
       as money of full-debt-paying power, and the relegation of it
       to the position of a subsidiary, or token metal. It is the
       culmination of the evolution from a silver to a gold standard
       which has been progressing with startling rapidity in recent
       years. … The remarkable series of events which have
       characterized, or made manifest, this evolution from a silver
       to a gold standard are nearly all condensed in the brief
       period of twenty years, and are probably without a parallel in
       ancient or modern monetary history. … With the single
       exception of England, all Europe forty years ago had the
       silver standard, not only legally but actually—silver coins
       constituting the great bulk of the money of actual
       transactions. To-day, not a mint in Europe is open to the
       coinage of full-debt-paying silver coins, and the gateways of
       the Orient have been closed against it. Twenty years ago one
       ounce of gold exchanged in the markets of the world for
       fifteen and one-half ounces of silver; to-day, one ounce of
       gold will buy nearly thirty ounces of silver. … There is a
       general impression that silver has been the money of India
       from remote generations. This is a fallacy. It has not been a
       great many years since India adopted the silver standard. The
       ancient money of the Hindoos was gold, which in 1818 was
       supplemented by silver, but gold coins remained legal tender
       until 1835, when silver was made the sole standard of value
       and legal tender money in British India, and gold was
       demonetized. … During the last fifty odd years, India has
       absorbed vast quantities of silver."

          E. O. Leech,
          The Doom of Silver
          (The Forum, August, 1893).

       ----------INDIA: End--------

    INDIAN EMPIRE, The Order of the.

       An Order instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.

       ----------INDIAN TERRITORY: Start--------

    INDIAN TERRITORY: 1803.
       Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    INDIAN TERRITORY: A. D. 1824.
       Set off from Arkansas Territory.

          See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

       ----------INDIAN TERRITORY: End--------

    INDIANA.
       The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
          ALLEGHANS, and DELAWARES.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1700-1735.
       Occupation by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1763.
       Cession to Great Britain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1763.
       The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1765.
       Possession taken by the English.

          See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1774.
       Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1778-1779.
       Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark, and
       annexation to the Kentucky district of Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUEST.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1784.
       Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Metropotamia,
       Illinoia and Polypotamia.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1786.
       Partially covered by the western land claims of Connecticut,
       ceded to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1787.
       The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
       Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1790-1795.
       Indian War.
       Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
       decisive victory.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1800.
       The Territory of Indiana organized.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

    {1749}

    INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
       Successive partitions of the Territory.
       Michigan and Illinois detached.
       The remaining Indiana admitted as a State.

       "Indiana Territory as originally organized [in 1800] …
       included the county of Knox, upon the Wabash, from which has
       sprung the State of Indiana; the county of St. Clair, on the
       Upper Mississippi, or Illinois River, from which has sprung
       the State of Illinois; and the county of Wayne, upon the
       Detroit River, from which has sprung the State of Michigan.
       … At this time, the inhabitants contained in all of them did
       not amount to more than 5,640 souls, while the aggregate
       number of the Indian tribes within the extreme limits of the
       territory was more than 100,000. … By successive treaties,
       the Indian title was extinguished gradually to all the country
       lying upon the waters of the White River, and upon all the
       lower tributaries of the Wabash, upon the Little Wabash, the
       Kaskaskia, and east of the Mississippi, below the mouth of the
       Illinois. Thus, before the close of the year 1805, nearly all
       the southern half of the present State of Indiana, and one
       third of the State of Illinois, was open to the advance of the
       enterprising pioneer. … In 1807, the Federal government, in
       like manner, purchased from the Indians extensive regions west
       of Detroit River, and within the present State of Michigan,
       far beyond the limits of the white settlements in that
       quarter. Meantime, the settlements formerly comprised in Wayne
       county, having increased in inhabitants and importance, had
       been erected into a separate territorial government, known and
       designated as the 'Territory of Michigan.' On the 1st of July,
       1805, the territory entered upon the first grade of
       territorial government, under the provisions of the ordinance
       of 1787; and William Hull, formerly a lieutenant in the
       Revolutionary army, was made the first governor. … Detroit
       … was made the seat of the territorial government. … By
       the close of the year 1808, the Indiana Territory east of the
       Wabash had received such an increase in numbers that it was
       desirable to assume the second grade of territorial
       government. Having a population of 5,000 free white males,
       Congress, with a view to a future state government, by an act
       approved February 3d, 1809, restricted its limits, and
       authorized a territorial Legislature. … The Indiana
       Territory, from this time, was bounded on the west by a line
       extending up the middle of the Wabash, from its mouth to
       Vincennes, and thence by a meridian due north to the southern
       extremity of Lake Michigan. On the north, it was bounded by
       the southern line of the Michigan Territory. That portion west
       of the Wabash was erected into a separate territorial
       government of the first grade, known and designated as the
       'Illinois Territory.' The inhabitants of the Indiana Territory
       soon began to augment more rapidly. … In 1810 the people had
       increased in numbers to 24,500, and in the newly-erected
       Territory of Illinois there was an aggregate of 12,300
       persons." In 1816 "it was ascertained that the Indiana
       Territory possessed a population which entitled it to an
       independent state government. Congress authorized the election
       of a convention to form a state Constitution," and "the new
       'State of Indiana' was formally admitted into the Union on the
       19th of April, 1816." Two years later, on the 3d of December,
       1818, the Territory of Illinois was similarly transformed and
       became one of the states of the Union.

          J. W. Monette,
          The Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
          book 5, chapter 16 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Dillon,
          History of Indiana,
          chapters 31-47.

          A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
          History of Illinois,
          chapters 20-26.

          T. M. Cooley,
          Michigan,
          chapter 8.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1811.
       General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
       The Battle of Tippecanoe.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

    INDIANA: A. D. 1863.
       John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

       ----------INDIANS: Start--------

    INDIANS:
       American: The Name.

       "As Columbus supposed himself to have landed on an island at
       the extremity of India, he called the natives by the general
       appellation of Indians, which was universally adopted before
       the true nature of his discovery was known, and has since been
       extended to all the aboriginals of the New World."

          W. Irving,
          Life and Voyages of Columbus,
          book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "The Spanish writers from the outset, beginning with Columbus
       in his letters, call the natives of America, Indians, and
       their English translators do the same. So, too, Richard Eden,
       the earliest English writer on American travel, applies the
       name to the natives of Peru and Mexico. It is used in the same
       way, both in translations and original accounts, during the
       rest of the century, but it is always limited to those races
       with whom the Spaniards were in contact. In its wider and
       later application the word does not seem to have established
       itself in English till the next century. The earliest instance
       I can find, where it is applied to the natives of North
       America generally in any original work, is by Hakluyt. In 1587
       he translated Laudonnière's 'History of the French Colony in
       Florida,' and dedicated his translation to Sir Walter Raleigh.
       In this dedication he once uses the term Indian for the
       natives of North America. Heriot and the other writers who
       describe the various attempts at settlement in Virginia during
       the sixteenth century, invariably call the natives 'savages.'
       Perhaps the earliest instance where an English writer uses the
       name Indian specially to describe the occupants of the land
       afterwards colonized by the English is in the account of
       Archer's voyage to Virginia in 1602. This account, written by
       James Rosier, is published in Purchas (volume iv. b. viii.).
       From that time onward the use of the term in the wider sense
       becomes more common. We may reasonably infer that the use of
       it was an indication of the growing knowledge of the fact that
       the lands conquered by the Spaniards and those explored by the
       English formed one continent."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
          appendix A.

    INDIANS: The tribes and families.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

       ----------INDIANS: End--------

    INDICTIONS, The.

       The indiction "was a cycle of 15 years, used only by the
       Romans, for appointing the times of certain public taxes; as
       appears from the title in the Code, 'De tributo indicto.' It
       was established by Constantine, A. D. 312, in the room of the
       heathen Olympiads; and was used in the acts of the General
       Councils, Emperors, and Popes."

          W. Hales,
          New Analysis of Chronology,
          volume 1, book 1.

       "The indictions consisted of a revolution of 15 years, which
       are separately reckoned as indiction 1, indiction 2, &c., up
       to 15; when they recommence with indiction 1. … Doubt exists
       as to the commencement of the indictions; some writers
       assigning the first indiction to the year 312; the greater
       number to the year 313; others to 314; whilst some place it
       in the year 315.
    {1750}
       In 'L'Art de vérifier les Dates,' the year 313 is fixed upon
       as that of the first indiction. There are four descriptions of
       indictions. The first is that of Constantinople, which was
       instituted by Constantine in A. D. 312, and began on the 1st
       of September. The second, and more common in England and
       France, was the Imperial or Cæsarean indiction, which began on
       the 24th of September. The third kind of indiction is called
       the Roman or Pontifical, from its being generally used in
       papal bulls, at least from the ninth to the fourteenth
       century; it commences on the 25th of December or 1st of
       January, accordingly as either of these days was considered
       the first of the year. The fourth kind of indiction, which is
       to be found in the register of the parliaments of Paris, began
       in the month of October. … After the 12th century, the
       indiction was rarely mentioned in public instruments. … But
       in France, in private charters, and in ecclesiastical
       documents, the usage continued until the end of the 15th
       century."

          Sir H. Nicolas,
          Chronology of History,
          pages 6-7.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 17.

    INDO-EUROPEAN.
    INDO-GERMANIC.

          See ARYAN.

    INDULGENCE: Declarations of: by Charles II.

             See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

    INDULGENCE: By James II.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

    INDULGENCES: The Doctrine.
       Tetzel's sale.
       Luther's attack.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517; and 1517.

    INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1886.

    INE, Laws of (or Dooms of).

          See DOOMS OF INE.

    INEXPIABLE WAR, The.

          See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

    INFALLIBILITY, Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

    INGÆVONES, The.

          See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

    INGAGO, Battle of (1881).

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

    INGE I.,
       King of Norway, A. D. 1157-1161.

       Inge I. (called the Good), King of Sweden, 1090-1112.

       Inge II., King of Norway, 1205-1207.

       Inge II., King of Sweden, 1118-1129.

    INGENUI.
    LIBERTINI.

       "Free men [among the Romans] might be either persons born free
       (ingenui) and who had never been in slavery to a Roman, or
       persons who had once been slaves but had been emancipated
       (libertini)."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 3.

    INI, King of West Saxons, A. D. 688-726.

    INIS-FAIL.
    INIS-EALGA.

          See IRELAND: THE NAME.

    INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

          See REFERENDUM.

    INKERMANN, Battle of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

    INNOCENT II., Pope, A. D. 1130-1143.
       Innocent III., Pope, 1198-1216.

       Innocent IV., Pope, 1243-1254.

       Innocent V., Pope, 1276, January to June.

       Innocent VI., Pope, 1352-1362.

       Innocent VII., Pope, 1404-1406.

       Innocent VIII., Pope, 1484-1492.

       Innocent IX., Pope, 1591, October to December.

       Innocent X., Pope, 1644-1655.

       Innocent XI., Pope, 1676-1689.

       Innocent XII., Pope, 1691-1700.

       Innocent XIII., Pope, 1721-1724.

    INNUITS, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

       ----------INQUISITION: Start----------

    INQUISITION, The: A. D. 1203-1525.
       Origin of the Holy Office.
       St. Dominic and the Dominicans.
       The Episcopal Inquisition.
       The Apostolical or Papal Inquisition.
       The Spanish Inquisition and its terrible rule.
       Estimate of victims.
       Expulsion of Jews and Moors.

       "In the earlier ages of the Church, the definition of heresy
       had been committed to episcopal authority. But the cognisance
       of heretics and the determination of their punishment remained
       in the hands of secular magistrates. At the end of the 12th
       century the wide diffusion of the Albigensian heterodoxy
       through Languedoc and Northern Italy alarmed the chiefs of
       Christendom, and furnished the Papacy with a good pretext for
       extending its prerogatives. Innocent III. in 1203 empowered
       two French Cistercians, Pierre de Castelnau and Raoul, to
       preach against the heretics of Provence. In the following year
       he ratified this commission by a Bull, which censured the
       negligence and coldness of the bishops, appointed the Abbot of
       Citeaux Papal delegate in matters of heresy, and gave him
       authority to judge and punish misbelievers. This was the first
       germ of the Holy Office as a separate Tribunal. … Being a
       distinct encroachment of the Papacy upon the episcopal
       jurisdiction and prerogatives, the Inquisition met at first
       with some opposition from the bishops. The people for whose
       persecution it was designed, and at whose expense it carried
       on its work, broke into rebellion; the first years of its
       annals were rendered illustrious by the murder of one of its
       founders, Pierre de Castelnau. He was canonised, and became
       the first Saint of the Inquisition. … In spite of
       opposition, the Papal institution took root and flourished.
       Philip Augustus responded to the appeals of Innocent; and a
       crusade began against the Albigenses, in which Simon de
       Montfort won his sinister celebrity. During those bloody wars
       the Inquisition developed itself as a force of formidable
       expansive energy. Material assistance to the cause was
       rendered by a Spanish monk of the Augustine order, who settled
       in Provence on his way back from Rome in 1206. Domenigo de
       Guzman, known to universal history as S. Dominic, organised a
       new militia for the service of the orthodox Church between the
       years 1215 and 1219. His order, called the Order of the
       Preachers, was originally designed to repress heresy and
       confirm the faith by diffusing Catholic doctrine and
       maintaining the creed in its purity. It consisted of three
       sections: the Preaching Friars; nuns living in conventual
       retreat; and laymen, entitled the Third Order of Penitence or
       the Militia of Christ, who in after years were merged with the
       Congregation of S. Peter Martyr, and corresponded to the
       familiars of the Inquisition. Since the Dominicans were
       established in the heat and passion of a crusade against
       heresy, by a rigid Spaniard who employed his energies in
       persecuting misbelievers, they assumed at the outset a
       belligerent and inquisitorial attitude. Yet it is not strictly
       accurate to represent S. Dominic himself as the first Grand
       Inquisitor.
    {1751}
       The Papacy proceeded with caution in its design of forming a
       tribunal dependent on the Holy See and independent of the
       bishops. Papal Legates with plenipotentiary authority were
       sent to Languedoc, and decrees were issued against the
       heretics, in which the Inquisition was rather implied than
       directly named; nor can I find that S. Dominic, though he
       continued to be the soul of the new institution until his
       death, in 1221, obtained the title of Inquisitor.
       Notwithstanding this vagueness, the Holy Office may be said to
       have been founded by S. Dominic; and it soon became apparent
       that the order he had formed was destined to monopolise its
       functions. … This Apostolical Inquisition was at once
       introduced into Lombardy, Romagna and the Marches of Treviso.
       The extreme rigour of its proceedings, the extortions of
       monks, and the violent resistance offered by the communes, led
       to some relaxation of its original constitution. More
       authority had to be conceded to the bishops; and the right of
       the Inquisitors to levy taxes on the people was modified. Yet
       it retained its true form of a Papal organ, superseding the
       episcopal prerogatives, and overriding the secular
       magistrates, who were bound to execute its biddings. As such
       it was admitted into Tuscany, and established in Aragon.
       Venice received it in 1289, with certain reservations that
       placed its proceedings under the control of Doge and Council.
       In Languedoc, the country of its birth, it remained rooted at
       Toulouse and Carcassonne; but the Inquisition did not extend
       its authority over central and northern France. In Paris its
       functions were performed by the Sorbonne. Nor did it obtain a
       footing in England, although the statute 'De Haeretico
       Comburendo,' passed in 1401 at the instance of the higher
       clergy, sanctioned the principles on which it existed. … The
       revival of the Holy Office on a new and far more murderous
       basis, took place in 1484. We have seen that hitherto there
       had been two types of inquisition into heresy. The first,
       which remained in force up to the year 1203, may be called the
       episcopal. The second was the Apostolical or Dominican: it
       transferred this jurisdiction from the bishops to the Papacy,
       who employed the order of S. Dominic for the special service
       of the tribunal instituted by the Imperial Decrees of
       Frederick II. The third deserves no other name than Spanish,
       though, after it had taken shape in Spain, it was transferred
       to Portugal, applied in all the Spanish and Portuguese
       colonies, and communicated with some modifications to Italy
       and the Netherlands. Both the second and the third types of
       inquisition into heresy were Spanish inventions, patented by
       the Roman Pontiffs and monopolised by the Dominican order. But
       the third and final form of the Holy Office in Spain
       distinguished itself by emancipation from Papal and Royal
       control, and by a specific organisation which rendered it the
       most formidable of irresponsible engines in the annals of
       religious institutions. … Castile had hitherto been free
       from the pest. But the conditions of that kingdom offered a
       good occasion for its introduction at the date which I have
       named. During the Middle Ages the Jews of Castile acquired
       vast wealth and influence. Few families but felt the burden of
       their bonds and mortgages. Religious fanaticism, social
       jealousy, and pecuniary distress exasperated the Christian
       population; and as early as the year 1391, more than 5,000
       Jews were massacred in one popular uprising. The Jews, in
       fear, adopted Christianity. It is said that in the 15th
       century the population counted some million of
       converts—called New Christians, or, in contempt, Marranos: a
       word which may probably be derived from the Hebrew Maranatha.
       These converted Jews, by their ability and wealth, crept into
       high offices of state, obtained titles of aristocracy, and
       founded noble houses. … It was a Sicilian Inquisitor, Philip
       Barberis, who suggested to Ferdinand the Catholic the
       advantage he might secure by extending the Holy Office to
       Castile. Ferdinand avowed his willingness; and Sixtus IV. gave
       the project his approval in 1478. But it met with opposition
       from the gentler-natured Isabella. … Then Isabella yielded;
       and in 1481 the Holy Office was founded at Seville. It began
       its work by publishing a comprehensive edict against all New
       Christians suspected of Judaising, which offence was so
       constructed as to cover the most innocent observance of
       national customs. Resting from labour on Saturday; performing
       ablutions at stated times; refusing to eat pork or puddings
       made of blood; and abstaining from wine, sufficed to colour
       accusations of heresy. … Upon the publication of this edict,
       there was an exodus of Jews by thousands into the fiefs of
       independent vassals of the crown—the Duke of Medina Sidonia,
       the Marquis of Cadiz, and the Count of Arcos. All emigrants
       were 'ipso facto' declared heretics by the Holy Office. During
       the first year after its foundation, Seville beheld 298
       persons burned alive, and 79 condemned to perpetual
       imprisonment. A large square stage of stone, called the
       Quemadero, was erected for the execution of those multitudes
       who were destined to suffer death by hanging or by flame. In
       the same year, 2,000 were burned and 17,000 condemned to
       public penitence, while even a larger number were burned in
       effigy, in other parts of the kingdom. … In 1483 Thomas of
       Torquemada was nominated Inquisitor General for Castile and
       Aragon. Under his rule a Supreme Council was established, over
       which he presided for life. … In 1484 a General Council was
       held, and the constitution of the Inquisition was established
       by articles. … The two most formidable features of the
       Inquisition as thus constituted were the exclusion of the
       bishops from its tribunal and the secrecy of its procedure.
       … In the autumn of 1484 the Inquisition was introduced into
       Aragon; and Saragossa became its headquarters in that State.
       … The Spanish Inquisition was now firmly grounded. Directed
       by Torquemada, it began to encroach upon the crown, to insult
       the episcopacy, to defy the Papacy, to grind the Commons, and
       to outrage by its insolence the aristocracy. … The Holy
       Office grew every year in pride, pretensions and exactions. It
       arrogated to its tribunal crimes of usury, bigamy, blasphemous
       swearing, and unnatural vice, which appertained by right to
       the secular courts. It depopulated Spain by the extermination
       and banishment of at least three million industrious subjects
       during the first 139 years of its existence. … Torquemada
       was the genius of evil who created and presided over this foul
       instrument of human crime and folly.
    {1752}
       During his eighteen years of administration, reckoning from
       1480 to 1498, he sacrificed, according to Llorente's
       calculation, above 114,000 victims, of whom 10,220 were burned
       alive, 6,860 burned in effigy, and 97,000 condemned to
       perpetual imprisonment or public penitence. He, too, it was
       who in 1492 compelled Ferdinand to drive the Jews from his
       dominions. … The edict of expulsion was issued on the last
       of March. Before the last of July all Jews were sentenced to
       depart, carrying no gold or silver with them. They disposed of
       their lands, houses, and goods for next to nothing, and went
       forth to die by thousands on the shores of Africa and Italy.
       … The exodus of the Jews was followed in 1502 by a similar
       exodus of Moors from Castile, and in 1524 by an exodus of
       Mauresques from Aragon. To compute the loss of wealth and
       population inflicted upon Spain by these mad edicts would be
       impossible. … After Torquemada, Diego Deza reigned as second
       Inquisitor General from 1498 to 1507. In these years,
       according to the same calculation, 2,592 were burned alive,
       896 burned in effigy, 34,952 condemned to prison or public
       penitence. Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros followed between 1507
       and 1517. The victims of this decade were 3,564 burned alive.
       … Adrian, Bishop of Tortosa, tutor to Charles V., and
       afterwards Pope, was Inquisitor General between 1516 and 1525.
       Castile, Aragon, and Catalonia, at this epoch, simultaneously
       demanded a reform of the Holy Office from their youthful
       sovereign. But Charles refused, and the tale of Adrian's
       administration was 1,620 burned alive, 560 burned in effigy,
       21,845 condemned to prison or public penitence. The total,
       during 43 years, between 1481 and 1525, amounted to 234,526,
       including all descriptions of condemned heretics. These
       figures are of necessity vague, for the Holy Office left but
       meagre records of its proceedings.".

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
          chapter 3 (part 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. C. Lea,
          History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.

          J. A. Llorente,
          History of the Inquisition,
          chapters 1-12.

          W. H. Rule,
          History of the Inquisition,
          chapters 1-14.

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
          part 1, chapters 7 and 17.

          See, also,
          JEWS: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES; and MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

    INQUISITION: A. D. 1521-1568.
       Introduction and work in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555; 1559-1562; and 1568.

    INQUISITION: A. D. 1546.
       Successful revolt against the Holy Office at Naples.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.

    INQUISITION: A. D. 1550-1816.
       Establishment in Peru.

          See PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

    INQUISITION: A. D. 1814-1820.
       Restoration and abolition in Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

       ----------INQUISITION: End----------

    INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER).

    INSUBRIANS AND CENOMANIANS, The.

       "North of the Po, in the country about Milan, dwelt [3d
       century, B. C.] the great people of the Insubrians, while to
       the east of these on the Mincio and the Adige lay the
       Cenomanians; but these tribes, little inclined, seemingly, to
       make common cause with their countrymen [the Boian and
       Senonian Gauls] remained neutral in all the hostilities
       against Rome." But the Insubrians were attacked and subdued,
       B. C. 223.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 5 (volume 2).

          See, also, ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    INTERDICTS.

          See EXCOMMUNICATIONS.

    INTERIM OF CHARLES V., The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

    "INTERNATIONAL," The.

       "The year of the London Exhibition, and under the auspices of
       the Emperor Napoleon III., a number of Paris working-men
       visited the English capital. They were welcomed by a London
       Committee of artisans, and on this occasion the wish for a
       closer union between the labourers of different countries was
       expressed on both sides. Then the Polish insurrection broke
       out, and masses of London and Paris working-men took steps
       simultaneously to manifest sympathy with the insurgents. A
       deputation was again sent over from Paris, and the result of
       this measure was a resolution to delay preparations for
       co-operation no longer. For some time the international idea
       was carefully given prominence in labour circles in various
       countries, and on September 28th, 1864, a congress of many
       nations was held in St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
       presidency of Professor Beesly. A committee was appointed,
       representing England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and
       Switzerland, for the drawing up of statutes for an
       International Working Men's Association, whose seat should be
       London. … It was not long before the International
       Association became a power which caused alarm to not a few
       European Governments."

          W. H. Dawson,
          German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
          chapter 13.

    INTERREGNUM, The Great.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

    INTERREX.

       A temporary king, in ancient Rome.

          See ROME: B. C. 509; also, SENATE, ROMAN.

    INTRANSIGENTISTS.

       In European politics, the extreme radicals—the uncompromising
       and irreconcilable factions—are frequently so called.

    INVERLOCHY, Battle of (1645).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

    INVESTITURES, The War of.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

    INVISIBLE EMPIRE, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    IONA, Monastery and Schools of.

          See COLUMBAN CHURCH;
          and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.

    IONIA.

       The Ionian cities on the coast of Asia Minor bore collectively
       the name Ionia, though no national union was signified by the
       designation.

          See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES, and after.

    IONIAN (DELIAN) CONFEDERACY, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
          and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

       ----------IONIAN ISLANDS: Start--------

    IONIAN ISLANDS:
       To 1814.
       Under Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Venetian and French rule.

       "Acarnania, as a glance at the map will show, is the most
       western part of continental Greece. But in close proximity to
       the mainland there stretch along the west coast a number of
       islands, some of them of considerable area, the history and
       traditions of which are inseparably intertwined with those of
       Hellas. They have long been known as the Ionian Islands,
       deriving the name, in all likelihood, from the sea in which
       they are situated; for their ancient inhabitants were not, so
       far as is known, of Ionic descent.
    {1753}
       They are very numerous, but only six of them are of
       any historic importance. The most northerly is Corcyra
       (Corfu), a long, narrow island, which extends like a lofty
       breakwater in front of the coast of Epirus." The other five
       are Paxos (Paxo), Leucadia (Santa Maura), Cephallenia
       (Cephalonia), Ithaca (Thiaki), Zacynthus (Zante), and Cythera
       (Cerigo). "Though not the largest, Corcyra is the most
       populous and important of the islands. It has a place in the
       mythic tradition, and a still greater one in the ascertained
       history, of ancient Hellas.

          See KORKYRA;
          also, GREECE: B. C. 435-432, and 432.

       … With the other islands in the Ionian Sea, Corcyra passed
       under the dominion of Rome, and subsequently became part of
       the Eastern Empire. In 540 A. D. the fleet of the Gothic
       leader Totila ravaged the coasts of the island, but did not
       capture the city, the fortifications of which had been greatly
       strengthened by the Romans. Five centuries later the island
       and its capital fell into the hands of a more formidable
       invader—the Norman Robert Guiscard, who captured them on his
       way from Italy to prosecute that invasion of the Byzantine
       Empire which was at one time so nearly attended with success.
       The first Norman supremacy did not last long; but in 1144 A.
       D., Roger, the Norman king of Sicily, took occasion of a
       rising of the Corcyreans (or, as they now began to be called,
       the Corfiotes) against the Byzantine Emperor Manuel to
       introduce a garrison into the city. Four years later Manuel,
       who was an energetic and warlike prince, laid siege to Corfu,
       and was assisted by the Venetians. The Norman garrison offered
       a most determined resistance, but were ultimately obliged to
       surrender on honourable terms. After the overthrow of the
       Byzantine emperors, in the early part of the 13th century,
       Corfu, with the other Ionian Islands, became part of the
       dominions of the Venetian republic, and so continued, with
       brief intervals, for nearly 500 years. The Venetian rule was
       on the whole favourable to the material prosperity of the
       island: it was admirably cultivated, and became the centre of
       a large commerce. Unlike most of the other possessions of
       Venice in the eastern Mediterranean, Corfu never fell into the
       hands of the Turks. They overran and ravaged the island in
       1537, carrying off, according to their custom, many of the
       young women and children as slaves; and they besieged the
       capital, but its fortifications had been much strengthened by
       the Venetians, and the garrison was able to offer a successful
       resistance. In 1716 another memorable siege [see TURKS: A. D.
       1714-1718] took place, during the war in which Sultan Achmet
       III. engaged with Austria and the Venetian republic. A large
       Ottoman army under Kara Mustapha beleaguered Corfu; but the
       garrison was commanded by a distinguished soldier, Count
       Schulemburg, who baffled an the efforts of the Turks, and at
       last compelled them to withdraw to their ships after they had
       lost 15,000 men. By the Treaty of Campo Formio, dictated in
       1797 to Austria by Napoleon after his marvellous Italian
       campaign, the Ionian Islands were transferred to France [see
       FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER)], the rest of the Venetian
       territories falling to the share of Austria. The French
       garrisons were, however, expelled in 1799 by a Russo-Turkish
       expedition, and the islands constituted a republic [called the
       Republic of the Seven Islands]. But in 1807, when the course
       of events had changed Russia into an ally of the French
       emperor, the latter again obtained possession of the islands
       under the Treaty of Tilsit. The English, being masters of the
       Mediterranean, soon drove the French out of all the islands
       except Corfu. This was under French rule till 1814; and it is
       only fair to say that they did much for the improvement of the
       island, constructing some substantial roads in the interior.
       In 1814, during the general cataclysm of the gigantic empire
       of Napoleon, the French garrison was driven out of the island
       after a gallant resistance, and in the following year the
       Ionian Islands were reconstituted a republic under British
       protection and supremacy."

          C. H. Hanson,
          The Land of Greece,
          chapter 4.

    IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.
       The British protectorate.
       Its relinquishment.
       Annexation to the kingdom of Greece.

       "These seven islands [the Ionian] were constituted a sort of
       republic or commonwealth by the Treaty of Vienna [1815]. But
       they were consigned to the protectorate of Great Britain;
       which had the right of maintaining garrisons in them. Great
       Britain used to appoint a Lord High Commissioner, who was
       generally a military man, and whose office combined the duties
       of Commander-in-Chief with those of Civil Governor. The little
       republic had a Senate of six members and a Legislative
       Assembly of forty members. It seems almost a waste of words to
       say that the islanders were not content with British
       government. For good or ill, the Hellenes, wherever they are
       found, are sure to be filled with an impassioned longing for
       Hellenic independence. The people of the Ionian Islands were
       eager to be allowed to enter into one system with the kingdom
       of Greece. It was idle to try to amuse them by telling them
       they constituted an independent republic, and were actually
       governing themselves, … while they saw themselves presided
       over by an English Lord High Commissioner who was also the
       Commander-in-Chief of a goodly British army garrisoned in
       their midst. … It is certain that they got a great deal of
       material benefit from the presence of the energetic
       road-making British power. But they wanted to be, above all
       things, Greek. … Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton [who was
       then—1858—Secretary for the Colonies in the British
       Government] … thought the causes of the complaints and the
       dissatisfaction were well worth looking into, and he resolved
       on sending a statesman of distinction out to the islands to
       make the enquiry. Mr. Gladstone had been for some years out of
       office. He had been acting as an independent supporter of Lord
       Palmerston's Government. It occurred to Sir Edward Bulwer
       Lytton that Mr. Gladstone was the man best fitted to conduct
       the enquiry. … He offered, therefore, to Mr. Gladstone the
       office of Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the Ionian
       Islands, and Mr. Gladstone accepted the offer and its duties."
       Arriving in Corfu in November, 1858, "he called together the
       Senate, and endeavoured to satisfy them as to the real nature
       of his mission. He explained that he had not come there to
       discuss the propriety of maintaining the English protectorate,
       but only to enquire into the manner in which the just claims
       of the Ionian Islands might be secured by means of that
       protectorate."
    {1754}
       But "the population of the islands persisted in regarding him,
       not as the commissioner of a Conservative English Government,
       but as 'Gladstone the Philhellene.' He was received wherever
       he went with the honours due to a liberator. … The visit of
       Mr. Gladstone, whatever purpose it may have been intended to
       fulfil, had the effect of making them [the Ionians] agitate
       more strenuously than ever for annexation to the kingdom of
       Greece. Their wish, however, was not to be granted yet. A new
       Lord High Commissioner was sent out after Mr. Gladstone's
       return. … Still … the idea held ground that sooner or
       later Great Britain would give up the charge of the islands. A
       few years after, an opportunity occurred for making the
       cession. The Greeks got rid quietly of their heavy German king
       Otho [see GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862], and on the advice chiefly
       of England they elected as sovereign a brother of the Princess
       of Wales. … The second son of the King of Denmark was made
       King of Greece; and Lord John Russell, on behalf of the
       English Government, then [1862] handed over to the kingdom of
       Greece the islands of which Great Britain had had so long to
       bear the unwilling charge."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of our Own Times,
          chapter 39 (volume 3).

       ----------IONIAN ISLANDS: End--------

    IONIAN REVOLT, The.

       See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

    IONIANS, The.

          See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

       "There existed at the commencement of historical Greece, in
       776 B. C., besides the Ionians in Attica and the Cyclades,
       twelve Ionian cities of note on or near the coast of Asia
       Minor, besides a few others less important. Enumerated from
       south to north, they stand—Milêtus, Myûs, Priênê, Samos,
       Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Erythræ, Chios, Klazomenæ,
       Phôkæa. … Milêtus, Myûs and Priênê were situated on or near
       the productive plain of the river Mæander; while Ephesus was
       in like manner planted near the mouth of the Kaïster … :
       Kolophon is only a very few miles north of the same river.
       Possessing the best means of communication with the interior,
       these towns seem to have thriven with greater rapidity than
       the rest; and they, together with the neighbouring island of
       Samos, constituted in early times the strength of the
       Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony. The situation of the sacred precinct of
       Poseidôn (where this festival was celebrated) on the north
       side of the promontory of Mykalê, near Priênê, and between
       Ephesus and Milêtus, seems to show that these towns formed the
       primitive centre to which the other Ionian settlements became
       gradually aggregated. For it was by no means a centrical site
       with reference to all the twelve. … Moreover, it seems that
       the Pan-Ionic festival [the celebration of which constituted
       the Amphiktyony], though still formally continued, had lost
       its importance before the time of Thucydidês, and had become
       practically superseded by the more splendid festival of the
       Ephesia, near Ephesus, where the cities of Ionia found a more
       attractive place of meeting."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece
          part 2, chapter 13 (volume 3).

       ----------IOWA: Start--------

    IOWA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
          and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    IOWA: A. D. 1803.
       Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    IOWA: A. D. 1834-1838.
       Joined to Michigan Territory;
       then to Wisconsin;
       then separately organized.

          See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

    IOWA: A. D. 1845.
       Admission into the Union, with Florida for a slave-state
       counterweight.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.

       ----------IOWA: End--------

    IOWAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
          and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    IPSUS, Battle of (B. C. 301).

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

    IQUIQUE, Battle of (1891).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

    IRACA.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

    IRAK.

       At the time of the Mahometan conquest, "Chaldea and Babylonia
       occupied the rich region south of the river Tigris, watered by
       the Euphrates, and were known as Irak of the Arabs, as
       distinguished from Irak of the Persians, which corresponded
       somewhat nearly to the modern kingdom of Persia. … Irak of
       Arabia was at this time under the jurisdiction of Persia, and
       the wandering Arabs who roamed over the broad desert were
       tributary to Persia when they pitched their tents on the
       eastern side, and to Rome when sojourning on the side towards
       Syria; though they were at no time trusty allies or subjects.
       The region of Irak contains many relics of a former
       civilization; there are the mounds that mark the site of old
       Babylon."

          A. Gilman,
          Story of the Saracens,
          pages 226-227.

    IRAN, Table-Land of.

       "Between the valley of the Indus and the land of the Euphrates
       and Tigris, bounded on the south by the ocean and the Persian
       Gulf, on the north by the broad steppes which the Oxus and
       Jaxartes vainly attempt to fertilise, by the Caspian Sea and
       the valley of the Aras [embracing modern Persia, Baluchistan,
       Afghanistan and Russian Turkestan], lies the table-land of
       Iran. Rising to an average height of 4,000 feet above the
       level of the sea, it forms an oblong, the length of which from
       east to west is something more than 1,500 miles. … As far
       back as our information extends, we find the table-land of
       Iran occupied by a group of nations closely related to each
       other, and speaking dialects of the same language."

           M. Duncker,
           History of Antiquity,
           book 7, chapter 1.

          See, also, ARYANS.

    IRDJAR, Russian defeat at.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

       ----------IRELAND: Start--------

       A Logical Outline of Irish History

       In Which The Dominant Conditions And
       Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

       Physical or material. (Red)
       Ethnological. (Blue)
       Social and political. (Green)
       Intellectual, moral and religious. (Tan)
       Foreign. (Black)

    (Blue)
       In the history of the two islands which form the United
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland there is a contrast of
       fortune which nothing will account for save unexplainable
       qualities of race. The Celtic warmth prevailing on one side of
       St. George's Channel has worked ill in politics as against the
       Teutonic coolness on the other; and it is probable that no
       change of circumstances or conditions would have altered
       greatly the relations of the two peoples. In their situation
       as close neighbors, it was inevitable that one should dominate
       the other. It seems to have been no less inevitable that the
       mastery should settle where it did; and simply by the force of
       more masterful qualities in the English race.

    (Red)
       If those who dwelt nearer to the mainland of Europe held
       advantages over those of the farther island, they took nothing
       from them in the earlier generations, but were overleaped and
       passed by when the first movements of Christianity and
       Christian culture into the West began; and it was Ireland, not
       England, for three centuries, which nourished the purest faith
       and the highest civilization of the age. If other advantages
       belonged to the island which was richer in iron and coal, the
       English were not helped by them to an ascendancy which they
       had won before the mining of their riches began.

    (Green)
       In the early years of the eleventh century, when most of the
       island had submitted to the rule of Brian Born, and when he
       had shaken the grasp of the intruding Danes on the seaports of
       the eastern and southern coasts, the state and prospects of
       Ireland would have seemed to be well-nigh as good as those of
       England at the same time. But that appearance vanished soon,
       and it never returned. Among the English, the tendency toward
       national union grew stronger with every generation; among the
       Irish it got no growth. The political genius of the race,
       remarkable to the present day in municipal politics, but
       rarely successful in the greater political arenas, has always
       been tribal or provincial in its range, and wanting in a
       national comprehensiveness.

    (Tan)
       The Norman conquest of England was helpful to the
       consolidation of an English kingdom. The Anglo-Norman conquest
       of Ireland occurring a century later, promoted, on the
       contrary, the divisions and disorders of the island. It
       brought a new faction into Irish quarrels, instead of a new
       sovereign to extinguish them. It was complete enough to forbid
       the growth of order from any native root of influence or
       authority, but not complete enough to carry order with itself.
       In the full sense of the term it was never a conquest. It was
       rather a persistent invasion, continued and repeated through
       more than five centuries. In every generation it inflamed anew
       the fierce animosity which an incomplete conquest will not
       suffer to die out, until the very descendants of the older
       intruders were infected with the native hatred of their
       later-coming kindred. After four hundred years of inconclusive
       conflict, the English were hardly nearer to mastery, the Irish
       hardly nearer to submission, than at first.

       Then arose between them a new difference to embitter their
       antagonism. The Reformation of religion was accepted by one
       race as naturally as it was rejected by the other. But
       Protestantism under English patronage assumed a more hateful
       aspect in Irish eyes, and Irishmen as Papists became doubly
       odious to the English mind. So political hostilities and
       religious enmities fomented one another, from that time, while
       the primitive antagonism of race gave energy to both.

       Under Cromwell and under William of Orange the subjugation was
       completed at last in the spirit of a Protestant crusade, and
       used as crusading victories have been wont to be used. The
       triumphant Church, planting its strong settlements in the
       land, assumed to itself all civil and political rights. Every
       office and every honorable profession were closed against the
       adherents of the defeated faith; its ministrations were
       forbidden; its priests were expelled.

    (Green)
       But this was not all. As British commerce grew and British
       industries were built up, they contributed yet another to the
       malign confederacy of passions which oppressed the Irish
       people. The merchant, the manufacturer, the landowner and the
       farmer, on the English side, were banded by common jealousies
       to suppress competition in Ireland. They hindered the
       improvement of its resources and paralyzed its energies by
       atrocious legislation. They reduced its population to
       dependence on the most restricted production, leaving little
       except husbandry for a vocation, and that under grinding
       terms. They created by such measures a nation of peasants, as
       poor and as helpless as serfs, living wretchedly on precarious
       holdings of soil, at the mercy of landlords who regarded them
       with dislike and contempt.

       It was under such crushing conditions as these that Ireland
       remained until near the end of the eighteenth century, always
       hating the oppressors, often resisting the oppression, but
       weakly or rashly, without judgment or enduring resolution.
       Then began a great change in the tenor of her history. Two
       influences of the age came into play, one acting on the
       conscience of the English people, the other on the mind and
       temper of the Irish. One has worked to the yielding of
       justice, the other to the firmer pressing of demands for it.

       At this day it may be said that oppression in Ireland, whether
       religious or political, is wholly and forever extinct; that
       whatever remains in dispute between Celt and Saxon is from
       questions such as rise in every nation, and that the
       bitterness which stays in Anglo-Irish politics is the
       lingering rancor of a hateful past, not quickly to be
       extinguished.

       ----------A Logical Outline of Irish History: End--------

    IRELAND:
       The name.

       "Ireland was known by many names from very early ages. Thus,
       in the Celtic it was called Inis-Fall, the isle of destiny;
       Inis-Ealga, the noble island; Fiodh-Inis, the woody island;
       and Eire, Fodhla, and Banba. By the Greeks it was called
       Ierne, probably from the vernacular name of Eire, by
       inflection Erin; whence, also, no doubt, its Latin name of
       Juverna; Plutarch calls it Ogygia, or the ancient land; the
       early Roman writers generally called it Hibernia, probably
       from its Iberian inhabitants, and the later Romans and
       mediæval writers Scotia, and sometimes Hibernia; and finally
       its name of Ireland was formed by the Anglo-Normans from its
       native name of Eire."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          page 76, note.

          See, also,
          SCOTLAND: THE NAME;
          and IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

    {1755}

    IRELAND:
       The primitive inhabitants.

       "The first people … of whose existence in Ireland we can be
       said to know anything are commonly asserted to have been of
       Turanian origin, and are known as 'Formorians.' As far as we
       can gather, they were a dark, low-browed, stunted race,
       although, oddly enough, the word Formorian in early Irish
       legend is always used as synonymous with the word giant. They
       were, at any rate, a race of utterly savage hunters and
       fishermen, ignorant of metal, of pottery, possibly even of the
       use of fire; using the stone hammers or hatchets of which vast
       numbers remain in Ireland to this day, and specimens of which
       may be seen in every museum. How long they held possession no
       one can tell, although Irish philologists believe several
       local Irish names to date from this almost inconceivably
       remote epoch. Perhaps if we think of the Lapps of the present
       day, and picture them wandering about the country, … it will
       give us a fairly good notion of what these very earliest
       inhabitants of Ireland were probably like.

          See FOMORIANS.

       Next followed a Belgic colony, known as the Firbolgs, who
       overran the country, and appear to have been of a somewhat
       higher ethnological grade, although, like the Formorians,
       short, dark, and swarthy. Doubtless the latter were not
       entirely exterminated to make way for the Firbolgs, any more
       than the Firbolgs to make way for the Danaans, Milesians, and
       other successive races; such wholesale exterminations being,
       in fact, very rare, especially in a country which like Ireland
       seems specially laid out by kindly nature for the protection
       of a weaker race struggling in the grip of a stronger one.
       After the Firbolgs, though I should be sorry to be obliged to
       say how long after, fresh and more important tribes of
       invaders began to appear. The first of these were the
       Tuatha-da-Danaans, who arrived under the leadership of their
       king Nuad, and took possession of the east of the country.
       These Tuatha-da-Danaans are believed to have been large,
       blue-eyed people of Scandinavian origin, kinsmen and possibly
       ancestors of those Norsemen or 'Danes' who in years to come
       were destined to work such woe and havoc upon the island. …
       What their end was no man can tell you, save that they, too,
       were, in their turn, conquered by the Milesians or 'Scoti,'
       who next overran the country, giving to it their own name' of
       Scotia, by which name it was known down to the end of the
       twelfth century, and driving the earlier settlers before them,
       who thereupon fled to the hills, and took refuge in the
       forests, whence they emerged, doubtless, with unpleasant
       effect upon their conquerors, as another defeated race did
       upon their conquerors in later days."

          E. Lawless,
          The Story of Ireland,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

    IRELAND:
       Tribes of early Celtic inhabitants.

       "On the northern coast dwelt the Veniconii, in the modern
       county of Donegal, and the Robogdii, in Londonderry and
       Antrim. Adjoining to the Veniconii, westward, were the Erdini
       or Erpeditani, and next to them the Magnatæ, all in Donegal.
       Farther south were the Auteri, in Sligo; the Gangani, in Mayo;
       and the Velibori, or Ellebri, in the district between Galway
       and the Shannon. The south-west part of the island, with a
       great portion of the interior, was inhabited by the Iverni,
       who gave name not only to the great river but to the whole
       island, and who may, perhaps, be considered as the aboriginal
       inhabitants. … In the modern counties of Waterford and
       Tipperary, Ptolemy places a tribe called the Usdiæ or Vodiæ,
       according to the variations of the manuscripts. In the modern
       county of Wexford dwelt the Brigantes; and northward from them
       were the Coriondi, in Wicklow; the Menapii, in Dublin; the
       Cauci, on the banks of the Boyne; the Blanii, or Eblani, on
       the bay of Dundalk; the Voluntii, in Down; and the Darini,
       bordering on the Robogdii, in Antrim. Three, at least, of the
       tribes who held the eastern coast of Ireland, the Brigantes,
       the Menapii, and the Voluntii, were, no doubt, colonies from
       the opposite shores of Britain."

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 2.

    IRELAND:
       5th-8th Centuries.
       The coming of St. Patrick and the Christianizing of the Island.
       Its Schools and its Missionaries.

       "Lying on the extreme verge of Europe, the last land then
       known to the adventurous Scandinavian, and beyond which fable
       had scarcely projected its dreams, it was in the fifth century
       since the Redemption that Christianity reached them.
       Patricius, a Celt of Gaul it is said, carried into Erin as a
       slave by one of the Pagan kings, some of whom made military
       expeditions to North and South Britain, and even to the Alps
       and the Loire, became the Apostle of Ireland. Patrick escaped
       from slavery, was educated at Rome, but in mature manhood
       insisted on returning to the place of his bondage, to preach
       Christianity to a people who seem to have exercised over the
       imagination of the Apostle the same spell of sympathy which in
       later times subdued strangers of many nations. He was received
       with extraordinary favour, and before his death nearly the
       whole island had embraced Christianity. The coming of Patrick
       took place in the year of our Lord 432, and he laboured for
       sixty years after; planting churches and schools, rooting out
       the practices and monuments of Paganism, and disciplining the
       people in religion and humanity. It was a noble service, and
       it impressed itself for ever on the memory of the race whom he
       served. … In the succeeding century the Church which he
       planted became possessed by a passion which it has never
       entirely lost, the passion for missionary enterprise. Its
       fathers projected the conversion of the fierce natives of the
       Continent to the new creed of humility and self-denial, and by
       the same humane agents which Patrick had employed in
       Ireland—persuasion and prayer; a task as generous as any of
       which history has preserved the record. In this epoch Ireland
       may, without exaggeration, be said to have been a Christian
       Greece, the nurse of science and civilisation. The Pagan
       annals of the country are overlaid by fable and extravagance,
       but the foundation of Oxford or the mission of St. Augustine
       does not lie more visibly within the boundaries of legitimate
       history than the Irish schools, which attracted students from
       Britain and Gaul, and sent out missionaries through the
       countries now known as Western Europe.

    {1756}

       Among the forests of Germany, on the desert shores of the
       Hebrides, in the camp of Alfred, at the court of Charlemagne,
       in the capital of the Christian world, where Michelet
       describes their eloquence as charming the counsellors of the
       Emperor, there might be found the fervid preachers and subtle
       doctors of the Western Isle. It was then that the island won
       the title still fondly cherished, 'insula sanctorum'. The
       venerable Bede describes nobles and students at this epoch as
       quitting the island of Britain to seek education in Ireland,
       and he tells us that the hospitable Celts found them teachers,
       books, food and shelter at the cost of the nation. The school
       at Armagh, where St. Patrick had established the primacy of
       the Church, is reputed to have attracted 7,000 students, and
       there were schools at Lismore, Bangor, Clonmacnoise, and Mayo,
       which rivalled it in importance. Monasteries multiplied in a
       still greater number, and with results as beneficial. …
       Writers who are little disposed to make any other concession
       to Ireland admit that this was a period of extraordinary
       intellectual activity, and of memorable services to
       civilization. The arts, as far as they were the handmaidens of
       religion, attained a surprising development. The illuminated
       copies of the Scripture, the croziers and chalices which have
       come down to us from those days, the Celtic crosses and Celtic
       harps, the bells and tabernacles, are witnesses of a distinct
       and remarkable national culture. The people were still partly
       shepherds and husbandmen, partly soldiers, ruled by the Chief,
       the Brehon, and the Priest. … After this generous work had
       obtained a remarkable success, it was disturbed by contests
       with the Sea Kings. … The Cathedral and city of St. Patrick,
       the schools of Bangor, the cloisters of Clonmacnoise, and many
       more seats of piety and learning, fell into their hands. The
       sacred vessels of the altar were turned into drinking cups,
       and the missals, blazing with precious stones, were torn from
       their costly bindings to furnish ornaments for their sword
       hilts, and gifts to the Scalds who sang their achievements.
       These pagans burned monasteries, sacked churches, and murdered
       women and priests, for plunder or sport. … Before the
       dangers and troubles of a long internecine war, the School of
       the West gradually dwindled away, and it had fallen into
       complete decay before Brian Borhoime, at the beginning of the
       11th century, finally subdued the invaders."

          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          A Bird's Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
          pages 7-12 (or chapter 4, in "Young Ireland").

       "Ireland, that virgin island on which proconsul never set
       foot, which never knew either the orgies or the exactions of
       Rome, was also the only place in the world of which the Gospel
       took possession without bloodshed. … From the moment that
       this Green Erin, situated at the extremity of the known world,
       had seen the sun of faith rise upon her, she had vowed herself
       to it with an ardent and tender devotion which became her very
       life. The course of ages has not interrupted this; the most
       bloody and implacable of persecutions has not shaken it; the
       defection of all northern Europe has not led her astray; and
       she maintains still, amid the splendours and miseries of
       modern civilisation and Anglo-Saxon supremacy, an
       inextinguishable centre of faith, where survives, along with
       the completest orthodoxy, that admirable purity of manners
       which no conqueror and no adversary has ever been able to
       dispute, to equal, or to diminish. … The Irish communities,
       joined by the monks from Gaul and Rome, whom the example of
       Patrick had drawn upon his steps, entered into rivalry with
       the great monastic schools of Gaul. They explained Ovid there;
       they copied Virgil; they devoted themselves especially to
       Greek literature; they drew back from no inquiry, from no
       discussion. … A characteristic still more distinctive of the
       Irish monks, as of all their nation, was the imperious
       necessity of spreading themselves without, of seeking or
       carrying knowledge and faith afar, and of penetrating into the
       most distant regions to watch or combat paganism. This monastic
       nation, therefore, became the missionary nation 'par
       excellence'."

          Count de Montalembert,
          The Monks of the West,
          book 7 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 10-14 (volume 1),
          and chapter 18 (volume 2).

          D. DeVinné,
          The Irish Primitive Church.

          See, also, CHRISTIANITY; 5TH-9TH CENTURIES.

    IRELAND: 9th-10th Centuries.
       The Danish conquests and settlements.

       "The people popularly known in our history as Danes comprised
       swarms from various countries in the north of Europe, from
       Norway, Sweden, Zealand, Jutland, and, in general, from all
       the shores and islands of the Baltic. … In the Irish annals
       they are variously called Galls, or foreigners; Geinti, or
       Gentiles; and Lochlanni, or inhabitants of Lochlann, or
       Lake-land, that is, Norway; and they are distinguished as the
       Finn Galls, or White Foreigners, who are supposed to have been
       the inhabitants of Norway; and the Dubh Galls, or Black
       Foreigners, who were probably the people of Jutland, and of
       the southern shores of the Baltic Sea. A large tract of
       country north of Dublin still retains the name of the former.
       … The Danes never obtained the dominion of Ireland as they
       did that of England."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          chapters 13-14.

       "Ireland was as yet [in the 9th century] a more tempting prey
       for the pirates than even Gaul. It was at the monasteries that
       these earlier raids were mainly aimed; and nowhere were the
       monastic houses so many and so rich. It was in these retreats
       indeed, sheltered as men deemed by their holiness from the
       greed of the spoiler, that the whole wealth of the country was
       stored; and the gold work and jewelry of their shrines, their
       precious chalices, the silver-bound horn which king or noble
       dedicated at their altars, the curiously-wrought covering of
       their mass-books, the hoard of their treasure-chests, fired
       the imagination of the northern marauders as the treasures of
       the Incas fired that of the soldiers of Spain. News spread
       fast up dale and fiord how wealth such as men never dreamed of
       was heaped up in houses guarded only by priests and shavelings
       who dared not draw sword. The Wikings had long been drawing
       closer to this tempting prey. From the coast of Norway a sail
       of twenty-four hours with a fair wind brings the sailor in
       sight of the Shetlands; Shetlands and Orkneys furnished a base
       for the advance of the pirates along the western shores of
       Britain, where they found a land like their own in the dales
       and lochs of Ross and Argyll, and where the names of Caithness
       and Sutherland tell of their conquest and settlement on the
       mainland; while the physical appearance of the people still
       records their colonization of the Hebrides. Names such as that
       of the Orm's Head mark their entrance at last into the Irish
       Channel."

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          chapter 2.

    {1757}

       "The 9th century was the period of Danish plunder, and of
       settlement along the coasts and in convenient places for
       purposes of plunder. Towards the latter end of this century
       the Irish in Ireland, like the English in England, succeeded
       in driving out the enemy, and there was peace for forty years.
       Then came the Danes again, but bent more definitely than
       before on permanent settlement; and their most notable work
       was the establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin, with
       its centre at one of their old haunts, Ath Cliath on the
       Liffey, where the city of Dublin was built by them. The
       establishment of this kingdom dates from the year 919, and its
       extent may be traced to-day as conterminous with the diocese
       of Dublin, extending from Holmpatrick and Skerries on the
       north, to Arklow and Wicklow on the south, and inland no
       farther than seven or eight miles to Leixlip. Until quite
       recently this was also the district over which extended the
       jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor of Dublin as Admiral of the
       Port of Dublin. On College Green used to be held the assembly
       of the freemen of the kingdom of Dublin, while the chiefs took
       their seats on the steep hill that once stood where St.
       Andrew's Church now stands, opposite to 'the old house on
       College Green,' which is so dear to the national aspirations
       of the modern Irishmen. There the Danes held their
       parliaments, agreeing on laws, consenting to judgments and
       contracts, feasting and making merry, just as the old Irish
       held their parliaments at Tara, Carman, Armagh, and elsewhere.
       Nor was Dublin the only Danish city. Limerick, Cork,
       Waterford, Wexford, all became the centres of petty Danish
       kingdoms, active in commerce, skilful for those times, in
       domestic architecture, and with political and legislative
       ideas identical in their essence with those of the people
       among whom they settled. In the course of the 10th century the
       Danes nominally became, for the most part, converts to
       Christianity. But it appears that they derived their
       Christianity mainly from English sources; and when they began
       to organize their Church, they did so after the Roman manner,
       and in connection with the see of Canterbury. It was not,
       however, till after the wars of Brian Born that Danish
       Christianity became either very real or at all organized."

          S. Bryant,
          Celtic Ireland,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Haliday,
          The Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin.

          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings in Western Christendom,
          chapter 6.

          See, also,
          NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,

    IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
       The Battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.

       By a revolution which occurred in the year 1000, Malachy II.
       of the dynasty which had reigned long at Tara, was deposed
       from the chief sovereignty, and Brian Boromh or Boru, of the
       royal family of Munster, who had fought his way up to
       masterful power, became the Ardrigh or over-king of Ireland.
       In 1014 Brian was called upon to face a great combination
       which the Danes of Dublin had effected with their fellow
       Northmen, including those of Denmark, Norway, Scotland and all
       the isles. It was the Danish intention now to accomplish
       completely the conquest of Ireland and bring their long
       struggle with its Celtic inhabitants to an effectual close,
       King Brian and his countrymen made equal exertions on their
       side to meet the attack, and the great battle of Clontarf,
       fought on Good Friday of the year 1014, gave them a decisive
       victory. "Clontarf, the lawn or meadow of bulls, stretches
       along the crescent-shaped north strand of Dublin harbor, from
       the ancient salmon weir at Ballyboght bridge, towards the
       promontory of Howth. Both horns of the crescent were held by
       the enemy, and communicated with his ships: the inland point
       terminating in the roofs of Dublin, and the seaward marked by
       the lion-like head of Howth. The meadow land between sloped
       gently upward and inward from the beach, and for the myriad
       duels which formed the ancient battle, no field could present
       less positive vantage ground to combatants on either side. The
       invading force had possession of both wings, so that Brian's
       army, which had first encamped at Kilmainham, must have
       crossed the Liffey higher up, and marched round by the present
       Drumcondra in order to reach the appointed field. The day
       seems to have been decided on by formal challenge. … The
       forces on both sides could not have fallen short of 20,000
       men. … The utmost fury was displayed on all sides. …
       Hardly a nobly born man escaped, or sought to escape. The ten
       hundred in armor, and 3,000 others of the enemy, with about an
       equal number of the men of Ireland, lay dead upon the field.
       One division of the enemy were, towards sunset, retreating to
       their ships, when Brodar the Viking, perceiving the tent of
       Brian, standing apart, without a guard, and the aged king on
       his knees before the Crucifix, rushed in, cut him down with a
       single blow, and then continued his flight. … The deceased
       hero took his place at once in history, national and foreign.
       … The fame of the event went out through all nations. The
       chronicles of Wales, of Scotland, and of Man; the annals of
       Ademar and Marianus; the Sagas of Denmark and the Isles, all
       record the event. … 'Brian's battle,' as it is called in the
       Sagas, was, in short, such a defeat as prevented any general
       northern combination for the subsequent invasion of Ireland.
       Not that the country was entirely free from their attacks till
       the end of the 11th century; but, from the day of Clontarf
       forward, the long cherished Northern idea of a conquest of
       Ireland seems to have been gloomily abandoned by that
       indomitable people."

          T. D'Arcy McGee,
          Popular History of Ireland,
          book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 21 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

    IRELAND: 12th Century.
       The great tribes and kingdoms and the ruling families.

       "Ireland was now [immediately before Strongbow's conquest]
       divided into four confederations of tribes. The O'Neils held
       Ulidia, which is now called Ulster; the O'Connors Conacia, or
       Connaught; the O'Briens and the M'Carthys Mononia, or Munster;
       and the Macmurroughs Lagenia, or Leinster—all under the
       paramount but often-disputed rule of a branch of the Ulster
       O'Neils. The royal demesne of Meath, the appanage of the
       Ulster family, which included Westmeath, Longford, and a part
       of King's County, was sometimes counted a fifth kingdom. In
       the wild north, O'Neil, O'Donnel, O'Kane, O'Hara, O'Sheel,
       O'Carrol, were mighty names.
    {1758}
       On the northern-most peninsula, where the Atlantic runs into
       Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly, O'Dogherty reigned supreme. In
       Connaught, O'Rourke, O'Reilly, O'Kelly, O'Flaherty, O'Malley,
       O'Dowd, were lords. In Meath and Leinster, MacGeogeghan,
       O'Farrell, O'Connor, O'Moore, O'Brennan, Macmurrough, ruled.
       In Munster, by the western shore, MacCarthy More held sway.
       MacCarthy Reagh swayed the south, by the pleasant waters of
       Cork Bay. O'Sullivan Beare was lord of the fair promontory
       between Bantry Bay and Kenmare River. O'Mahony reigned by
       roaring Water Bay. O'Donoghue was chieftain by the haunted
       Killarney Lakes. MacMahon ruled north of the Shannon. O'Loglin
       looked on Galway Bay. All Ireland, with the exception of a few
       seaport towns where the Danes had settled, was in the hands of
       Irish chiefs of old descent and famous lineage. They
       quarrelled amongst themselves as readily and as fiercely as if
       they had been the heads of so many Greek states. The Danes had
       been their Persians; their Romans were now to come."

          J. H. McCarthy,
          Outline of Irish History,
          chapter 3.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
       The Anglo-Norman conquest.

       "The conquest of Ireland is among the most important episodes
       in the reign of Henry II. … There were reasons, besides the
       mere lust of conquest, why an English king should desire to
       reduce Ireland. It had given harbours and recruits to the
       Northmen on their expeditions; Irish soldiers had fought at
       Brunanbeorh [or Brunnanburgh] against Athelstane; English
       exiles, like the sons of Harold, repeatedly fled to the
       island, and awaited the opportunity of reprisals upon their
       own government. Irish pirates infested the English coasts, and
       carried off prisoners, whom they sold as slaves. Accordingly,
       William the Conqueror had meditated subjugating Ireland, if he
       lived two years longer; William Rufus once declared, as he
       stood on the coast of Wales, that he would bridge St. George's
       Channel with a fleet of ships. But it was reserved for John of
       Salisbury to obtain from his intimate friend, the English
       pope, Adrian IV., a grant of Ireland to the English crown [by
       the Bull 'Laudabilitur'] as a hereditary fief (A. D. 1154).
       … Nevertheless, the difficulty of invading Ireland seemed
       greater than any profit likely to result from it. The king's
       council opposed the enterprise; and for some years the project
       was suffered to sleep. But the wretched disorders of Irish
       politics invited the invader." Diarmaid MacMurchad, king of
       Leinster, having been driven from his dominions, "repaired to
       the court of Henry II. in Aquitaine. The offer to hold
       Leinster, if Henry would reinstate him, as an English fief,
       procured Diarmaid free quarters in Bristol, to which he
       speedily returned, and letters patent authorizing any English
       subject to assist him. Diarmaid published these, and promised
       large rewards in land to those who would help him to win back
       his kingdom. The most powerful ally whom Diarmaid's offers
       attracted was Richard de Clare, surnamed Strongbow, earl of
       Pembroke, and distant cousin to the king. … Three other
       adventurers were enlisted. Two of them, Robert Fitz-Stephen
       and Maurice Fitz-Gerald, were sons, by different fathers, of
       Nest, a Welsh princess; the third was Maurice de Prendergast."
       In May, 1169, Fitz-Stephen, with a small following, crossed
       the channel and captured Wexford. Some other successes soon
       enabled Diarmaid to make peace with his enemies and recover
       his kingdom, even before Strongbow's expedition had left
       Wales. "Diarmaid was reinstated, and English subjects had no
       authority to carry on war on their own account in Ireland.
       Strongbow accordingly went to Normandy, and asked permission
       to push the advantages gained. Obtaining only an ambiguous
       answer from the king, he determined to consider it in his
       favour, and went back into Wales to prepare an expedition. In
       May, A. D. 1170, he sent over Raymond le Gros, Fitz-Stephen's
       half nephew, as his precursor." Raymond defeated the Irish
       with great slaughter, in a battle near Waterford, and savagely
       murdered seventy prisoners. "In August, A. D. 1170, as
       Strongbow was preparing to embark, he received an explicit
       order from the king not to proceed. Quietly disregarding it,
       he crossed with a little army of 1,200 men, out of whom 200
       were knights. The storm of Waterford was his first exploit;
       and it illustrates the Irish architecture of the times, that
       the city walls were trenched by cutting away the wooden props
       of a house that was built into them. The frightful carnage of
       the storm was succeeded by the earl's marriage with Eva
       [daughter of King Diarmaid], who brought a kingdom as her
       dower. Then the united forces marched upon Dublin." The Danish
       city was treacherously stormed in the midst of a negotiation,
       and "the inhabitants experienced the worst miseries of the
       conquered. Hasculf [the Danish or Norse governor], and Asgall,
       king of the Northmen, escaped on board some small vessels to
       their countrymen in the Orkneys." The next year Hasculf
       reappeared with 60 ships from the Orkneys and Norway and laid
       siege to Dublin. He was defeated, taken prisoner and killed;
       but another fleet soon arrived and Dublin was again under
       siege. Reduced to a desperate strait, the small garrison
       sallied and routed the besiegers; but meantime Strongbow had
       lost ground elsewhere and Dublin and Waterford were the only
       possessions he retained. The anger of King Henry at his
       disobedience caused many of his followers to desert him, and
       he soon found it necessary to make peace with his offended
       sovereign. Crossing over to England, he succeeded in winning
       the royal pardon, and Henry returned to Ireland with him, to
       assist in the completing of the conquest. They were
       accompanied by a fleet of 400 ships and some 4,000 men. The
       appearance of the king was followed by a general submission of
       the Irish princes, and he made a royal progress to Cashel,
       where, in 1172, a synod was held to effect the Church reforms
       which were, ostensibly, the chief object of the conquest. "The
       court held at Lismore to establish order among the English
       settlers is better evidence than any synod of the real objects
       of the conquest. The country was partially distributed among
       Norman nobles; but as the English conquest of Ireland, more
       rapid than the Norman of England, had been effected by fewer
       men, and was more insecure, the changes in the property and
       laws of the nation were proportionately smaller. Meath, as the
       appanage of royalty, of course accrued to the English crown,
       and Henry assigned the whole of it to Hugh de Lacy, whom he
       made justiciary of the realm and governor of Dublin. The
       object of this enormous grant, no doubt, was to balance
       Strongbow's power.
    {1759}
       The families of Desmond, Ormond, and Vernon received other
       estates. But the number of those invested was small. … The
       slightness of the change, no doubt, mainly contributed to the
       readiness with which the supremacy of the English crown was
       accepted. In April, A. D. 1172, Henry was able to return to
       England, leaving only Ulster behind him nominally unsubdued. A
       series of petty wars between Irish chiefs and Norman nobles
       soon broke out. The precarious nature of the English dominion
       became manifest; and Henry was forced to publish the papal
       grant of Ireland, which he had hitherto suppressed. At last,
       in A. D. 1175, Roderic O'Connor [king of Connaught, and
       previously recognized over-king of Ireland] made a treaty with
       the English crown, and agreed to render homage and submission,
       and a tribute of every tenth hide, in return for royal rights
       in his own kingdom of Connaught. At the same time, the limits
       of the English pale, as it was afterwards called, were
       defined. This district, which was immediately subject to the
       king of England and his barons, comprised Dublin with its
       appurtenances, Meath, Leinster, and the country from Waterford
       to Dungarvon. … From the English point of view, the kings of
       England were henceforth lords-paramount of Ireland, with the
       fee of the soil vested in them, and all Irish princes in
       future were no more than tenants-in-chief. From the Irish
       point of view, the English kings were nothing more than
       military suzerains in the districts outside the pale."

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 1, chapter 30.

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. J. R. Green,
          Henry the Second,
          chapter 8.

          A. G. Richey,
          Short History of the Irish People,
          chapters 6-7.

          W. A. O'Conor,
          History of the Irish People,
          book 2, chapters 1-2.

          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          chapters 26-29.

          F. P. Barnard, editor,
          Strongbow's Conquest of Ireland:
          From Contemporary Writers.

    IRELAND: 13th-14th Centuries.
       Under the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

       "The feudal system as established in Ireland differed in
       important respects from that existing in England. It is usual
       for Irish writers to attribute much of the sufferings of
       Ireland to the misgovernment of England and the introduction
       of feudalism, whereas most of these evils may be referred
       rather to English non-government and to the peculiar anomalies
       of the Irish feudal system. The feudal system as introduced
       into Ireland, like most other institutions imported from
       England, was altered in such a manner as to retain all its
       evils, and lose all its advantages. The Crown in Ireland
       possessed no power of controlling its vassals. … In Ireland
       there were no manor or valuable estates that the Crown could
       appropriate—the entire country had to be conquered; and as
       the Crown did not assist in the conquest, it received no part
       of the spoils. Thus we find the Crown had absolutely no
       demesnes of its own, and, being deprived of any military force
       of its own, it had to rely upon such of the great feudal
       vassals as might remain loyal for the purpose of crushing
       those who might be in rebellion. The inevitable result of this
       policy was to kindle a civil war and excite personal feuds in
       the attempt to maintain order. … We have thus a feudal
       system, in which the Crown is powerless to fulfil its duties,
       yet active in preventing the greater nobles from exercising
       that influence which might have secured a reasonable degree of
       order. The whole energy of the nobles was turned away from
       government to war; and lest they should become local
       potentates, they were allowed to degenerate into local
       tyrants. But what, meanwhile, had become of the Irish nation?
       As the feudal system ignored their existence, we have
       permitted them to fall out of our view; but they still
       existed, and still were politically independent. The invaders
       had occupied the flat country, suitable for the operation of
       their forces, and the original inhabitants had retired into
       either the mountainous districts, impassable to cavalry, or
       into districts protected by the bogs, and difficult of access;
       nay, even in some parts of the island, where the Normans were
       not in force, they had re-occupied large portions of the open
       country. They did not retire as disorganised fugitives, but
       the tribes retreated, keeping their social organisation
       unbroken; and, although removed from their original
       habitations, still preserved their social identity. The
       remarkable point in the conquest was, that the Celtic
       population was not driven back upon anyone portion of the
       kingdom, but remained as it was, interpolated among the new
       arrivals. … The Celtic population possessed no definite
       legal position, filled no place in the feudal hierarchy, and
       was in the eyes of the English Government hostile and alien;
       the only exception to this was the case of the O'Briens, who,
       though not actually feudal vassals, had their estates secured
       by a charter, and five Irish families, through some unknown
       reason, were considered as the king's men and entitled to his
       protection; these were known as the five bloods, who enjoyed
       the law of England to the extent of the privilege to sue in
       the king's courts, viz., O'Neill, O'Molaghlin, O'Connor,
       O'Brien, and M'Murrough. … The Irish in Ireland were treated
       by the king's courts in Ireland as an alien and hostile
       nation; an Irishman out of the king's peace could not bring an
       action against an Englishman. … But, though legally ignored,
       the Irish tribes could not be politically disregarded. The
       English Government used their assistance to repress the
       rebellions of insurgent vassals. … They were called on to
       furnish assistance to the English armies, and on many
       occasions we find their chiefs summoned by writ of Parliament,
       as if feudal vassals; but the mode in which they were treated
       depended upon the immediate objects and want of the English
       Government, and the general course of conduct pursued towards
       them was such as has been previously stated. … We thus find
       the English and Irish races hopelessly at variance, and it
       would seem that one or other must have been crushed out in the
       contest; but such was not the result; they both survived, and,
       contrary to reasonable expectations, the Irish exhibited the
       greater vitality. The expulsion of the English colony was an
       effort beyond the power of the disunited Irish tribes; for in
       the darkest hours of the English settlement the power of
       England was ready, by some sudden effort, to reassert the
       English supremacy. But why did the Anglo-Normans wholly fail
       to subdue the Irish? …

       1. The large extent comprised in the grants made to the first
       colonists led to a dispersion of the Norman nobles over the
       more fertile portions of the country. The English colony never
       formed one compact body capable of combined action. …

    {1760}

       2. The military equipment of the Normans, and their mode of
       carrying on war, rendered their forces wholly inefficient,
       when, leaving the flat country, they attempted to penetrate
       the fastnesses of the native tribes. …

       3. From the absence of any central government, civil wars
       continually arose between the several Norman lords; thus the
       military power of the colonists was frittered away in
       dissensions. …

       4. The English Government continually called upon the Irish
       barons for aids and military service, to be employed in wars
       elsewhere than in Ireland. …

       5. Many of the estates of the Norman nobles descended to
       heiresses who married Englishmen already possessing estates in
       England: hence arose absenteeism.

       6. Even the lords who resided constantly upon their Irish
       estates gradually lost their Norman habits, and tended to
       assimilate themselves to the manners, and to adopt the
       language, of the Irish."

          A. G. Richey,
          Short History of the Irish People,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          P. W. Joyce,
          Short History of Ireland,
          part 3.

          See, also,
          PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES;
          and GERALDINES.

    IRELAND:
       The Celticizing of the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

       "Prior to experience, it would have been equally reasonable to
       expect that the modern Englishman would adopt the habits of
       the Hindoo or the Mohican, as that the fiery knights of
       Normandy would have stooped to imitate a race whom they
       despised as slaves; that they would have flung away their very
       knightly names to assume a barbarous equivalent [the De Burghs
       became Bourkes or Burkes, the M'Sweenies had been Veres in
       England, and the Munster Geraldines merged their family name
       in that of Desmond.—Foot-note]; and would so utterly have
       cast aside the commanding features of their Northern
       extraction, that their children's children could be
       distinguished neither in soul nor body, neither in look, in
       dress, in language, nor in disposition, from the Celts whom
       they had subdued. Such, however, was the extraordinary fact.
       The Irish who had been conquered in the field revenged their
       defeat on the minds and hearts of their conquerors; and in
       yielding, yielded only to fling over their new masters the
       subtle spell of the Celtic disposition. In vain the government
       attempted to stem the evil. Statute was passed after statute
       forbidding the 'Englishry' of Ireland to use the Irish
       language, or intermarry with Irish families, or copy Irish
       habits. Penalties were multiplied on penalties; fines,
       forfeitures, and at last death itself, were threatened for
       such offences. But all in vain. The stealthy evil crept on
       irresistibly. Fresh colonists were sent over to restore the
       system, but only for themselves or their children to be swept
       into the stream; and from the century which succeeded the
       Conquest till the reign of the eighth Henry, the strange
       phenomenon repeated itself, generation after generation,
       baffling the wisdom of statesmen, and paralysing every effort
       at a remedy."

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          chapter 8 (volume 2).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.
       Edward Bruce's invasion.

       The crushing defeat of the English by the Scotch at
       Bannockburn (1314) rekindled a spirit of rebellion in Ireland,
       and the discontented chiefs made haste to solicit aid from
       Scotland, offering the sovereignty of their island to Edward
       Bruce, brother of king Robert, if he would come to their help
       and conquer it. "By consent of king Robert, who was pleased to
       make a diversion against England upon a vulnerable point, and
       not, perhaps, sorry to be rid of a restless spirit, which
       became impatient in the lack of employment, Edward invaded
       Ireland at the head of a force of 6,000 Scots. He fought many
       battles, and gained them all. He became master of the province
       of Ulster, and was solemnly crowned king of Ireland; but found
       himself amid his successes obliged to intreat the assistance
       of king Robert with fresh supplies; for the impetuous Edward,
       who never spared his own person, was equally reckless of
       exposing his followers; and his successes were misfortunes, in
       so far as they wasted the brave men with whose lives they were
       purchased. Robert Bruce led supplies to his brother's
       assistance, with an army which enabled him to overrun Ireland,
       but without gaining any permanent advantage. He threatened
       Dublin, and penetrated as far as Limerick in the west, but was
       compelled, by scarcity of provisions, to retire again into
       Ulster, in the spring of 1317. He shortly after returned to
       Scotland, leaving a part of his troops with Edward, though
       probably convinced that his brother was engaged in a desperate
       and fruitless enterprise. … After his brother's departure,
       Edward's career of ambition was closed at the battle of
       Dundalk, where, October 5th, 1318, fortune at length failed a
       warrior who had tried her patience by so many hazards. On that
       fatal day he encountered, against the advice of his officers,
       an Anglo-Irish army ten times more numerous than his own. A
       strong champion among the English, named John Maupas, singling
       out the person of Edward, slew him, and received death at his
       hands. … A general officer of the Scots, called John
       Thomson, led back the remnant of the Scottish force to their
       own country. And thus ended the Scottish invasion of Ireland,
       with the loss of many brave soldiers."

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 11 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          volume 3, chapter 36.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.
       Oppressions of the reign of Edward III.

       "Of all the legislative measures of this period the most
       notable was the Statute of Kilkenny, passed at a Parliament
       held in that town, in the last year of the decade, in the Lent
       session of 1367. This 'famous, or infamous,' enactment
       gathered up into one, and recapitulated with additional
       aggravations and insults, all the former oppressive,
       exasperating, and iniquitous ordinances by which English
       legislation for Ireland had hitherto been disgraced. … Among
       the earliest measures passed in the reign of Edward III. was a
       statute directed against absenteeism, obliging all Englishmen
       who were Irish proprietors either to reside on their estates
       or to provide soldiers to defend them. But this enactment was
       unproductive of good results. The O'Neills drove the colonists
       out of the 'liberty of Ulster,' and the English De Burghs, so
       far from helping to uphold English ascendency, appropriated to
       themselves the entire lordship of Connaught, made common cause
       with the native tribes, and adopting their dress, language,
       and customs, became 'Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores,' threw off
       their allegiance to King Edward, and bade defiance to the
       King's authority. Thus it came to pass that before many years
       of this reign had elapsed more than a third part of the
       territories of the Pale was again in the hands of its original
       possessors. … Edward III. inherited the barbarous and
       iniquitous traditions of English rule in Ireland, but he
       improved upon them.
    {1761}
       He ordered all his officers in that country who had Irish
       estates to be removed and give place to Englishmen with no
       Irish ties. He next declared void every grant of land in
       Ireland since the time of Edward II., and made new grants of
       the lands thus recovered to the Crown. The tendency of this
       monstrous measure was to create two more antagonistic parties
       in Ireland, destined by their bitter dissensions to bring
       about the result that ere long 'all the King's land in Ireland
       was on the point of passing away from the Crown of England,'—
       viz., the 'English by blood,' as the established settlers were
       called, and the 'English by birth,' or new grantees. Some of
       the chief of the former, in despair of a career, or even of a
       quiet life, at home, were about to bid good-bye to Ireland and
       seek their fortunes elsewhere, when they were arrested by a
       proclamation making it penal for any English subject capable
       of bearing arms to leave the country. … The 'English by
       blood' became more and more intimately connected and
       identified with the native Irish, and the 'English by birth'
       became more and more powerless to maintain the English
       ascendency; till at last, in 1361, the King determined on
       sending over a viceroy of the blood royal, and appointed to
       the post his son Lionel, created shortly afterwards Duke of
       Clarence, whom he had married to Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter
       and representative of the last Earl of Ulster. But though
       Prince Lionel, on his arrival, took the precaution of
       forbidding any man born in Ireland to approach his camp, his
       position soon became so critical that the King issued writs
       commanding all the absentee Irish lords to hasten to Ireland
       to the assistance of the Prince, 'for that his very dear son
       and his companions in Ireland were in imminent peril.' The
       next step was the passing of the Statute of Kilkenny. It
       re-enacted the prohibition of marriage and foster-nursing,
       rendered obligatory the adoption of the English language and
       customs, forbade the national games of 'hurlings and
       quoitings,' and the use of the ancient Gaelic code called the
       Senchus Mor; a code by which the native brehons, or judges, of
       the Irish septs had decided causes among them since the time
       of the conversion of the race to Christianity in the fifth
       century."

          W. Warburton,
          Edward III., 4th decade,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Longman,
          Life and Times of Edward III.,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

          T. Leland,
          History of Ireland,
          book 2, chapters 4-5 (volume 1).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1494.
       Poynings' Laws.

       During the Wars of the Roses, "if Ireland had any preference
       for either of the great contending parties in England, it was
       … for the House of York; and from this cause chiefly sprang
       the change of Henry VII.'s mode of governing the dependency
       which on ascending the throne he had found all but severed
       from his dominions. At first he had thought it best to employ
       the native nobility for this purpose, and had chosen for
       Deputy the Earl of Kildare—setting him, as the story ran, to
       rule all Ireland, because all Ireland could not rule him.
       When, however, he had time to reflect on the dangers springing
       from the Irish support of Simnel and Warbeck, from which he
       and his dynasty had escaped so narrowly, he perceived the
       necessity of bringing the country under a more regular
       government. Accordingly he sent over in 1494 (at the time when
       Warbeck was preparing for his descent on England) Sir Edward
       Poynings as Lord Deputy, a statesman and commander well
       experienced in the most important affairs of the time."

          C. E. Moberly,
          The Early Tudors,
          chapter 6.

       After some military operations, which he found to be beset
       with treacheries and difficulties, the new Lord Deputy held a
       Parliament at Drogheda—"perhaps the most memorable that was
       ever held in Ireland, as certainly no other Parliament in that
       country made laws which endured so long as two which were then
       enacted, and were known for centuries afterwards as the
       'Poynings Acts.' By the first of these it was ordained that no
       Parliament should be held in Ireland in future until the
       king's Council in England had approved not only of its being
       summoned, but also of the Acts which the Lieutenant and
       Council of Ireland proposed to pass in it. By the second the
       laws enacted before that time in England were extended to
       Ireland also. Thus the Irish legislature was made entirely
       dependent upon England. The Irish Parliament had no power to
       originate anything, but was only free to accept or (if they
       were very bold) to reject measures drawn up by the Irish
       Council and approved already by the king and his Council in
       England before they were submitted to discussion. Little as
       this looks like parliamentary government, such was the state
       of subjection in which the Irish Parliament remained by virtue
       of this law for nearly three centuries later. Almost the whole
       time, that is to say, that Ireland had a separate Parliament
       at all it remained in this manner restricted in its action by
       the legislation of Sir Edward Poynings. … It should be
       remembered, however, that Henry VII. merely sought to do in
       Ireland what there is every reason to suppose he practically
       did in England. Legislation was not at this time considered to
       be the chief business of a Parliament."

          J. Gairdner,
          Henry the Seventh,
          chapter. 8.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Bagwell,
          Ireland Under the Tudors,
          chapter 8.

          W. A. O'Conor,
          History of the Irish People,
          book 2, chapter 4, section 7.

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 18 (volume 3).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1515.
       The English Pale and the Clans and Chiefs beyond it.

       "The events on which we are about to enter require for their
       understanding a sketch of the position of the various chiefs,
       as they were at this time scattered over the island. The
       English pale, originally comprising 'the four shires,' as they
       were called, of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, and Uriel or Louth,
       had been shorn down to half its old dimensions. The line
       extended from Dundalk to Ardee; from Ardee by Castletown to
       Kells; thence through Athboy and Trim to the Castle of
       Maynooth; from Maynooth it crossed to Claine upon the Liffey,
       and then followed up the line of the river to Ballimore
       Eustace, from which place it skirted back at the rear of the
       Wicklow and Dublin mountains to the forts at Dalkey, seven
       miles south of Dublin. This narrow strip alone, some fifty
       miles long and twenty broad, was in any sense English. Beyond
       the borders the common law of England was of no authority; the
       king's writ was but a strip of parchment; and the country was
       parcelled among a multitude of independent chiefs, who
       acknowledged no sovereignty but that of strength, who levied
       tribute on the inhabitants of the pale as a reward for a
       nominal protection of their rights, and as a compensation for
       abstaining from the plunder of their farms. …
    {1762}
       These chiefs, with their dependent clans, were distributed
       over the four provinces in the following order. The
       Geraldines, the most powerful of the remaining Normans, were
       divided into two branches. The Geraldines of the south, under
       the Earls of Desmond, held Limerick, Cork, and Kerry; the
       Geraldines of Leinster lay along the frontiers of the English
       pale; and the heads of the house, the Earls of Kildare, were
       the feudal superiors of the greater portion of the English
       counties. To the Butlers, Earls of Ormond and Ossory, belonged
       Kilkenny, Carlow, and Tipperary. The De Burghs, or Bourkes, as
       they called themselves, were scattered over Galway, Roscommon,
       and the south of Sligo, occupying the broad plains which lie
       between the Shannon and the mountains of Connemara and Mayo.
       This was the relative position into which these clans had
       settled at the Conquest, and it had been maintained with
       little variation. The north, which had fallen to the Lacies
       and the De Courcies, had been wholly recovered by the Irish.
       The Lacies had become extinct. The De Courcies, once Earls of
       Ulster, had migrated to the south, and were reduced to the
       petty fief of Kinsale, which they held under the Desmonds. The
       Celtic chieftains had returned from the mountains to which
       they had been driven, bringing back with them, more intensely
       than ever, the Irish habits and traditions. … The O'Neils
       and O'Donnells had spread down over Ulster to the frontiers of
       the pale. The O'Connors and O'Carrolls had recrossed the
       Shannon and pushed forwards into Kildare; the O'Connor Don was
       established in a castle near Portarlington, said to be one of
       the strongest in Ireland; and the O'Carrolls had seized Leap,
       an ancient Danish fortress, surrounded by bog and forest, a
       few miles from Parsonstown. O'Brien of Inchiquin, Prince—as
       he styled himself—of Thomond, no longer contented with his
       principality of Clare, had thrown a bridge across the Shannon
       five miles above Limerick, and was thus enabled to enter
       Munster at his pleasure and spread his authority towards the
       south; while the M'Carties and O'Sullivans, in Cork and Kerry,
       were only not dangerous to the Earls of Desmond, because the
       Desmonds were more Irish than themselves, and were accepted as
       their natural chiefs. In Tipperary and Kilkenny only the
       Celtic reaction was held in check. The Earls of Ormond,
       although they were obliged themselves to live as Irish
       chieftains, and to govern by the Irish law, yet … remained
       true to their allegiance, and maintained the English authority
       as far as their power extended. … Wexford, Wicklow, and the
       mountains of Dublin, were occupied by the Highland tribes of
       O'Bryne and O'Toole, who, in their wild glens and dangerous
       gorges, defied attempts to conquer them, and who were able, at
       all times, issuing down out of the passes of the hills, to cut
       off communication with the pale. Thus the Butlers had no means
       of reaching Dublin except through the county of Kildare, the
       home of their hereditary rivals and foes. This is a general
       account of the situation of the various parties in Ireland at
       the beginning of the 16th century. I have spoken only of the
       leading families. … 'There be sixty counties, called
       regions, in Ireland,' says the report of 1515, 'inhabited with
       the king's Irish enemies.'"

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          chapter 8 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          PALE, THE ENGLISH.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
       The reconquest under Henry VIII. and
       the fall of the Geraldines.
       The political pacification and the religious alienation.

       "To Henry VIII. the policy which had been pursued by his
       father was utterly hateful. His purpose was to rule in Ireland
       as thoroughly and effectively as he ruled in England. … The
       Geraldines, who had been suffered under the preceding reign to
       govern Ireland in the name of the Crown, were quick to
       discover that the Crown would no longer stoop to be their
       tool. They resolved to frighten England again into a
       conviction of its helplessness; and the rising of Lord Thomas
       Fitzgerald followed the usual fashion of Irish revolts. A
       murder of the Archbishop of Dublin, a capture of the city, a
       repulse before its castle, a harrying of the Pale, ended in a
       sudden disappearance of the rebels among the bogs and forests
       of the border on the advance of the English forces. …
       Unluckily for the Geraldines, Henry had resolved to take
       Ireland seriously in hand, and he had Cromwell [Sir Thomas] to
       execute his will. Skeffington, the new Lord Deputy, brought
       with him a train of artillery, which worked a startling change
       in the political aspect of the island. The castles which had
       hitherto sheltered rebellion were battered into ruins. … Not
       only was the power of the great Norman house which had towered
       over Ireland utterly broken, but only a single boy was left to
       preserve its name. With the fall of the Geraldines Ireland
       felt itself in a master's grasp. … In seven years, partly
       through the vigour of Skeffington's successor, Lord Leonard
       Grey, and still more through the resolute will of Henry and
       Cromwell, the power of the Crown, which had been limited to
       the walls of Dublin, was acknowledged over the length and
       breadth of Ireland. … Chieftain after chieftain was won over
       to the acceptance of the indenture which guaranteed him in the
       possession of his lands, and left his authority over his
       tribesmen untouched, on conditions of a pledge of loyalty, of
       abstinence from illegal wars and exactions on his
       fellow-subjects, and of rendering a fixed tribute and service
       in war-time to the Crown. … [This] firm and conciliatory
       policy must in the end have won, but for the fatal blunder
       which plunged Ireland into religions strife at the moment when
       her civil strife seemed about to come to an end. … In
       Ireland the spirit of the Reformation never existed among the
       people at all. They accepted the legislative measures passed
       in the English Parliament without any dream of theological
       consequences, or of any change in the doctrine or ceremonies
       of the Church. … The mission of Archbishop Browne 'for the
       plucking-down of idols and extinguishing of idolatry' was the
       first step in the long effort of the English Government to
       force a new faith on a people who to a man clung passionately
       to their old religion. Browne's attempts at 'tuning the
       pulpits' were met by a sullen and significant opposition. …
       Protestantism had failed to wrest a single Irishman from his
       older convictions, but it succeeded in uniting all Ireland
       against the Crown. … The population within the Pale and
       without it became one, 'not as the Irish nation,' it has been
       acutely said, 'but as Catholics.' A new sense of national
       identity was found in the identity of religion."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 7, section 8.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Bagwell,
          Ireland Under the Tudors,
          volume 1, chapters 9-15.

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 30.

    {1763}

    IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
       The wars of Shane O'Neil and Hugh O'Neil, Earls of Tyrone.
       The League of the Geraldines and the Ulster Confederacy.

       "The Reformation begun under Henry VIII. was carried out with
       pitiless determination under Edward VI., and was met by the
       Catholics with unflinching opposition. Under Mary there was a
       period of respite, but the strife was renewed with greater
       fierceness in the succeeding reign. As authentic Irish history
       begins with St. Patrick, so with Elizabeth modern Irish
       history may be said to begin. … At her accession, Elizabeth
       was too much occupied with foreign complications to pay much
       heed to Ireland. Trouble first began in a conflict between the
       feudal laws and the old Irish law of Tanistry. Con O'Neil,
       Earl of Tyrone, had taken his title from Henry VIII., subject
       to the English law of succession; but when Con died, the clan
       O'Neil, disregarding the English principle of hereditary
       succession, chose Shane O'Neil, an illegitimate son of Con,
       and the hero of his Sept, to be The O'Neil. Shane O'Neil at
       once put himself forward as the champion of Irish liberty, the
       supporter of the Irish right to rule themselves in their own
       way and pay no heed to England. Under the pretence of
       governing the country, Elizabeth overran it with a soldiery
       who, as even Mr. Froude acknowledges, lived almost universally
       on plunder, and were little better than bandits. The time was
       an appropriate one for a champion of Irish rights. Shane
       O'Neil boldly stood out as sovereign of Ulster, and pitted
       himself against Elizabeth. … Shane fought bravely against
       his fate, but he was defeated [A. D. 1567], put to flight, and
       murdered by his enemies, the Scots of Antrim, in whose
       strongholds he madly sought refuge. His head was struck off,
       and sent to adorn the walls of Dublin Castle. His lands were
       declared forfeit, and his vassals, vassals of the Crown.
       English soldiers of fortune were given grants from Shane's
       escheated territory, but when they attempted to settle they
       were killed by the O'Neils. Others came in their place, under
       Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, and did their best to simplify
       the process of colonization by exterminating the O'Neils, men,
       women, and children, wherever they could be got at. After two
       years of struggle Essex was compelled to abandon his
       settlement. But other colonizers were not disheartened. Some
       West of England gentlemen, under Peter Carew, seized on Cork,
       Limerick and Kerry, and sought to hold them by extirpating the
       obnoxious natives. Against these English inroads the great
       Geraldine League was formed. In the reign of Mary, that boy of
       twelve whom Henry VIII. had not been able to include in the
       general doom of his house had been allowed to return to
       Ireland, and to resume his ancestral honours, Once more the
       Geraldines were a great and powerful family in Ireland."
       Defeated in their first rising, "the Geraldines and their
       companion chiefs got encouragement in Rome and pledges from
       Spain, and they rose again under the Earl of Desmond and Sir
       James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald. At first they had some
       successes, They had many wrongs to avenge. … Sir Francis
       Cosby, the Queen's representative in Leix and Offaly, had
       conceived and executed the idea of preventing any further
       possible rising of the chiefs in those districts by summoning
       them and their kinsmen to a great banquet in the fort of
       Mullaghmast, and there massacring them all. Out of 400 guests,
       only one man, a Lalor, escaped from that feast of blood. …
       With such memories in their minds, the tribes rose in all
       directions to the Desmond call. … Elizabeth sent over more
       troops to Ireland under the new Lord Deputy, Sir William
       Pelham, who had with him as ally Ormonde, the head of the
       house of Butler, hereditary foes of the Geraldines, and easily
       induced to act against them. Pelham and Ormonde cut their way
       over Munster, reducing the province by unexampled ferocity.
       Ormonde boasted that he had put to death nearly 6,000
       disaffected persons. Just at this moment some of the chiefs of
       the Pale rose, and rose too late. They gained one victory over
       Lord Grey de Wilton in the pass of Glenmalure [August, 1580].
       … Grey immediately abandoned the Pale to the insurgents, and
       turned to Smerwick [A. D. 1580], where some 800 Spanish and
       Italian soldiers had just landed, too late to be of any
       service to the rebellion, and had occupied the dismantled
       fort. It was at once blockaded by sea and by land. In Grey's
       army Sir Walter Raleigh and Edmund Spenser both held commands.
       Smerwick surrendered at discretion, and the prisoners were
       killed by Raleigh and his men in cold blood. Flushed by this
       success, Grey returned to the Pale and carried all before him.
       The Geraldines were disheartened, and were defeated wherever
       they made a stand. … Munster was so vigorously laid waste
       that Mr. Froude declares that 'the lowing of a cow or the
       sound of a ploughboy's whistle was not to be heard from
       Valentia to the Rock of Cashel.' Holinshed declares the
       traveller would not meet any man, woman, or child, saving in
       towns or cities, and would not see any beast; and Spenser
       gives a melancholy picture of the misery of the inhabitants,
       'as that any stony heart would rue the same.' … The next
       step was to confiscate the estates of the rebellious
       chieftains. … The estates of Desmond and some 140 of his
       followers came to the Crown. The land was then distributed at
       the cheapest rate in large tracts to English nobles and
       gentlemen adventurers, who were pledged to colonize it with
       English labourers and tradesmen. But of these labourers and
       tradesmen not many came over, and those who did soon returned,
       tired of struggling for their foothold with the dispossessed
       Irish." During all this Geraldine or Desmond rebellion Ulster
       had remained quiet; but in 1594 it began to show signs of
       disturbance. "Hugh O'Neil, the grandson of that Con O'Neil
       whom Henry VIII. had made Earl of Tyrone, had been brought up
       at the English court, and confirmed in the lordship of Tyrone
       by the English Government. In the brilliant court of Elizabeth
       the young Irish chief was distinguished for his gifts of mind
       and body. When he came of age he was allowed to return to
       Ireland to his earldom. Once within his own country, he
       assumed his ancestral title of The O'Neil, and revived all the
       customs of independent Irish chieftains. For long enough he
       took no part in any plots or movements against the Crown; but
       many things, the ties of friendship and of love, combined to
       drive him into rebellion.

    {1764}

       … Tyrone in the end consented to give the powerful support
       of his name and his arms to a skilfully planned confederation
       of the tribes. On all sides the Irish chiefs entered into the
       insurrection. O'Neil was certainly the most formidable Irish
       leader the English had yet encountered. … Victory followed
       victory [that of the Yellow Ford, 1598, being the most
       important]. In a little while all Ireland, with the exception
       of Dublin and a few garrison towns, was in the hands of the
       rebels. Essex, and the largest army ever sent to Ireland,
       crossed the Channel to cope with him; but Essex made no
       serious move, and after an interview with Tyrone, in which he
       promised more than he could perform, he returned to England to
       his death. His place was taken by Lord Mountjoy, who, for all
       his love of angling and of Elizabethan 'play-books,' was a
       stronger man. Tyrone met him, was defeated [at Kinsale, 1601].
       From that hour the rebellion was over. … At last Tyrone was
       compelled to come to terms. He surrendered his estates,
       renounced all claim to the title of The O'Neil, abjured
       alliance with all foreign powers, and promised to introduce
       English laws and customs into Tyrone. In return he received a
       free pardon and a re-grant of his title and lands by letters
       patent. Rory O'Donnell, Red Hugh's brother, also submitted,
       and was allowed to retain the title of Earl of Tyrconnel.
       Elizabeth was already dead, and the son of Mary Stuart [James
       I.] was King of England when these terms were made; but they
       were not destined to do much good."

          J. H. McCarthy,
          Outline of Irish History,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          T. D. McGee,
          Popular History of Ireland,
          book 8, chapters 3-11 (volumes 1-2).

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          chapters 32-35.

          R. Bagwell,
          Ireland under the Tudors,
          volume 2.

          T. Leland,
          History of Ireland,
          book 4, chapters 1-5 (volume 2).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.
       The flight of the Earls and the Plantation of Ulster.

       "With the submission of the Earl of Tyrone terminated the
       struggle between the Tudor princes and the native Celtic
       tribes. No chieftain henceforward claimed to rule his district
       in independence of the Crown of England. The Celtic land
       tenure, the Brehon laws, the language, customs, and traditions
       of the defeated race were doomed to gradual yet certain
       extinction. … Before Elizabeth was laid in the grave, the
       object for which during so many years she had striven was thus
       at length accomplished; … but between the wars of the Tudors
       and the civil government of the Stuarts, still remain (the
       intermediate link, as it were, between the two) the fall of
       the able man who had created and so long conducted an almost
       national resistance, and the colonisation by English settlers
       of his demesnes and the adjoining parts of Ulster."

          A. G. Richey,
          Short History of the Irish People,
          chapter 20.

       "Lord Bacon, with whom ideas grew plentifully, had a
       suggestion at the service of the new king as profitable as the
       'princelie policie' which he taught his predecessor. He was of
       opinion that a great settlement of English husbandmen in
       Ireland, able to guard as well as to till the land, would help
       to secure the interest of the Crown. Till this was done
       Ireland was not effectually reduced, as Sir Edward Coke
       afterwards declared, 'for there was ever a back-door in the
       north.' The only question was where to plant them. O'Neill and
       Tyrconnell had proved dangerous adversaries; they possessed a
       fertile territory, and as their 'loose order of inheritance'
       had been duly changed into 'an orderly succession,' they were
       quite ripe for confiscation. But they had been ostentatiously
       received into favour at the close of the late war, and some
       decent pretence for destroying them so soon was indispensable.
       It was found in a letter conveniently dropped in the precincts
       of Dublin Castle, disclosing a new conspiracy. Of a conspiracy
       there was not then, and has not been since discovered, any
       evidence worth recording. The letter was probably forged,
       according to the practise of the times; but where so noble a
       booty was to be distributed by the Crown, one can conceive how
       ill-timed and disloyal any doubt of their treason would have
       appeared at the Court of James, or of the Lord Deputy. They
       were proclaimed traitors, and fled to the Continent to solicit
       aid from the Catholic Powers. Without delay James and his
       counsellors set to work. The King applied to the City of
       London to take up the lands of the wild Irish. They were well
       watered, he assured them, plentifully supplied with fuel, with
       good store of all the necessaries for man's sustenance; and
       moreover yielded timber, hides, tallow, canvas, and cordage
       for the purposes of commerce. The Companies of Skinners,
       Fishmongers, Haberdashers, Vintners and the like thereupon
       became Absentee Proprietors, and have guzzled Irish rents in
       city feasts and holiday excursions to Ireland from that day to
       this. Six counties in Ulster were confiscated, and not merely
       the chiefs, but the entire population dispossessed. The
       fruitful plains of Armagh, the deep pastoral glens that lie
       between the sheltering hills of Donegal, the undulating meadow
       lands stretching by the noble lakes and rivers of Fermanagh,
       passed from the race which had possessed them since before the
       redemption of mankind. … The alluvial lands were given to
       English courtiers whom the Scotch king found it necessary to
       placate, and to Scotch partisans whom he dared not reward in
       England. The peasants driven out of the tribal lands to burrow
       in the hills or bogs were not treated according to any law
       known among civilised men. Under Celtic tenure the treason of
       the chief, if he committed treason, affected them no more than
       the offences of a tenant for life affect a remainder man in
       our modern practice. Under the feudal system they were
       innocent feudatories who would pass with the forfeited land to
       the Crown, with all their personal rights undisturbed. The
       method of settlement is stated with commendable simplicity by
       the latest historian. The 'plantators' got all the land worth
       their having; what was not worth their having—the barren
       mountains and trackless morass, which after two centuries
       still in many cases yield no human food—were left to those
       who in the language of an Act of Parliament of the period were
       'natives of the realm of Irish blood, being descended from
       those who did inherit and possess the land.' Lest the
       frugality of the Celts should enable them to peacefully regain
       some of their possessions, it was strictly conditioned that no
       plantator or servitor should alienate his portion, or any part
       thereof, to the mere Irish. The confiscated territory amounted
       to two millions of acres. 'Of these a million and a half' says
       Mr. Froude, 'bog, forest, and mountain were restored to the
       Irish. The half million acres of fertile land were settled
       with families of Scottish and English Protestants.' It was in
       this manner that the famous Plantation of Ulster was founded."

          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
          pages 74-78
          (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland").

    {1765}

       "The City of London had taken in hand the settlement of Derry,
       which was now to be rebuilt under the name of Londonderry, and
       to give its name to the county in which it stood, and which
       had hitherto been known as the county of Coleraine."

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1642,
          chapter 10 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. D'Arcy McGee,
          Popular History of Ireland,
          book 9, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          J. Harrison,
          The Scot in Ulster,
          chapter 3.

          C. P. Meehan,
          Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone,
          and Rory O'Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1625.
       The Graces of Charles I.

       On the accession of Charles I., "one more effort was made by
       the Irish gentry to persuade, or rather to bribe, the
       Government to allow them to remain undisturbed in the
       possession of their property. They offered to raise by
       voluntary assessment the large sum of £120,000 in three annual
       instalments of £40,000, on condition of obtaining certain
       Graces from the King. These Graces, the Irish analogue of the
       Petition of Rights, were of the most moderate and equitable
       description. The most important were that undisturbed
       possession of sixty years should secure a landed proprietor
       from all older claims on the part of the Crown, that the
       inhabitants of Connaught should be secured from litigation by
       the enrolment of their patents, and that Popish recusants
       should be permitted, without taking the Oath of Supremacy, to
       sue for livery of their estates in the Court of Arches, and to
       practise in the courts of law. The terms were accepted. The
       promise of the King was given. The Graces were transmitted by
       way of instruction to the Lord Deputy and Council, and the
       Government also engaged, as a further security to all
       proprietors, that their estates should be formally confirmed
       to them and to their heirs by the next Parliament which should
       be held in Ireland. The sequel forms one of the most shameful
       passages in the history of English government of Ireland. In
       distinct violation of the King's solemn promise, after the
       subsidies that were made on the faith of that promise had been
       duly obtained, without provocation or pretext or excuse,
       Wentworth, who now presided with stern despotism over the
       government of Ireland, announced the withdrawal of the two
       principal articles of the Graces, the limitation of Crown
       claims by a possession of sixty years and the legalisation of
       the Connaught titles."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 6 (volume 2).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.
       Wentworth's system of "Thorough."

       In the summer of 1633, Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of
       Strafford, was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. "It was
       during his tenure of office as viceroy that he attempted to
       establish absolutism in Ireland, in order that, by the thereby
       enhanced power of the monarchy, he might be enabled to turn
       the scale in favour of a despotic government in England. And,
       never at a loss in the choice of his expedients, he contended
       for his scheme with an energy and a recklessness
       characteristic of the man. In the prosecution of his ends, he
       treated some of the most influential English noblemen resident
       in Ireland with the utmost indignity, simply with the object
       of intimidating them, at the outset, from any further
       opposition. One of them, Lord Mountnorris, was even condemned
       to death on a charge of sedition and mutiny, merely for having
       made use of a disrespectful expression with reference to the
       lord-lieutenant, the representative of the sovereign. …
       Every longing of the Irish Protestant Church for independence
       was suppressed by Wentworth. According to his views, supreme
       authority in Church matters belonged absolutely and
       unconditionally to the king. He, therefore, abolished, in
       1634, the 'Irish Articles,' which granted some concessions to
       Puritanism, and which had been introduced by Archbishop Usher
       in the reign of James I., and, at the same time, he united the
       Irish Established Church indissolubly with that of England.
       But above all things he considered it to be his duty to
       increase the army, which had hitherto been in a disorganised
       condition, and to put it in a state of complete efficiency; in
       order to do this, however, it was of the first importance to
       augment the revenue of the Crown, and in pursuance of this
       object he disdained no means. He extorted large sums of money
       from the Catholics by reminding them that, in case their
       contributions were too niggardly, there still existed laws
       against the Papists which could easily be put into operation
       again. The City of London Company, which some years before had
       effected the colonization of Londonderry, was suddenly called
       to account for not having fulfilled the stipulations contained
       in its charter, and condemned to pay a fine of £70,000. In the
       same spirit he conceived the idea of obtaining additions to
       the royal exchequer by a fresh settlement of Connaught; and,
       accordingly, he induced the Government, regardless of the
       engagements made some years previously at the granting of the
       'graces,' to re-assert the claims it had formerly advanced to
       the possession of this province. And now, as in the worst days
       of James I., there again prevailed the old system of
       investigation into the validity of the titles by which the
       landed gentry of Connaught held their estates. Such persons as
       were practised in disinterring these unregistered titles were
       looked upon with favour, and as a means of inciting to more
       vigorous efforts, a premium of 20 per cent. on the receipts
       realized during the first year by the confiscation of property
       thus imperfectly registered was guaranteed to the presidents
       of the commission. With a cynical frankness, Wentworth
       declared that no money was ever so judiciously expended as
       this, for now the people entered into the business with as
       much ardour and assiduity as if it were their own private
       concern. … The collective titles of the province of
       Connaught were at the unlimited disposal of the
       lord-lieutenant; and, although, notwithstanding this result,
       he, at the last moment, recoiled from the final act, and
       shrank from ejecting the present owners, and re-settling the
       province, it was not from any conscientious scruples that he
       refrained from taking this last decisive step: to the man
       whose motto was 'Thorough,' such scruples were unknown. …
       Practical considerations alone … induced Wentworth to pause
       in the path upon which he had entered.
    {1766}
       Just at that time the Crown was engaged in a contest with
       Puritanism in Scotland, while, in England, the attempts of
       Charles to make his rule absolute had produced a state of
       public feeling which was in the highest degree critical. …
       In view of these considerations, therefore, Strafford
       postponed the colonization of the western province to a more
       favourable season. While we turn with just abhorrence from the
       contemplation of the reckless and despotic acts of this
       remarkable man, we must not, on the other hand, fail to
       acknowledge that his administration has features which present
       a brighter aspect. … In the exercise of a certain
       toleration, dictated, it is true, only by policy, he declined
       to meddle directly in the religious affairs of the Catholics.
       His greatest merit, however, consists in having advanced the
       material well-being of the country. He took a lively interest
       in agriculture and cattle-rearing, and by causing the rude and
       antiquated methods of husbandry which prevailed among the
       Irish agriculturalists to be superseded by more modern
       appliances, he contributed very materially to the advancement
       of this branch of industry. He also largely encouraged
       navigation, in consequence of which the number of Irish ships
       increased from year to year; and although it can not be denied
       that he endeavoured to suppress the trade in woollen cloth,
       from an apprehension that it might come into dangerous
       competition with English manufactures, he, nevertheless,
       sought to compensate the Irish in other ways, and the
       development of the Irish linen industry in the north was
       essentially his work. … The Irish revenue annually
       increased, and the customs returns alone were trebled during
       the administration of Lord Strafford. He was, accordingly, in
       a position to place at the disposal of his royal master a
       standing army of 9,000 men. … It was, therefore, no idle
       boast, but a statement in strict accordance with the truth,
       which he made when writing to Archbishop Laud on 16th
       December, 1634: 'I can now say that the king is here as truly
       absolute as any sovereign in the world can be.'"

          R. Hassencamp,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 3.

       "Of all the suggesters of the infamous counsels of Charles,
       Laud and Wentworth were the most sincere:—Laud, from the
       intense faith with which he looked forward to the possible
       supremacy of the ecclesiastical power, and to which he was
       bent upon going, 'thorough', through every
       obstacle;—Wentworth, from that strong sense, with which birth
       and education had perverted his genius, of the superior
       excellence of despotic rule. … The letters which passed
       between them partook of a more intimate character, in respect
       of the avowal of ulterior designs, than either of them,
       probably, chose to avow elsewhere. … Laud had to regret his
       position in England, contrasted with that of the Irish deputy.
       'My lord,' he writes to Wentworth, speaking of the general
       affairs of church and state, 'to speak freely, you may easily
       promise more in either kind than I can perform: for, as for
       the church, it is so bound up in the forms of the common law,
       that it is not possible for me, or for any man, to do that
       good which he would, or is bound to do. … And for the state,
       indeed, my lord, I am for Thorough; but I see that both thick
       and thin stays somebody, where I conceive it should not; and
       it is impossible for me to go thorough alone.' … Every new
       act of despotism which struck terror into Ireland shot comfort
       to the heart of Laud. 'As for my marginal note,' exclaims the
       archbishop, 'I see you deciphered it well, and I see you make
       use of it too,—do so still; thorow and thorow. Oh that I were
       where I might go so too I but I am shackled between delays and
       uncertainties. You have a great deal of honour here for your
       proceedings. Go on a God's name!' And on Wentworth went,
       stopping at no gratuitous quarrel that had the slightest
       chance of pleasing the archbishop, even to the demolishing the
       family tomb of the earl of Cork,—since his grace, among his
       select ecclesiastical researches, had discovered that the spot
       occupied by my lord of Cork's family monuments, was precisely
       that spot upon which the communion-table, to answer the
       purposes of heaven, ought to stand!"

          R. Browning,
          Thomas Wentworth (Eminent British Statesmen, volume 2,
          published under the name of John Forster).

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
          chapter 5, section 4.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England,
          chapter 76 (volume 8) and
          chapter 90 (volume 9).

          W. A. O'Conor,
          History of the Irish People,
          volume 2, book 3, chapter 1.

          T. Wright,
          History of Ireland,
          book 4, chapters 22-24.

          T. Leland,
          History of Ireland,
          book 5, chapter 1.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1641.
       The Catholic rising and alleged Massacres of Protestants.

       "The government which Strafford had established in Ireland
       fell with him, the office of viceroy was entrusted to some of
       the judges, and shorn of the powers which gave it authority
       over the whole country. The Irish army, which had been formed
       with so much difficulty, and maintained in spite of so much
       opposition, was disbanded without any attention being
       vouchsafed to the King's wish that it should be allowed to
       enter the Spanish service. … Under the influence of events
       in England, government based on prerogative, and on its
       connexion with the English hierarchy, as it had existed in
       Ireland since Elizabeth's time, fell to the ground. This
       revolution however might entail important results. The Irish
       people was Catholic: while the Protestant settlers were split
       into two hostile factions, and thereby the highest authority
       in the land, which bore a really Protestant character, was
       systematically weakened and almost destroyed, the thought of
       ridding themselves of it altogether was sure to arise in the
       nation. The steed, never completely broken in, felt itself
       suddenly free from the tight rein which hitherto it had
       unwillingly obeyed. … It was the common object of all
       Catholics, alike of Anglo-Saxon and of Celtic origin, to
       restore to the Catholic Church the possession of the goods and
       houses that had been taken from her, and above all to put an
       end to the colonies established since James I. in which
       Puritan tendencies prevailed. The Catholics of the old
       settlements were as eager for this as the natives. The idea
       originated in a couple of chiefs of old Irish extraction,
       Roger O'More and Lord Macguire, who had been involved in
       Tyrone's ruin, but were connected by marriage with several
       English families. The first man whom O'More won over was Lord
       Mayo, the most powerful magnate of old English descent in
       Connaught, of the house of De Burgh. … The best military
       leader in the confederacy, Colonel Plunkett, was a Catholic of
       old English origin. … Among the natives the most notable
       personage was Phelim O'Neil, who, after having been long in
       England, and learning Protestantism there, on his return to
       Ireland went back to the old faith and the old customs: he was
       reckoned the rightful heir of Tyrone, and possessed unbounded
       popular influence.
    {1767}
       The plan for which the Catholics of both Irish and English
       extraction now united was a very far-reaching one. It involved
       making the Catholic religion altogether dominant in Ireland:
       even of the old nobility none but the Catholics were to be
       tolerated: all the lands that had been seized for the new
       settlements were to be given back to the previous possessors
       or their heirs. In each district a distinguished family was to
       be answerable for order, and to maintain an armed force for
       the purpose. They would not revolt from the King, but still
       would leave him no real share in the government. Two lords
       justices, both Catholic, one of Irish, the other of old
       English family, were to be at the head of the government. …
       The preparations were made in profound silence: a man could
       travel across the country without perceiving any stir or
       uneasiness. But on the appointed day, October 23, the day of
       St. Ignatius, the insurrection everywhere broke out." Dublin
       was saved, by a disclosure of the plot to the government, on
       the evening of the 22d, by a Protestant Irishman who had
       gained knowledge of it. "Several other places also held out,
       as Londonderry and Carrickfergus, and afforded places to which
       the Protestants might fly. But no one can paint the rage and
       cruelty which was vented, far and wide over the land, upon the
       unarmed and defenceless. Many thousands perished: their
       corpses filled the land and served as food for the kites. …
       Religious abhorrence entered into a dreadful league with the
       fury of national hatred. The motives of the Sicilian Vespers
       and of the night of St. Bartholomew were united. Sir Phelim,
       who at once was proclaimed Lord and Master in Ulster, with the
       title of the native princes, as Tyrone had been, and who in
       his proclamations assumed the tone of a sovereign, was not at
       all the man to check these cruelties. … With all this
       letting loose of ancient barbarism there was still some
       holding back. The Scottish settlements were spared, although
       they were the most hated of all, for fear of incurring the
       hostility of the Scottish as well as of the English nation.
       Immediately there was a rising in the five counties of the old
       English Pale: the gentry of Louth, under the leadership of the
       sheriff, took the side of the rebels. The younger men of Meath
       assembled on the Boyne, and commenced hostilities against the
       Protestants: so completely had their religious sympathies
       prevailed over their patriotism."

          L. Von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 8, chapter 7 (volume 2).

       "Some reference to the notorious story of the massacre of 1641
       is required, not because the account of it is true and is a
       part of history, nor because it is false and needs refutation,
       but because it is a State fiction, a falsehood with a purpose,
       and as such deserves mention as much as the levying of troops
       or the passing of laws. The record of the period is not the
       history of a massacre, but of the deliberate invention of a
       massacre. … No word of massacre had been heard of in the
       first State document that referred to the so-called rebellion.
       The Catholic lords of the Pale would never have united their
       names and fortunes with those of murderers. … The royalists
       again and again urged in their treaties with their opponents
       that an investigation of the cruelties committed on both sides
       should be made, and the proposal was always absolutely
       refused."

          W. A. O'Conor,
          History of the Irish People,
          book 3, chapter 1, section 5 (volume 2).

       "There were few places of strength in Ulster which had not
       fallen by the end of the first week into the hands of the
       insurgents. Sir Phelim O'Neill already found himself at the
       head of some 30,000 men, as yet of course undisciplined, and
       but few of them efficiently armed; and it is not to be
       expected that such an irregular multitude, with wild passions
       let loose, and so many wrongs and insults to be avenged, could
       have been engaged in scenes of war, even so long, without
       committing some deeds of blood which the laws of regular
       warfare would not sanction. … Life was taken in some few
       instances where the act deserved the name of murder; but the
       cases of this nature, on the Irish side, at the commencement
       of the rebellion, were isolated ones; and nothing can be more
       unjust and false than to describe the outbreak of this war as
       a 'massacre'."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 37.

       "This [Sir Wm. Petty's] estimate of 37,000 Protestants
       supposed to have been murdered makes no allowance for those
       who escaped to England and Scotland, and never returned to
       Ireland. It seems to me more likely that about 27,000
       Protestants were murdered by the sword, gun, rope, drowning,
       &c., in the first three or four years of the rebellion. The
       evidence of the depositions, after deducting all doubtful
       exaggerations, leaves little doubt that the number so
       destroyed could hardly have been less than 25,000 at all
       events. But the truth is that no accurate estimate is
       possible. After the Portnaw massacre the Protestants,
       especially the Scotch, took an awful vengeance on their
       enemies. Henceforward one side vied in cruelty with the
       other."

          M. Hickson,
          Ireland in the 17th Century,
          introduction, page 163.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carte,
          Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
          book 3 (chapters 1-2).

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 6 (volume 2).

          T. Leland,
          History of Ireland,
          book 5, chapters 3-4 (volume 3).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1643.
       The king makes Peace with the rebels.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1645.
       King Charles' treaty with the Catholics.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.
       The Rebels become Royalists.

       "The truce [offered by King Charles to the rebels in 1643]
       appears to have been well observed by each party, and resulted
       in a treaty of peace which was signed in July, 1646, by which
       the Roman Catholics obtained every demand which they put
       forward. This peace was nevertheless at once broken, and
       Ormond (who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant in January,
       1643) was closely besieged in Dublin by a force, headed by
       Cardinal Rinuccini, the Papal Nuncio, who had assumed the
       command of the Irish Catholics. Finding himself in so
       dangerous a position, Ormond, by express direction from the
       king, offered his submission to the English Parliament, to
       whom he surrendered Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, and such other
       garrisons as remained in his hands. This transaction was
       completed on the 25th of July, 1647, when Colonel Jones took
       command of Dublin for the Parliament, and was made by them
       Commander-in-Chief in Ireland; his total force however
       amounted to but 5,000 men. The war now continued with varying
       success, the commanders for the Parliament being, in addition
       to Jones, Monk in Ulster and Lord Inchiquin in Munster;
    {1768}
       The latter in 1648 joined Ormond, who in September, upon the
       invitation of the Catholics, returned to Ireland, the Papal
       Nuncio having been driven from the country by his own party,
       who were alienated from him by his folly and insolence. At the
       end of 1648 there were therefore two parties in Ireland; the
       Parliamentary, which had been the English, holding Dublin and
       a few garrisons, and the Catholics, who, formerly rebels, were
       now held as Royalists, and whose new leader Ormond, on the
       death of Charles I., proclaimed the Prince of Wales, on the
       16th of February, 1649, at Carrick, as King of England,
       Scotland, France, and Ireland. The English Parliament now at
       last resolved to put an end to disorder in Ireland, and with
       this object, in March, 1649, appointed Cromwell to the supreme
       command." Before Cromwell arrived in Ireland, however, the
       Irish Royalists had reduced every garrisoned place except
       Dublin and Londonderry, defeating Monk, who held Dundalk, but
       being defeated (August 2) by Jones when they laid siege to the
       capital. Though fought at the gates of Dublin, this was called
       the battle of Rathmines, Ormond retreated with a loss of 4,000
       killed and 2,500 prisoners.

          N. L. Walford,
          Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carte,
          Life of James Duke of Ormond,
          books 4-5 (volume 3).

          D. Murphy,
          Cromwell in Ireland,
          chapters 1-3.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
       Cromwell's campaign.
       The slaughter at Drogheda and Wexford.

       'When Cromwell arrived in Ireland at the head of 12,000 men,
       he found almost the whole country under the power of the
       Royalists (August 15th). A Parliamentary garrison in Dublin
       itself had only escaped a siege by surprising the enemy on the
       banks of the Liffey (August 2nd). The general first marched
       against Drogheda, then called Droghdagh or Tredah, and
       summoned the garrison to surrender; Sir Arthur Ashton, the
       governor, refused; he had 3,000 of the choicest troops of the
       confederates and enough provisions to enable him to hold out
       till winter should compel the enemy to raise the siege. But
       within twenty-four hours the English batteries had made a
       breach in the wall, Oliver, after twice seeing his soldiers
       beaten off, led them on in person and carried the breach. A
       terrible massacre followed. 'Being in the heat of action I
       forbade them,' Cromwell wrote in his despatch to the
       Parliament, 'to spare any that were in arms in the town; and I
       think that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men.' Of
       these, one-half probably fell in the streets; the other half
       Cromwell describes as having been slain at early dawn in St.
       Peter's Church. This he looks upon as a judgment for their
       previous proceedings there. 'It is remarkable,' he writes,
       'that these people at first set up the mass in some places of
       the town that had been monasteries; but afterwards grew so
       insolent that, the last Lord's day before the storm, the
       Protestants were thrust out of the great church called St.
       Peter's, and they had public mass there; and in this very
       place near 1,000 of them were put to the sword, fleeing
       thither for safety. I believe all the friars were knocked on
       the head promiscuously but two.' … Royalist accounts assert
       that many hundreds of women and children were slain in St.
       Peter's Church: It is, of course, possible that some of the
       townspeople, fleeing thither for safety, lost their lives in
       the general massacre of the garrison. There is, however, no
       trustworthy witness for any lives being taken except those of
       soldiers and friars. Cromwell did not sanction the killing of
       any but those with arms in their hands, though he seems to
       have approved of the fate of the friars. The fanatical zeal of
       his letter, and the fact that he takes the full credit, or
       discredit, for the slaughter of the garrison; makes it
       improbable that he concealed anything; and this substantiated
       by his subsequent declaration, in which he gives this
       challenge:—'Give us an instance of one man, since my coming
       into Ireland, not in arms, massacred, destroyed, or banished,
       concerning the massacre or the destruction of whom justice
       hath not been done, or endeavoured to be done.' With the
       enemy's troops Cromwell carried out the determined mode of
       warfare which he began at Drogheda. They were mostly scattered
       over the country, occupied in garrison duty. Before whatever
       town he came he demanded immediate surrender, or threatened to
       refuse quarter. Town after town opened its gates to this grim
       summons. Wexford, which refused to surrender, was stormed, and
       the whole garrison, 2,000 in number, put to the sword (October
       11th). … In other respects, while Cromwell's rigour and
       determination saved bloodshed in the end by the rapidity and
       completeness of his conquests, his conduct in Ireland
       contrasted favourably on many points with that of the
       Royalists there. His own soldiers, for ill-using the people
       contrary to regulations, were sometimes cashiered the army,
       sometimes hanged. When a treaty was made, he kept faithfully
       to its terms. Garrisons that yielded on summons were allowed
       either to march away with arms and baggage, or else to go
       abroad and enter the service of any government at peace with
       England. Before the war was over he had rid the country, on
       these terms, of some 45,000 soldiers. Taking advantage of the
       divisions of his enemies, he persuaded several garrisons of
       English soldiers to desert the cause of Charles Stuart for the
       Commonwealth. His conduct of the war was so successful that,
       during the nine months of his stay in Ireland, the forces of
       the Royalists were shattered, and the provinces of Leinster
       and Munster recovered for the Parliament. Cromwell returned to
       England in May, 1650, leaving his son-in-law Ireton to
       complete the conquest of the country. The last garrisons in
       Ulster and Munster surrendered during the course of the
       ensuing summer and autumn. Ireton crossed the Shannon and
       drove the Irish back into the bogs and mountain fastnesses of
       Connaught, their last refuge, where fighting still continued
       for two years after all the rest of the country had been
       reduced (1651-2)."

          B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
          King and Commonwealth,
          chapter 12.

       "No admiration for Cromwell, for his genius, courage, and
       earnestness—no sympathy with the cause that he upheld in
       England—can blind us to the truth, that the lurid light of
       this great crime [the massacre at Drogheda] burns still after
       centuries across the history of England and of Ireland; that
       it is one of those damning charges which the Puritan theology
       has yet to answer at the bar of humanity."

          F. Harrison,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 8.

    {1769}

       "Oliver's proceedings here [at Drogheda] have been the theme
       of much loud criticism, and sibylline execration; into which
       it is not our plan to enter at present. … To those who think
       that a land overrun with Sanguinary Quacks can be healed by
       sprinkling it with rose-water, these letters must be very
       horrible. Terrible Surgery this: but is it Surgery and
       Judgment, or atrocious Murder merely? That is a question which
       should be asked; and answered. Oliver Cromwell did believe in
       God's Judgments; and did not believe in the rose-water plan of
       Surgery;—which, in fact, is this Editor's case too. … Here
       is a man whose word represents a thing! Not bluster this, and
       false jargon scattering itself to the winds: what this man
       speaks out of him comes to pass as a fact; speech with this
       man is accurately prophetic of deed. This is the first King's
       face poor Ireland ever saw; the first Friend's face, little as
       it recognises him,—poor Ireland! … To our Irish friends we
       ought to say likewise that this Garrison of Tredah consisted,
       in good part, of Englishmen. Perfectly certain this:—and
       therefore let 'the bloody hoof of the Saxon,' &c., forbear to
       continue itself on that matter."

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 5.

       "Cromwell met with little resistance: wherever he came, he
       held out the promise of life and liberty of conscience; …
       liberty of conscience he explained to mean liberty of internal
       belief, not of external worship; … but the rejection of the
       offer, though it were afterwards accepted, was punished with
       the blood of the officers; and, if the place were taken by
       force, with indiscriminate slaughter."

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 10, chapter 5, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Murphy,
          Cromwell in Ireland.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1651.
       The Massachusetts colonists invited to Ireland by Cromwell.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1652.
       The Kilkenny Articles.

       "On 12th May, 1652, the Leinster army of the Irish surrendered
       on terms signed at Kilkenny, which were adopted successively
       by the other principal armies between that time and the
       September following, when the Ulster forces surrendered. By
       these Kilkenny articles, all except those who were guilty of
       the first blood were received into protection, on laying down
       their arms; those who should not be satisfied with the
       conclusions the Parliament might come to concerning the Irish
       nation, and should desire to transport themselves with their
       men to serve any foreign state in amity with the Parliament,
       should have liberty to treat with their agents for that
       purpose."

          J. P. Prendergast,
          The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,
          part 1, section 2.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1653.
       The Cromwellian Settlement.

       "By the term Cromwellian Settlement is to be understood the
       history of the dealings of the Commonwealth of England with
       the lands and habitations of the people of Ireland after their
       conquest of the country in the year 1652. … The officers of
       the army were eager to take Irish lands in lieu of their
       arrears, though it does not appear that the common soldiers
       were, who had small debentures and no capital, and no chance
       of founding families and leaving estates to their posterity.
       But the adventurers [national creditors, who had loaned money
       to the government for the Irish War] must be first settled
       with, as they had a claim to about one million of acres, to
       satisfy the sums advanced for putting down the rebellion on
       the faith of the Act of 17 Charles I. (A. D. 1642), and
       subsequent Acts and Ordinances, commonly called 'The Acts of
       Subscription.' By these, lands for the adventurers must be
       first ascertained, before the rest of the country could be
       free for disposal by the Parliament to the army. … Towards
       the close of the year 1653, the island seemed sufficiently
       desolated to allow the English to occupy it. On the 26th of
       September in that year, the Parliament passed an Act for the
       new planting of Ireland with English. The government reserved
       for themselves all the towns, all the church lands and tithes;
       for they abolished all archbishops, bishops, deans, and other
       officers, belonging to that hierarchy, and in those days the
       Church of Christ sat in Chichester House on College-green.
       They reserved also for themselves the four counties of Dublin,
       Kildare, Carlow, and Cork. Out of the lands and tithes thus
       reserved, the government were to satisfy public debts, private
       favourites, eminent friends of the republican cause in
       Parliament, regicides, and the most active of the English
       rebels, not being of the army. They next made ample provision
       for the adventurers. The amount due to the adventurers was
       £360,000. This they divided into three lots, of which £110,000
       was to be satisfied in Munster, £205,000 in Leinster, and
       £45,000 in Ulster, and the moiety of ten counties was charged
       with their payment:—Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary, in
       Munster; Meath, Westmeath, King's and Queen's Counties, in
       Leinster; and Antrim, Down, and Armagh, in Ulster. But, as all
       was required by the Adventurers Act to be done by lot, a
       lottery was appointed to be held in Grocers' Hall, London, for
       the 20th July, 1653. … A lot was then to be drawn by the
       adventurers, and by some officer appointed by the Lord General
       Cromwell on behalf of the soldiery, to ascertain which
       baronies in the ten counties should be for the adventurers,
       and which for the soldiers. The rest of Ireland, except
       Connaught, was to be set out amongst the officers and
       soldiers, for their arrears, amounting to £1,550,000, and to
       satisfy debts of money or provisions due for supplies advanced
       to the army of the Commonwealth, amounting to £1,750,000.
       Connaught was by the Parliament reserved and appointed for the
       habitation of the Irish nation; and all English and
       Protestants having lands there, who should desire to remove
       out of Connaught into the provinces inhabited by the English,
       were to receive estates in the English parts, of equal value,
       in exchange. … The Earl of Ormond, Primate Bramhall, and all
       the Catholic nobility, and many of the gentry, were declared
       incapable of pardon of life or estate, and were banished. …
       Connaught was selected for the habitation of all the Irish
       nation by reason of its being surrounded by the sea and the
       Shannon, all but ten miles, and the whole easily made into one
       line by a few forts. To further secure the imprisonment of the
       nation, and cut them off from relief by sea, a belt four miles
       wide, commencing one mile to the west of Sligo, and so winging
       along the coast and Shannon, was reserved by the Act of 27th
       September, 1653, from being set out to the Irish, and was
       given to the soldiery to plant. Thither all the Irish were to
       remove at latest by the first day of May, 1654, except Irish
       women married to English Protestants before the 2d December,
       1650, provided they became Protestants; except, also, boys
       under fourteen and girls under twelve, in Protestant service
       and to be brought up Protestants; and, lastly, those who had
       shown during the ten years' war in Ireland their constant good
       affection to the Parliament of England in preference to the
       king.
    {1770}
       There they were to dwell without entering a walled town, or
       coming within five miles of some, on pain of death. All were
       to remove thither by the 1st of May, 1654, at latest, under
       pain of being put to death by sentence of a court of military
       officers, if found after that date on the English side of the
       Shannon." In the actual enforcement of the law—found
       impracticable in all its rigor—there were many special
       dispensations granted, and extensions of time.

          J. P. Prendergast,
          The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,
          preface, and parts 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          The English in Ireland in the 18th Century,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 10, chapter 6.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1655.
       Cromwell's deportation of Girls to Jamaica.

          See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
       The restored Stuarts and their Act of Settlement.

       "On the fall of Richard Cromwell, a council of officers was
       established in Dublin; these summoned a convention of deputies
       from the protestant proprietors; and the convention tendered
       to Charles the obedience of his ancient kingdom of Ireland.
       … To secure the royal protection, they made the king an
       offer of a considerable sum of money, assured him, though
       falsely, that the Irish Catholics meditated a general
       insurrection, and prayed him to summon a protestant parliament
       in Ireland, which might confirm the existing proprietors in
       the undisturbed possession of their estates. The present was
       graciously accepted, and the penal laws against the Irish
       Catholics were ordered to be strictly enforced; but Charles
       was unwilling to call a parliament, because it would
       necessarily consist of men whose principles, both civil and
       religious, he had been taught to distrust. The first measure
       recommended to him by his English advisers, with respect to
       Ireland, was the re-establishment of episcopacy. For this no
       legislative enactment was requisite. His return had given to
       the ancient laws their pristine authority. … In a short time
       the episcopal hierarchy was quietly restored to the enjoyment
       of its former rights, and the exercise of its former
       jurisdiction. To this, a work of easy accomplishment,
       succeeded a much more difficult attempt,—the settlement of
       landed property in Ireland. The military, whom it was
       dangerous to disoblige, and the adventurers, whose pretensions
       had been sanctioned by Charles I., demanded the royal
       confirmation of the titles by which they held their estates;
       and the demand was opposed by a multitude of petitioners
       claiming restitution or compensation [protestant royalists,
       loyal Catholics, &c.]. … Humanity, gratitude, and justice,
       called on the king to listen to many of these claims. … From
       an estimate delivered to the king, it appeared that there
       still remained at his disposal forfeited lands of the yearly
       rental of from eighty to one hundred thousand pounds; a fund
       sufficiently ample, it was contended, to 'reprize' or
       compensate all the Irish really deserving of the royal favour.
       Under this impression, Charles published his celebrated
       declaration for the settlement of Ireland. It provided that no
       person deriving his title from the adventurers under the
       parliament, or the soldiers under the commonwealth, should be
       disturbed in the possession of his lands, without receiving an
       equivalent from the fund for reprisals; that all innocents,
       whether protestants or Catholics, that is, persons who had
       never adhered either to the parliament or the confederates,
       should be restored to their rightful estates." After much
       contention between deputations from both sides sent to the
       king, an act was passed through the Irish parliament
       substantially according to the royal declaration. "But to
       execute this act was found to be a task of considerable
       difficulty. By improvident grants of lands to the church, the
       dukes of York, Ormond, and Albemarle, the earls of Orrery,
       Montrath, Kingston, Massarene, and several others, the fund
       for reprisals had been almost exhausted." New controversies
       and agitations arose, which finally induced the soldiers,
       adventurers, and grantees of the crown to surrender one third
       of their acquisitions, for the augmenting of the fund for
       reprisals. "The king, by this measure, was placed in a
       situation [August, 1665], not indeed to do justice, but to
       silence the most importunate or most deserving among the
       petitioners. … But when compensation had thus been made to a
       few of the sufferers, what, it may be asked, became of the
       officers who had followed the royal fortune abroad, or of the
       3,000 Catholics who had entered their claims of innocence? To
       all these, the promises which had been made by the act of
       settlement were broken; the unfortunate claimants were
       deprived of their rights, and debarred from all hope of future
       relief. A measure of such sweeping and appalling oppression is
       perhaps without a parallel in the history of civilized
       nations. Its injustice could not be denied; and the only
       apology offered in its behalf was the stern necessity of
       quieting the fears and jealousies of the Cromwellian settlers,
       and of establishing on a permanent basis the protestant
       ascendancy in Ireland. … The following is the general
       result. The protestants were previously [i. e., before the
       Cromwellian Settlement] in possession of about one moiety of
       all the profitable lands in the island; of the second moiety,
       which had been forfeited under the commonwealth, something
       less than two-thirds was by the act confirmed to the
       protestants; and of the remainder a portion almost equal in
       quantity, but not in quality, to one-third, was appropriated
       to the Catholics."

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 11, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          The English in Ireland,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          T. Carte,
          Life of James Duke of Ormond,
          book 6 (volume 4).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
       The reign of James II.
       Domination of Tyrconnel and the Catholics.

       "At the accession of James II., in 1685, he found the native
       Irish, all of whom were Roman Catholics, opposed to the
       English rule, as to that of a conquering minority. … Of the
       settlers, the Scotch Presbyterians shared the feelings of
       their brethren in their native country, and hated
       Episcopalians with the true religious fury. In the Irish
       Parliament the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were nearly
       balanced, whilst the Protestant Nonconformists, in numbers
       almost equalling the other two parties, had but few seats in
       the Parliament. The Episcopalians alone were hearty supporters
       of the house of Stuart; the Presbyterians and Nonconformists
       were Whigs. James was in a most favourable position for
       tranquilising Ireland, for, as a Roman Catholic, he was much
       more acceptable to the native Irish than his predecessors had
       been.
    {1771}
       Had he followed his true interests, he would have endeavoured,
       firstly, to unite together, as firmly as possible, the English
       settlers in Ireland, and secondly, by wise acts of mediation,
       to bridge over the differences between the English and Irish.
       Thus he might have welded them into one people. James,
       however, followed a directly opposite policy, and the results
       of this misgovernment of Ireland are visible at the present
       day. The Duke of Ormond was at the time of the death of
       Charles II. both lord lieutenant and commander of the forces.
       … Soon after his accession James recalled him, and the
       office of lord lieutenant was bestowed on his own
       brother-in-law, Lord Clarendon, whilst the post of general of
       the troops was given to Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel.
       Talbot … was a coarse, vulgar, truculent ruffian, greedy and
       unprincipled; but in the eyes of James he had great virtues,
       for he was devoted to the Romish Church and to his sovereign.
       'Lying Dick Talbot,' as he was called, was raised by James to
       the peerage as Earl of Tyrconnel. Lord Clarendon was, from the
       time of his appointment, hampered by his associate," who,
       finally, in 1687, supplanted him, gathering the reins of
       government into his own hands, "not indeed as lord lieutenant,
       but with the power which Ormond had formerly held, although
       under a new title, that of lord deputy. The rule of Tyrconnel
       entirely subverted the old order of things. Protestants were
       disarmed and Protestant soldiers were disbanded. The militia
       was composed wholly of Roman Catholics. The dispensing power
       in the royal prerogative set aside the statutes of the
       kingdom, and the bench and privy council were occupied by
       Roman Catholics. Vacant bishoprics of the Established Church
       remained unfilled, and their revenues were devoted to Romish
       priests. Tithes were with impunity withheld from the clergy of
       the Establishment. … The hatred of the Irish Roman Catholics
       towards the Protestant settlers was excited to the utmost
       under Tyrconnel's rule. The former now hoped to mete out to
       the latter a full measure of retaliation. The breach was
       widened owing to the fear and distrust openly showed by the
       Protestants, and has never since been effectually repaired."
       Before the occurrence of the Revolution which drove James from
       his throne, in 1688, "Tyrconnel had disarmed all the
       Protestants, except those in the North. He had a large force
       of 20,000 men under arms, and of this force all the officers
       were trustworthy and Papists. He had filled the corporations
       of the towns with adherents of James. He had shown himself to
       be, as ever, tyrannical and unscrupulous. It was universally
       believed by the Protestants that a general massacre, a second
       St. Bartholomew, was intended. Even a day, December 9, was,
       they thought, fixed for the expected outbreak. The garrison of
       Londonderry had been temporarily withdrawn. On December 8,
       Lord Antrim arrived in command of 12,000 [1,200?] soldiers to
       form the new garrison. Without any warning, the Protestant
       apprentices ('the prentice boys of Derry') shut the gates of
       the city in his face. The inhabitants, in spite of the
       entreaties of the bishop and of the town council, refused to
       allow them to be opened. Antrim was compelled to withdraw.
       Thus one rallying-point was gained for the opponents of James.
       Another was found in Enniskillen, sixty miles south of
       Londonderry. Into these two towns poured all the Protestants
       from the surrounding districts. With these two exceptions, the
       boast of Tyrconnel that Ireland was true, was well founded."

          E. Hale,
          The Fall of the Stuarts,
          chapters 10 and 13.

       "He [James II.] deliberately resolved, not merely to give to
       the aboriginal inhabitants of Ireland the entire dominion of
       their own country, but also to use them as his instruments for
       setting up arbitrary government in England. The event was such
       as might have been foreseen. The colonists turned to bay with
       the stubborn hardihood of their race. The mother country
       justly regarded their cause as her own. Then came a desperate
       struggle for a tremendous stake. … The contest was terrible
       but short. The weaker went down. His fate was cruel; and yet
       for the cruelty with which he was treated there was, not
       indeed a defence, but an excuse: for though he suffered all
       that tyranny could inflict, he suffered nothing that he would
       not himself have inflicted. The effect of the insane attempt
       to subjugate England by means of Ireland was that the Irish
       became hewers of wood and drawers of water to the English. …
       The momentary ascendency of Popery produced such a series of
       barbarous laws against Popery as made the statute book of
       Ireland a proverb of infamy throughout Christendom. Such were
       the bitter fruits of the policy of James."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 6 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. O'Flanagan,
          Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland,
          chapter 28 (volume 1).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.
       Enniskillen and the Battle of Newton Butler.

       Enniskillen, then a village, surrounding an ancient castle,
       was, in 1688-89, one of the two rallying points of the
       Protestant colonists in Ireland, who supported the Revolution
       by which James II. was dethroned and William and Mary were
       crowned. The chief stronghold of their cause was Londonderry;
       but Enniskillen bore a scarcely less important part. "In
       December, 1688, Tyrconnel's troops, being two companies of
       Popish infantry, advanced upon Enniskillen. The inhabitants,
       reinforced by 200 foot and 150 horse, contributed by the
       neighbouring gentry, marched out to oppose them. Tyrconnel's
       men fled to Cavan. The Enniskilleners, then, arming themselves
       as well as they could, and converting all the country-houses
       round Lough Erne into garrisons, appointed Gustavus Hamilton
       their governor and resolved upon defence. … Early in May,
       1689, the Enniskilleners routed Tyrconnel's troops, sent from
       Connaught into Donegal. They next drove 1,500 men out of the
       County Cavan—destroyed the Castle of Ballincarrig—and then
       entered the County Meath, whence they carried off oxen and
       sheep. Colonel Hugh Sutherland was sent with a regiment of
       dragoons and two regiments of foot against the Enniskilleners,
       who, however, defeated them, and took Belturbet, where they
       found muskets, gunpowder, and provisions; but unfortunately
       they were unable to relieve Derry, then beleaguered and sorely
       distressed. The Enniskilleners held out against all attacks,
       and refused all terms of surrender. They were now assailed
       from various points; by Macarthy (then by James created
       Viscount Mountcashel) from the east, by another body from the
       west, and by the Duke of Berwick from the north.
    {1772}
       The Enniskilleners sent to Colonel Kirke [commanding the
       English forces first sent to Ireland by William of Orange] who
       had arrived in Lough Foyle, and received from him some arms
       and ammunition; and Colonel Wolseley and Lieutenant-Colonel
       Berry came from him to their assistance. Colonel Wolseley took
       the command." Under Wolseley, the men of Enniskillen, 3,000
       strong, encountered 5,000 of the enemy, under Mountcashel,
       near the town of Newton Butler, on the 31st of July, three
       days after Derry had been relieved. Their victory was
       complete. "The whole Irish force was totally and hopelessly
       routed. Their slaughter was dreadful—l,500 killed, and 500
       drowned in Lough Erne, whither they were driven. Mountcashel
       was wounded and taken prisoner. The Enniskilleners lost only
       twenty killed and fifty wounded. They took 400 prisoners, some
       cannons, fourteen barrels of gunpowder, and all the colours
       and drums. … The victory became known at Strabane to the
       Irish army retreating from Derry, which thereupon broke up in
       confusion and fled to Omagh, and thence to Charlemont."

          W. H. Torriano,
          William the Third,
          chapter 21.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 12 (volume 3).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
       The War of the Revolution.
       The Orange conquest.

       Supported by a French fleet, supplied moderately with French
       gold, and accompanied by a picked body of French officers, for
       the organizing and disciplining of raw Irish troops, James II.
       landed in Ireland, at Kinsale, on the 12th of March, 1689, to
       take personal possession of the government still maintained
       there in his name. From Kinsale he hastened to Dublin, "and
       summoned a Parliament, which met on May 7, 1689, and sat until
       July 18. This Parliament of James has been described as a
       Parliament of Irish Celts, yet out of the 228 members of the
       House of Commons about one-fourth only belonged to the native
       race, and even including members of families Anglicized or of
       doubtful origin, not one-third of the House of Commons
       belonged to the so-called Celts. Of the thirty-two lay peers
       who attended, not more than two or three bore old Irish names.
       The four spiritual peers were Protestant bishops."

          W. K. Sullivan,
          part 1, of Two Centuries of Irish History
          chapter 1.

       "The members of the House of Commons were almost all new men,
       completely inexperienced in public business and animated by
       the resentment of the bitterest wrongs. Many of them were sons
       of some of the 3,000 proprietors who without trial and without
       compensation had been deprived by the Act of Settlement of the
       estates of their ancestors. To all of them the confiscations
       of Ulster, the fraud of Strafford, the long train of
       calamities that followed were recent and vivid events. … It
       will hardly appear surprising to candid men that a Parliament
       so constituted and called together amid the excitement of a
       civil war, should have displayed much violence, much disregard
       for vested interests. Its measures, indeed, were not all
       criminal. By one Act which was far in advance of the age, it
       established perfect religious liberty in Ireland. … By
       another Act, repealing Poynings' law, and asserting its own
       legislative independence, it anticipated the doctrine of
       Molyneux, Swift, and Grattan. … A third measure abolished
       the payments to Protestant clergy in the corporate towns,
       while a fourth ordered that the Catholics throughout Ireland
       should henceforth pay their tithes and other ecclesiastical
       dues to their own priests and not to the Protestant clergy.
       The Protestants were still to pay their tithes to their own
       clergy. … Several other measures—most of them now only
       known by their titles—were passed for developing the
       resources of the country or remedying some great abuse. … If
       these had been the only measures of the Irish Parliament it
       would have left an eminently honourable reputation. But,
       unfortunately, one of its main objects was to re-establish at
       all costs the descendants of the old proprietors in their
       land, and to annul by measures of sweeping violence the
       grievous wrongs and spoliations their fathers and their
       grandfathers had undergone. The first and most important
       measure with this object was the repeal of the Acts of
       Settlement and Explanation. … The preamble asserts that the
       outbreak of 1641 had been solely due to the intolerable
       oppression and to the disloyal conduct of the Lords Justices
       and Puritan party, that the Catholics of Ireland before the
       struggle had concluded had been fully reconciled to the
       sovereign, that they had received from the sovereign a full
       and formal pardon, and that the royal word had been in
       consequence pledged to the restitution of their properties.
       This pledge by the Act of Settlement had been to a great
       extent broken, and the Irish legislators maintained that the
       twenty-four years which had elapsed since that Act had not
       annulled the rights of the old proprietors or their
       descendants. They maintained that these claims were not only
       valid but were prior to all others, and they accordingly
       enacted that the heirs of all persons who had possessed landed
       property in Ireland on October 22, 1641, and who had been
       deprived of their inheritance by the Act of Settlement, should
       enter at once into possession of their old properties. … The
       long succession of confiscations of Irish land which had taken
       place from the days of Mary to the Act of Settlement had been
       mainly based upon real or pretended plots of the owners of the
       soil, which enabled the Government, on the plea of high
       treason, to appropriate the land which they desired. In 1689
       the great bulk of the English proprietors of Irish soil were
       in actual correspondence with William, and were therefore
       legally guilty of high treason. The Irish legislators now
       proceeded to follow the example of the British Governments,
       and by a clause of extreme severity they pronounced the real
       estates of all Irish proprietors who dwelt in any part of the
       three kingdoms which did not acknowledge King James, or who
       aided, abetted or corresponded with the rebels, to be
       forfeited and vested in the Crown, and from this source they
       proposed to compensate the purchasers under the Act of
       Settlement. … The measure of repeal, however, was speedily
       followed by another Act of much more sweeping and violent
       injustice. The Act of Attainder, which was introduced in the
       latter part of June, aimed at nothing less than a complete
       overthrow of the existing land system in Ireland. A list
       divided into several groups, but containing in all more than
       2,000 names, was drawn up of landowners who were to be
       attainted of high treason. …
    {1773}
       Few persons will question the tyranny of an Act which in this
       manner made a very large proportion of the Irish landlords
       liable to the penalties of high treason, unless they could
       prove their innocence, even though the only crime that could
       be alleged against them was that of living out of Ireland in a
       time of civil war. … It is … a curious illustration of the
       carelessness or partiality with which Irish history is
       written, that no popular historian has noticed that five days
       before this Act, which has been described as 'without a
       parallel in the history of civilised countries,' was
       introduced into the Irish Parliament, a Bill which appears, in
       its essential characteristics, to have been precisely similar
       was introduced into the Parliament of England; that it passed
       the English House of Commons; that it passed, with slight
       amendments, the English House of Lords; and that it was only
       lost, in its last stage, by a prorogation. … These facts
       will show how far the Irish Act of Attainder was from having
       the unique character that has been ascribed to it. It is not
       possible to say how that Act would have been executed, for the
       days of Jacobite ascendency were now few and evil. The
       Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of July, one of its last
       Acts being to vest in the King the property of those who were
       still absentees."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 6 (volume 2).

       While James' Irish Parliament sat, "sufficient men had
       presented themselves to form fifty regiments of infantry and a
       proportionate number of cavalry. But … these levies were
       undisciplined, and their officers, with few exceptions, were
       without military training and experience. There were no
       arsenals, and in the government stores only about 1,000
       serviceable firearms were found; there was no artillery and no
       supply of ammunition. … What coin was in circulation was
       small in quantity and debased in quality. James's Government
       issued a brass coinage, which had no currency outside the
       kingdom, and even within it practically circulated only among
       the partisans of James, and could not consequently help in
       purchasing arms, ammunition, and military stores, which had to
       be imported from without. Under such unfavourable
       circumstances the war began. The first campaign comprised the
       siege, or rather blockade, of Derry—for the Irish, having no
       artillery, could not undertake a regular siege—which was
       gallantly defended by the Scoto-English colonists; the check
       of Mountcashel by the Enniskilleners, who had followed the
       example of Derry; the landing of Schomberg with an army of
       Dutch, French Protestants, and English, who went into winter
       quarters near Dundalk, where he lost nearly half his troops
       from sickness; and, lastly, the military parade of James, who
       marched out from Dublin, and, failing to force Schomberg to
       fight, went into winter quarters himself. The result of the
       campaign was the successful defence of Derry, and the signal
       exhibition of James's incapacity as a general. At the opening
       of the second campaign, an exchange of troops was made between
       James and Louis XIV., with the view of giving prestige to the
       cause of the former. Six thousand French troops, under a
       drawing-room general, the well-known Comte de Lauzun, arrived
       in Ireland, and the same ships carried back an equal number of
       Irish troops—the brigade of Mountcashel, the best-trained and
       best-equipped body of troops in the Irish army. … The wasted
       army of Schomberg was strengthened by the arrival of William
       himself on June 14, 1690, with a considerable force. The
       united armies, composed of the most heterogeneous materials,
       one-half being foreigners of various nationalities, amounted
       to between 36,000 and 48,000 men. … To meet William, James
       set out from Dublin with an army of about 23,000 men. The
       French troops and the Irish cavalry were good, but the
       infantry was not well trained, and the artillery consisted
       only of twelve field-pieces. The battle took place on July 1,
       1690, at the passage of the River Boyne, a few miles above
       Drogheda the rout of James's army being complete and its loss
       about 1,500 men. William lost but 500; but the number included
       Schomberg, one of the great soldiers of his age. James was
       among the first in the flight, and he scarcely paused until he
       had put himself on board of a French frigate and quitted
       Ireland forever]. The Irish fell back on Dublin and thence
       retired behind the line of the Shannon. About 20,000
       half-armed infantry and about 3,500 horse concentrated at
       Limerick. The English having failed in taking Athlone, the key
       of the upper Shannon, William gathered together about 38,000
       men in the neighbourhood of Limerick. Lauzun having declared
       that Limerick could not be defended, and might be taken with
       roasted apples, withdrew with the whole of the French troops
       to Galway, to await the first opportunity of returning to
       France. On August 9, 1690, William moved his whole army close
       to the town and summoned the garrison to surrender; but having
       failed, with a loss of 2,000 men, to carry the town by
       assault, he raised the siege and went to England. The third
       and last campaign began late in 1691. The Irish received many
       promises of assistance from Louis XIV., but his ministers
       fulfilled few or none of them. With scarcely any loss of men,
       and with a small expenditure of stores and money, the Irish
       war enabled Louis to keep William and a veteran army of 40,000
       men out of his way. … The campaign opened in the beginning
       of June with the advance of Ginkel [William's general] on
       Athlone. The chief defence of the place was the River Shannon,
       the works being weak, and mounting only a few field-pieces;
       yet so obstinately was the place defended that, but for the
       discovery of a ford, and some neglect on the part of D'Usson,
       who commanded, it is probable that the siege would have been
       raised. As it was, Ginkel became master of the heap of ruins.
       … St. Ruth [the French officer commanding the Irish] moved
       his camp to Aughrim [or Aghrim], and there was fought the
       final battle of the war on Sunday, July 12, 1691. … St. Ruth
       was killed at a critical moment, and his army defeated, with a
       loss of about 4,000 men, the English loss being about half
       that number. Part of the defeated Irish infantry retreated to
       Galway; but the bulk of the troops, including the whole of the
       cavalry, fell back on Limerick, which surrendered, after a
       gallant resistance, in October, 1691."

          W. K. Sullivan,
          part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapters 12, 16 and 17.

          W. H. Torriano,
          William the Third,
          chapters 5 and 21-23.

          J. A. Froude,
          The English in Ireland,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          W. A. O'Conor,
          History of the Irish People,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

          Sir J. Dalrymple,
          Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
          part 2, books 2-5 (volume 2).

    {1774}

    IRELAND: A. D. 1691.
       The Treaty of Limerick and its violation.

       The surrender of Limerick was under the terms of a treaty—or
       of two treaties, one military, the other civil—formally
       negotiated for the terminating of the war. This Treaty of
       Limerick was signed, October 3, 1691, by Baron De Ginkel,
       William's general, and by the lords justices of Ireland, on
       behalf of the English, and by Sarsfield and other chieftains
       on behalf of the Irish. "Its chief provisions were: 'The Roman
       Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the
       exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of
       Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles
       II.; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit
       them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to
       procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that
       particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the
       account of their said religion. All the inhabitants or
       residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the
       possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in
       arms under any commission of King James, or those authorized
       by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick,
       Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, and all the
       commissioned officers in their Majesties' quarters that belong
       to the Irish regiments now in being that are treated with and
       who are not prisoners of war, or having taken protection, and
       who shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, and
       their and every of their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy
       all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance; and
       all the rights, titles, and interest, privileges and
       immunities, which they, or every or any of them, held,
       enjoyed, and were rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the
       reign of King Charles II.' … A general pardon was to be
       granted to all persons comprised within the treaty, and the
       Lords Justices and the generals commanding King William's army
       were to use their best endeavours to get the attainders of any
       of them attainted repealed. … In the copy of the rough draft
       engrossed for signature the following words, 'and all such as
       are under their protection in the said counties,' which
       immediately followed the enumeration of the several counties
       in the second article, were omitted. This omission, whether
       the result of design or accident, was, however, rectified by
       King William when confirming the treaty in February, 1692. The
       confirming instrument stated that the words had been casually
       omitted; that the omission was not discovered till the
       articles were signed, but was taken notice of before the town
       was surrendered; and that the Lords Justices or General
       Ginkel, or one of them, had promised that the clause should be
       made good, since it was within the intention of the
       capitulation, and had been inserted in the rough draft.
       William then for himself did 'ratify and confirm the said
       omitted words.' The colonists, or at all events the 'new
       interests'—that is, those who shared or expected to share in
       the confiscations—were indignant at the concessions made to
       the native race."

          W. K. Sullivan,
          part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
          chapter 1.

       "The advantages secured to Catholics by the Treaty of Limerick
       were moderate. But when the flower of the Irish army had
       withdrawn to France, and the remnant could be hanged without
       ceremony, they began to look inordinate. The parliament of
       Cromwellian settlers and Government officials in Dublin having
       excluded Catholic members, by requiring from them an oath of
       abjuration, in direct infringement of one of the articles of
       surrender, were free to proceed at their discretion. They
       first passed a stringent statute depriving Catholics of arms,
       and another ordering all 'Popish archbishops, bishops,
       vicars-general, deans, Jesuits, monks, friars, and regulars of
       whatever condition to depart from the kingdom on pain of
       transportation,' and then proceeded to consider the treaty.
       They … resolved by a decisive majority not to keep the
       conditions affecting the Catholics. William … struggled for
       a time to preserve his honour; but it is not convenient for a
       new king to be in conflict with his friends, and after a time
       he gave way. … In Ireland the Treaty of Limerick can never
       be forgotten; it is one of the title deeds of the Irish race
       to their inheritance in their native land. For more than a
       century its sordid and shameless violation was as common a
       reproach to England on the Continent as the partition of
       Poland has been a reproach to Russia in our own day."

          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
          pages 155-156
          (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland").

       "The Protestant rancour of parliament was more powerful than
       the good will of the prince. The most vital articles of the
       capitulation were ignored, especially in all cases where the
       Catholic religion and the liberties granted to its professors
       were concerned; and 4,000 Irish were denounced as traitors and
       rebels,—by which declamation a fresh confiscation of
       1,060,000 acres was immediately effected. … It has been
       calculated that in 1692 the Irish Catholics, who quadrupled
       the Protestants in number, owned only one-eleventh of the
       soil, and that the most wretched and unproductive portion."

          A. Perraud,
          Ireland under English Rule,
          introduction, section 8.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.
       The peace of despair.
       A century of national death.
       Oppression of the Penal Laws.

       "By the military treaty [of Limerick], those of Sarsfield's
       soldiers who would were suffered to follow him to France; and
       10,000 men, the whole of his force, chose exile rather than
       life in a land where all hope of national freedom was lost.
       When the wild cry of the women who stood watching their
       departure was hushed, the silence of death settled down upon
       Ireland. For a hundred years the country remained at peace,
       but the peace was a peace of despair. The most terrible legal
       tyranny under which a nation has ever groaned avenged the
       rising under Tyrconnell. The conquered people, in Swift's
       bitter words of contempt, became 'hewers of wood and drawers
       of water' to their conquerors; but till the very eve of the
       French Revolution Ireland ceased to be a source of terror and
       anxiety to England."

          J. H. Green,
          Short History of England,
          chapter 9, section 8.

       "In Ireland there was peace. The domination of the colonists
       was absolute. The native population was tranquil with the
       ghastly tranquillity of exhaustion and of despair. There were
       indeed outrages, robberies, fireraisings, assassinations. But
       more than a century passed away without one general
       insurrection. During that century, two rebellions were raised
       in Great Britain by the adherents of the House of Stuart. But
       neither when the elder Pretender was crowned at Scone, nor
       when the younger held his court at Holyrood, was the standard
       of that House set up in Connaught or Munster.
    {1775}
       In 1745, indeed, when the Highlanders were marching towards
       London, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were so quiet that the
       Lord Lieutenant could, without the smallest risk, send several
       regiments across Saint George's Channel to reinforce the army
       of the Duke of Cumberland. Nor was this submission the effect
       of content, but of mere stupefaction and brokenness of heart.
       The iron had entered into the soul. The memory of past
       defeats, the habit of daily enduring insult and oppression,
       had cowed the spirits of the unhappy nation. There were indeed
       Irish Roman Catholics of great ability, energy and ambition;
       but they were to be found everywhere except in Ireland,—at
       Versailles and at Saint lldefonso, in the armies of Frederic
       and in the armies of Maria Theresa. One exile became a Marshal
       of France. Another became Prime Minister of Spain. If he had
       staid in his native land he would have been regarded as an
       inferior by all the ignorant and worthless squireens who had
       signed the Declaration against Transubstantiation. …
       Scattered over all Europe were to be found brave Irish
       generals, dexterous Irish diplomatists, Irish Counts, Irish
       Barons, Irish Knights … who, if they had remained in the
       house of bondage, could not have been ensigns of marching
       regiments or freemen of petty corporations. These men, the
       natural chiefs of their race, having been withdrawn, what
       remained was utterly helpless and passive. A rising of the
       Irishry against the Englishry was no more to be apprehended
       than a rising of the women and children against the men."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 17.

       "An act of 1695 'deprived the Roman Catholics of the means of
       educating their children, either at home or abroad, and of the
       privilege of being guardians either of their own or of any
       other person's children.' Another Act of the same year
       deprived the Roman Catholics of the right of bearing arms, or
       of keeping any horse which was worth more than £5. An Act of
       1697 ordered the expulsion of every Roman Catholic priest from
       Ireland. The Parliament, which had imposed these disabilities
       on Irish Roman Catholics, proceeded to confirm the Articles of
       Limerick, or 'so much of them as may consist with the safety
       and welfare of your Majesty's subjects of this kingdom,' and
       by a gross act of injustice omitted the whole of the first of
       these articles, and the important paragraph in the second
       article which had been accidentally omitted from the original
       copy of the Treaty, and subsequently restored to it by letters
       patent under the Great Seal. Reasonable men may differ on the
       propriety or impropriety of the conditions on which the
       surrender of Limerick was secured; but it is difficult to read
       the story of their repudiation without a deep sense of shame.
       Three other acts relating to the Roman Catholics were passed
       during the reign of William. An Act of 1697 forbade the
       intermarriage of Protestants and Papists. An Act of 1698
       prevented Papists from being solicitors. Another Act of the
       same year stopped their employment as gamekeepers. William
       died; and the breach of faith which he had countenanced was
       forgotten amidst the pressure of the legislation which
       disgraced the reign of his successor. Two Acts passed in this
       reign, for preventing the further growth of Popery, were
       styled by Burke the 'ferocious Acts of Anne.' By the first of
       these Acts a Papist having a Protestant son was debarred from
       selling, mortgaging, or devising any portion of his estate:
       however young the son might be, he was to be taken from his
       father's hands and confided to the care of a Protestant
       relation. The estate of a Papist who had no Protestant heir
       was to be divided equally among his sons. The Papist was
       declared incapable of purchasing real estate or of taking land
       on lease for more than thirty-one years. A Papist was declared
       incapable of inheriting real estate from a Protestant. He was
       disqualified from holding any office, civil or military. With
       twenty exceptions, a Papist was forbidden to reside in
       Limerick or Galway. Advowsons the property of Papists were
       vested in the Crown. Religious intolerance had now apparently
       done its uttermost. … But the laws failed. Their severity
       insured their failure. … The first of the ferocious Acts of
       Anne was almost openly disregarded. … Its failure only
       induced the intolerant advisers of Anne to supplement it with
       harsher legislation. The Act of 1704 had deprived the Papist
       of the guardianship of his apostate child. An Act of 1709
       empowered the Court of Chancery to oblige the Papist to
       discover his estate, and authorized the Court to make an order
       for the maintenance of the apostate child out of the proceeds
       of it. The Act of 1704 had made it illegal for a Papist to
       take lands on lease; the Act of 1709 disabled him from
       receiving a life annuity. An Act of 1704 had compelled the
       registry of priests. The Act of 1709 forbade their officiating
       in any parish except that in which they were registered.
       These, however, were the least reprehensible features in the
       Act of 1709. Its worst features were the encouragement which
       it gave to the meaner vices of human nature. The wife of a
       Papist, if she became a Protestant, was to receive a jointure
       out of her husband's estate. A Popish priest abandoning his
       religion was to receive an annuity of £30 a year. Rewards were
       to be paid for 'discovering' Popish prelates, priests, and
       schoolmasters. Two justices might compel any Papist to state
       on oath where and when he had heard mass, who had officiated
       at it, and who had been present at it. Encouragement was thus
       given to informers; bribes were thus held out to apostates;
       and Parliament trusted to the combined effects of bribery and
       intimidation to stamp out the last remnant of Popery. The
       penal code, however, was not yet complete. The armoury of
       intolerance was not yet exhausted. An Act of George I.
       disabled Papists from serving in the Irish militia, but
       compelled them to find Protestant substitutes; to pay double
       towards the support of the militia, and rendered their horses
       liable to seizure for militia purposes. By Acts of George II.
       the Papists were disfranchised; barristers or solicitors
       marrying Papists were deemed Papists; all marriages between
       Protestants and Papists were annulled; and Popish priests
       celebrating any illegal marriages were condemned to be hanged.
       By an Act of George III. Papists refusing to deliver up or
       declare their arms were liable to be placed in the pillory or
       to be whipped, as the Court should think proper. Such were the
       laws which the intolerance of a minority imposed on the
       majority of their fellow-subjects. Utterly unjust, they had
       not even the bare merit of success. …
    {1776}
       'The great body of the people,' wrote Arthur Young [1780],
       'stripped of their all, were more enraged than converted: they
       adhered to the persuasion of their forefathers with the
       steadiest and the most determined zeal; while the priests,
       actuated by the spirit of a thousand inducements, made
       proselytes among the common Protestants in defiance of every
       danger. … Those laws have crushed all the industry and
       wrested most of the property from the Catholics; but the
       religion triumphs; it is thought to increase.'"

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 8 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          R. R. Madden,
          Historical Notice of Penal Laws against Roman Catholics.

          A. Perraud,
          Ireland under English Rule: introduction.

          E. Burke,
          Letter to a Peer of Ireland on the Penal Laws
          (Works, volume 4).

          E. Burke,
          Fragments of a Tract on the Popery Laws
          (Works, volume 6).

          A. J. Thébaud,
          The Irish Race,
          chapter 12.

    IRELAND: A. D, 1710.
       Colonization of Palatines in Munster.

          See PALATINES.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.
       Wood's halfpence.
       The Drapier's Letters.

       "A patent had been given [1722, by the Walpole administration]
       to a certain William Wood for supplying Ireland with a copper
       coinage. Many complaints had been made, and in September,
       1723, addresses were voted by the Irish Houses of Parliament,
       declaring that the patent had been obtained by clandestine and
       false representations; that it was mischievous to the country;
       and that Wood had been guilty of frauds in his coinage. They
       were pacified by vague promises; but Walpole went on with the
       scheme on the strength of a favourable report of a committee
       of the Privy Council; and the excitement was already serious
       when (in 1724) Swift published the Drapier's Letters, which
       give him his chief title to eminence as a patriotic agitator.
       Swift either shared or took advantage of the general belief
       that the mysteries of the currency are unfathomable to the
       human intelligence. … There is, however, no real mystery
       about the halfpence. The small coins which do not form part of
       the legal-tender may be considered primarily as counters. A
       penny is a penny, so long as twelve are change for a shilling.
       It is not in the least necessary for this purpose that the
       copper contained in the twelve penny pieces should be worth or
       nearly worth a shilling. … At the present day bronze worth
       only twopence is coined into twelve penny pieces. … The
       effect of Wood's patent was that a mass of copper worth about
       £60,000 became worth £100,800 in the shape of halfpenny
       pieces. There was, therefore, a balance of about £40,000, to
       pay for the expenses of coinage. It would have been waste to
       get rid of this by putting more copper in the coins; but if so
       large a profit arose from the transaction, it would go to
       somebody. At the present day it would be brought into the
       national treasury. This was not the way in which business was
       done in Ireland. Wood was to pay £1,000 a year for fourteen
       years to the Crown. But £14,000 still leaves a large margin
       for profit. 'What was to become of it. According to the
       admiring biographer of Sir R. Walpole the patent had been
       originally given by Lord Sunderland to the Duchess of Kendal,
       a lady whom the King delighted to honour. … It was right and
       proper that a profit should be made on the transaction, but
       shameful that it should be divided between the King's mistress
       and William Wood, and that the bargain should be struck
       without consulting the Irish representatives, and maintained
       in, spite of their protests. The Duchess of Kendal was to be
       allowed to take a share of the wretched halfpence in the
       pocket of every Irish beggar. A more disgraceful transaction
       could hardly be imagined, or one more calculated to justify
       Swift's view of the selfishness and corruption of the English
       rulers. Swift saw his chance and went to work in
       characteristic fashion, with unscrupulous audacity of
       statement, guided by the keenest strategical instinct. … The
       patent was surrendered, and Swift might congratulate himself
       upon a complete victory. … The Irish succeeded in rejecting
       a real benefit at the cost of paying Wood the profit which he
       would have made, had he been allowed to confer it."

          L. Stephen,
          Swift (English Men of Letters),
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          Dean Swift,
          Works (Scott's edition),
          volume 6.

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

          J. McCarthy,
          History of the Four Georges,
          chapter 15.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
       Whiteboys.
       Oak Boys.
       Steel Boys.
       Peep of Day Boys.
       Catholic Defenders.

       "The peasantry continued to regard the land as their own; and
       with the general faith that wrong cannot last forever, they
       waited for the time when they would once more have possession
       of it. 'The lineal descendants of the old families,' wrote
       Arthur Young in 1774, 'are now to be found all over the
       kingdom, working as cottiers on the lands which were once
       their own.' … With the growth of what was called
       civilization, absenteeism, the worst disorder of the country,
       had increased. … The rise in prices, the demand for salt
       beef and salt butter for exportation and for the fleets, were
       revolutionizing the agriculture of Munster. The great
       limestone pastures of Limerick and Tipperary, the fertile
       meadow universally, was falling into the hands of capitalist
       graziers, in whose favour the landlords, or the landlords'
       agents, were evicting the smaller tenants. … To the
       peasantry these men were a curse. Common lands, where their
       own cows had been fed, were inclosed and taken from them. The
       change from tillage to grazing destroyed their employment.
       Their sole subsistence was from their potato gardens, the
       rents of which were heavily raised, while, by a curious
       mockery of justice, the grass lands were exempt from tithe,
       and the burden of maintaining the rectors and vicars of the
       Established Church was cast exclusively on the Catholic poor.
       Among a people who are suffering under a common wrong there is
       a sympathy of resentment which links them together without
       visible or discoverable bond. In the spring of 1760 Tipperary
       was suddenly overrun by bands of midnight marauders. Who they
       were was a mystery. Rumours reached England of insurgent
       regiments drilling in the moonlight; of French officers
       observed passing and repassing the Channel; but no French
       officer could be detected in Munster. The most rigid search
       discovered no stands of arms, such as soldiers use or could
       use. This only was certain, that white figures were seen in
       vast numbers, like moving clouds, flitting silently at night
       over field and moor, leaving behind them the tracks of where
       they had passed in levelled fences and houghed and moaning
       cattle; where the owners were specially hateful, in blazing
       homesteads, and the inmates' bodies blackening in the ashes.
       Arrests were generally useless. The country was sworn to
       secrecy.
    {1777}
       Through the entire central plains of Ireland the people were
       bound by the most solemn oaths never to reveal the name of a
       confederate, or give evidence in a court of justice. … Thus
       it was long uncertain how the movement originated, who were
       its leaders, and whether there was one or many. Letters
       signed by Captain Dwyer or Joanna Meskell were left at the
       doors of obnoxious persons, ordering lands to be abandoned
       under penalties. If the commands were uncomplied with, the
       penalties were inexorably inflicted. … Torture usually being
       preferred to murder, male offenders against the Whiteboys were
       houghed like their cattle, or their tongues were torn out by
       the roots."

          J. A. Froude,
          The English in Ireland,
          book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).

       The Whiteboys took their name from the practice of wearing a
       white shirt drawn over their other clothing, when they were
       out upon their nocturnal expeditions. "The Oak Boy movement
       took place about 1761-2. … The injustice which led to the
       formation of the 'Oak Boys,' one of the best known of the
       colonial societies, was duty work on roads. Every householder
       was bound to give six days' labour in making and repairing the
       public roads; and if he had a horse, six days' labour of his
       horse. It was complained that this duty work was only levied
       on the poor, and that they were compelled to work on private
       job roads, and even upon what were the avenues and farm roads
       of the gentry. The name Oak Boys, or Hearts of Oak Boys, was
       derived from the members in their raids wearing an oak branch
       in their hats. The organization spread rapidly over the
       greater part of Ulster. Although the grievances were common to
       Protestant and Catholic workmen, and there was nothing
       religious in the objects or constitution of the Oak Boys, the
       society was an exclusively Protestant body, owing to the total
       absence at the period of any association between the
       Protestants and Catholics. … The Steel Boys, or Hearts of
       Steel Boys, followed the Oak Boys [about 1771]. They also were
       exclusively Protestant; the origin of this organization was
       the extravagance and profligacy of a bad landlord, the
       representative of the great land thief, Chichester, of the
       Plantation of King James I. … The Oak Boys and Steel Boys
       did not last long."

          W. K. Sullivan,
          part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
          chapter 5, with foot-note.

       The landlord here referred to, as having provoked the
       organization of the Steel Boys, was the Marquis of Donegal.
       "Many of his Antrim leases having fallen in simultaneously, he
       demanded £100,000 in fines for the renewal of them. The
       tenants, all Protestants, offered the interest of the money in
       addition to the rent.' It could not be. Speculative Belfast
       capitalists paid the fine and took the lands over the heads of
       the tenants, to sublet. … The most substantial of the
       expelled tenantry gathered their effects together and sailed
       to join their countrymen in the New World. … Between those
       who were too poor to emigrate, and the Catholics who were in
       possession of their homes, there grew a protracted feud, which
       took form at last in the conspiracy of the Peep of Day Boys;
       in the fierce and savage expulsion of the intruders, who were
       bidden to go to hell or Connaught; and in the
       counter-organization of the Catholic Defenders, which spread
       over the whole island, and made the army of insurrection in
       1798."

          J. A. Froude,
          The English in Ireland,
          book 5, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.
       Concession of Legislative independence by the
       so-called Constitution of 1782.

       "England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. Over in the
       American colonies Mr. Washington and his rebels were pressing
       hard upon the troops of King George. More than one garrison
       had been compelled to surrender, more than one general had
       given up his bright sword to a revolutionary leader. On the
       hither side of the Atlantic the American flag was scarcely
       less dreaded than at Yorktown and Saratoga. … Ireland,
       drained of troops, lay open to invasion. The terrible Paul
       Jones was drifting about the seas; descents upon Ireland were
       dreaded; if such descents had been made the island was
       practically defenceless. An alarmed Mayor of Belfast,
       appealing to the Government for military aid, was informed
       that no more serious and more formidable assistance could be
       rendered to the chief city of the North than might be given by
       half a troop of dismounted cavalry and half a troop of
       invalids. If the French-American enemy would consent to be
       scared by such a muster, well and good; if not Belfast, and
       for the matter of that, all Ireland, must look to itself.
       Thereupon Ireland, very promptly and decisively, did look to
       itself. A Militia Act was passed empowering the formation of
       volunteer corps—consisting, of course, solely of
       Protestants—for the defence of the island. A fever of
       military enthusiasm swept over the country; north and south
       and east and west men caught up arms, nominally to resist the
       French, really, though they knew it not, to effect one of the
       greatest constitutional revolutions in history. Before a
       startled Government could realise what was occurring 60,000
       men were under arms. For the first time since the surrender of
       Limerick there was an armed force in Ireland able and willing
       to support a national cause. Suddenly, almost in the twinkling
       of an eye, Ireland found herself for the first time for
       generations in the possession of a well-armed,
       well-disciplined, and well-generalled military force. The
       armament that was organised to insure the safety of England
       was destined to achieve the liberties of Ireland. … All talk
       of organisation to resist foreign invasion was silenced; in
       its place the voice of the nation was heard loudly calling for
       the redress of its domestic grievances. Their leader was
       Charlemont; Grattan and Flood were their principal colonels."

          J. H. McCarthy,
          Ireland Since the Union,
          chapter 3.

       "When the Parliament met, Grattan moved as an amendment to the
       Address, 'that it was by free export and import only that the
       Nation was to be saved from impending ruin'; and a corps of
       Volunteers, commanded by the Duke of Leinster, lined Dame
       Street as the Speaker and the Commons walked in procession to
       the Castle. Another demonstration of Volunteers in College
       Green excited Dublin a little later on, and (15th November,
       1779) a riotous mob clamoured for Free Trade at the very doors
       of the House. … These events resulted in immediate success.
       Lord North proposed in the British Parliament three articles
       of relief to Irish trade—

       (1) to allow free export of wool, woollens, and wool-flocks;
       (2) to allow a free export of glass;
       (3) to allow, under certain conditions, a free trade to all
       the British colonies.

    {1778}

       When the news reached Ireland excessive joy prevailed. … But
       this was only a beginning. Poynings' Law, and the 6th of
       George I., required to be swept away too, so that Ireland
       might enjoy not only Free Trade, but also Self-government.
       Grattan moved his two famous resolutions:—

       1. That the King, with the consent of the Lords and Commons of
       Ireland, is alone competent to enact laws to bind Ireland.

       2. That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparably united under
       one Sovereign.

       In supporting these resolutions, Grattan cited England's
       dealings with America, to show what Ireland too might effect
       by claiming her just rights. … The Earl of Carlisle became
       Viceroy in 1781, with Mr. Eden as Secretary. Viewing England's
       embroilment in war—in America, in India, with France, and
       Spain, and Holland—the Irish Volunteers, whose numbers had
       swelled, Grattan said, to well-nigh 100,000 men, held meetings
       and reviews in various parts of the country. … The 16th of
       April, 1782, was a memorable day for Dublin. On that date, in
       a city thronged with Volunteers, with bands playing, and
       banners blazoned with gilded harps fluttering in the wind,
       Grattan, in an amendment to the Address which was always
       presented to the King at the opening of Parliament, moved,
       'That Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a separate
       Parliament, and that this Parliament alone has a right to make
       laws for her.' On the 17th of May, the two Secretaries of
       State, Lord Shelburne in the Lords, and Charles James Fox in
       the Commons of Great Britain—proposed the repeal of the 6th
       of George I., a statute which declared the right of the
       English Parliament to make laws for Ireland. The English
       Government frankly and fully acceded to the demands of
       Ireland. Four points were granted—

       (1) an Independent Irish Parliament;
       (2) the abrogation of Poynings' Law, empowering the English
       Privy Council to alter Irish Bills;
       (3) the introduction of a Biennial Mutiny Bill;
       (4) the abolition of the right of appeal to England from the
       Irish law courts.

       These concessions were announced to the Irish Parliament at
       once: in their joy the Irish Houses voted £100,000, and 20,000
       men to the navy of Great Britain. Ireland had at last achieved
       political freedom. Peace and prosperity seemed about to bless
       the land. … That there might be no misunderstanding as to
       the deliberate intention of the English Parliament in granting
       Irish legislative independence, Lord Shelburne had passed an
       Act of Renunciation, declaring that 'the Right claimed by the
       people of Ireland, to be bound only by laws enacted by His
       Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, is hereby declared
       to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no
       time hereafter be questioned or questionable.' During the same
       session (1782), the two Catholic Relief Bills proposed by Luke
       Gardiner, who afterwards became Viscount Mountjoy, were
       passed. These measures gave Catholics the right to buy
       freeholds, to teach schools, and to educate their children as
       they pleased. The Habeas Corpus Act was now extended to
       Ireland; and marriages by presbyterian ministers were made
       legal."

          W. F. Collier,
          History of Ireland for Schools,
          period 5, chapter 3.

       "Had the Irish demanded a complete separation it would have
       been yielded without resistance. It would have been better had
       it been. The two countries would have immediately joined on
       terms of equality and of mutual confidence and respect. But
       the more the English Cabinet gave way the less were the Irish
       disposed to press their advantage. A feeling of warm
       attachment to England rapidly took the place of distrust.
       There never existed in Ireland so sincere and friendly a
       spirit of spontaneous union with England as at this moment,
       when the formal bond of union was almost wholly dissolved.
       From the moment when England made a formal surrender of her
       claim to govern Ireland a series of inroads commenced on the
       various interests supposed to be left to their own free
       development by that surrender. Ireland had not, like England,
       a body of Cabinet Ministers responsible to her Parliament. The
       Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Secretary held their offices and
       received their instructions from the English minister. There
       was greater need than ever before for a bribed majority in the
       Irish Commons, and the machinery for securing and managing it
       remained intact."

          W. A. O'Conor,
          History of the Irish People,
          book 4, chapter 2, section 2 (volume 2).

       "The history of these memorable eighteen years [1782-1800] has
       never been written, and yet these years are the … key to
       Irish political opinion in the 19th [century]. The Government
       which granted the constitution of 1782 began to conspire
       against it immediately. They had taken Poynings' Act away from
       the beginning of its proceedings, and they clapped it on to
       the end of its proceedings, as effectually as if the change
       had not been made. They developed in the Irish mind that
       distrust of all government which has made it so turbulent and
       so docile—turbulent to its administrators, docile to its
       popular leaders."

          J. E. Thorold Rogers,
          Ireland
          (A. Reid, editor), p. 25.

          ALSO IN:
          W. E. H. Lecky,
          Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: Henry Grattan.

          J. G. MacCarthy,
          Henry Grattan.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1784.
       Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders.

       "Disturbances … commenced in the north between two parties
       called Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders. They originated in 1784
       among some country people, who appear to have been all
       Protestants or Presbyterians; but Catholics having sided with
       one of the parties, the quarrel quickly grew into a religious
       feud, and spread from the county of Armagh, where it
       commenced, to the neighbouring districts of Tyrone and Down.
       Both parties belonged to the humblest classes of the
       community. The Protestant party were well armed, and
       assembling in numbers, attacked the houses of Catholics under
       pretence of searching for arms; insulting their persons, and
       breaking their furniture. These wanton outrages were usually
       committed at an early hour in the morning, whence the name of
       Peep-o'-Day Boys; but the faction was also known as
       'Protestant Boys,' and 'wreckers,' and ultimately merged in
       the Orange Society."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          p. 722.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1793.
       Passage of the Catholic Relief Bill.

       "On February 4 (1793) Hobart [Chief Secretary] moved for leave
       to bring in his Catholic Relief Bill, and stated the nature of
       its provisions. It was of a kind which only a year before
       would have appeared utterly impossible, and which was in the
       most glaring opposition to all the doctrines which the
       Government and its partisans had of late been urging. … This
       great measure was before Parliament, with several
       intermissions, for rather more than five weeks. …
    {1779}
       The vast preponderance of speakers were in favour of relief to
       Catholics, though there were grave differences as to the degree,
       and speakers of the highest authority represented the genuine
       Protestant feeling of the country as being in its favour. …
       Few things in Irish parliamentary history are more remarkable
       than the facility with which this great measure was carried,
       though it was in all its aspects thoroughly debated. It passed
       its second reading in the House of Commons with only a single
       negative. It was committed with only three negatives, and in
       the critical divisions on its clauses the majorities were at
       least two to one. The qualification required to authorise a
       Catholic to bear arms was raised in committee on the motion of
       the Chancellor, and in addition to the oath of allegiance of
       1774, a new oath was incorporated in the Bill, copied from one
       of the declarations of the Catholics, and abjuring certain
       tenets which had been ascribed to them, among others the
       assertion that the infallibility of the Pope was an article of
       their faith. For the rest the Bill became law almost exactly
       in the form in which it was originally designed. It swept away
       the few remaining disabilities relating to property which grew
       out of the penal code. It enabled Catholics to vote like
       Protestants for members of Parliament and magistrates in
       cities or boroughs; to become elected members of all
       corporations except Trinity College; to keep arms subject to
       some specified conditions; to hold all civil and military
       offices in the kingdom from which they were not specifically
       excluded; to hold the medical professorships on the foundation
       of Sir Patrick Dun; to take degrees and hold offices in any
       mixed college connected with the University of Dublin that
       might hereafter be founded. It also threw open to them the
       degrees of the University, enabling the King to alter its
       statutes to that effect. A long clause enumerated the prizes
       which were still withheld. Catholics might not sit in either
       House of Parliament; they were excluded from almost all
       Government and judicial positions; they could not be Privy
       Councillors, King's Counsel, Fellows of Trinity College,
       sheriffs or sub-sheriffs, or generals of the staff. Nearly
       every post of ambition was still reserved for Protestants, and
       the restrictions weighed most heavily on the Catholics who
       were most educated and most able. In the House of Lords as in
       the House of Commons the Bill passed with little open
       opposition, but a protest, signed among other peers by
       Charlemont, was drawn up against it. … The Catholic Relief
       Bill received the royal assent in April, 1793, and in the same
       month the Catholic Convention dissolved itself. Before doing
       so it passed a resolution recommending the Catholics 'to
       co-operate in all loyal and constitutional means' to obtain
       parliamentary reform. … The Catholic prelates in their
       pastorals expressed their gratitude for the Relief Bill. The
       United Irishmen on their side issued a proclamation warmly
       congratulating the Catholics on the measure for their relief,
       but also urging in passionate strains that parliamentary
       reform was the first of needs."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 25 (volume 6).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
       Organization of the United Irishmen.
       Attempted French invasions.
       The rising of '98.

       "Nothing could be less sinister than the original aims and
       methods of the Society of United Irishmen, which was conceived
       in the idea of uniting Catholics and Protestants 'in pursuit
       of the same object—a repeal of the penal laws, and a
       (parliamentary) reform including in itself an extension of the
       right of suffrage.' This union was founded at Belfast, in
       1791, by Theobald Wolfe Tone, a young barrister of English
       descent, and, like the majority of the United Irishmen, a
       Protestant. Some months later a Dublin branch was founded, the
       chairman being the hon. Simon Butler, a Protestant gentleman
       of high character, and the secretary a tradesman named James
       Napper Tandy. The society grew rapidly, and branches were
       formed throughout Ulster and Leinster. The religious strife of
       the Orange boys and Defenders was a great trouble to the
       United men, who felt that these creed animosities among
       Irishmen were more ruinous to the national cause than any
       corruption of parliament or coercion of government could
       possibly be. Ireland, united, would be quite capable of
       fighting her own battles, but these party factions rendered
       her contemptible and weak. The society accordingly set itself
       the impossible task of drawing together the Defenders and the
       Orange men. Catholic emancipation—one of the great objects of
       the union—naturally appealed very differently to the rival
       parties: it was the great wish of the Defenders, the chief
       dread of the Orangemen. Both factions were composed of the
       poorest and most ignorant peasantry in Ireland, men whose
       political views did not soar above the idea that 'something
       should be done for old Ireland.' The United Irishmen devoted
       themselves to the regeneration of both parties, but the
       Orangemen would have none of them, and the Protestant United
       men found themselves drifting into partnership with the
       Catholic Defenders. To gain influence with this party, Tandy
       took the Defenders' oath. He was informed against; and, as to
       take an illegal oath was then a capital offence in Ireland, he
       had to fly for his life to America. This adventure made Tandy
       the hero of the Defenders, who now joined the union in great
       numbers; but the whole business brought the society into
       disrepute, and connected it with the Defenders, who, like the
       Orange boys, were merely a party of outrage. … One night in
       the May of '94 a government raid was made upon the premises of
       the union. The officers of the society were arrested, their
       papers seized, the type of their newspaper destroyed, and the
       United Irish Society was proclaimed as an illegal
       organisation. Towards the close of this year all need for a
       reform society seemed to have passed. Fitzwilliam was made
       viceroy, and emancipation and reform seemed assured. His
       sudden recall, the reversal of his appointments, the rejection
       of Grattan's Reform Bill, and the renewal of the old coercive
       system, convinced the United men of the powerlessness of
       peaceful agitation to check the growth of the system of
       government by corruption. They accordingly reorganised the
       union, but as a secret society, and with the avowed aim of
       separating Ireland from the British empire. The Fitzwilliam
       affair had greatly strengthened the union, which was joined by
       many men of high birth and position, among them lord Edward
       Fitzgerald, brother of the duke of Leinster, and Arthur
       O'Connor, nephew to lord Longueville, both of whom had been
       members of the House of Commons. … But the ablest man of the
       party was Thomas Addis Emmet, a barrister, and the elder
       brother of Robert Emmet.
    {1780}
       The society gradually swelled to the number of 5,000 members,
       but throughout its existence it was perfectly riddled with
       spies and informers, by whom government was supplied with a
       thorough knowledge of its doings. It became known to Pitt that
       the French government had sent an Englishman, named Jackson,
       as an emissary to Ireland. Jackson was convicted of treason,
       and hanged, and Wolfe Tone was sufficiently implicated in his
       guilt … to find it prudent to fly to America. But before
       leaving Ireland he arranged with the directors of the union to
       go from America to France, and to try to persuade the French
       government to assist Ireland in a struggle for separation.
       While Tone was taking his circuitous route to Paris,
       government, to meet the military development of the society,
       placed Ulster and Leinster under a stringent Insurrection Act;
       torture was employed to wring confession from suspected
       persons, and the Protestant militia and yeomanry were drafted
       at free quarters on the wretched Catholic peasantry. The
       barbarity of the soldiers lashed the people of the northern
       provinces into a state of fury. … In the meantime the
       indomitable Tone—unknown, without credentials, without
       influence, and ignorant of the French language—had persuaded
       the French government to lend him a fleet, 10,000 men, and
       40,000 stand of arms, which armament left Brest for Bantry Bay
       on the 16th December, 1796. Ireland was now in the same
       position as England had been when William of Orange had
       appeared outside Torbay. Injustice, corruption, and oppression
       had in both cases goaded the people into rebellion. A calm sea
       and a fierce gale made the difference between the English
       patriot of 1688 and the Irish traitor of 1796. Had the sea
       been calm in the Christmas week of '96, nothing could have
       stopped the French from marching on to Dublin, but just as the
       ships put in to Bantry Bay, so wild a wind sprang up that they
       were driven out to sea, and blown and buffetted about. For a
       month they tossed about within sight of land, but the storm
       did not subside, and, all chance of landing seeming as far off
       as ever, they put back into the French port."

          Wm. S. Gregg,
          Irish History for English Readers,
          chapter 23.

       "After the failure of Hoche's expedition, another great
       armament was fitted out in the Texel, where it long lay ready
       to come forth, while the English fleet, the only safeguard of
       our coasts, was crippled by the mutiny at the Nore. But the
       wind once more fought for England, and the Batavian fleet came
       out at last only to be destroyed at Camperdown. Tone was
       personally engaged in both expeditions, and his lively Diary,
       the image of his character, gives us vivid accounts of both.
       The third effort of the French Government was feeble, and
       ended in the futile landing of a small force under Humbert.
       … In the last expedition Tone himself was taken prisoner,
       and, having been condemned to death, committed suicide in
       prison. … It was well for Ireland, as well as for England,
       that Tone failed in his enterprise. Had he succeeded, his
       country would for a time have been treated as Switzerland and
       the Batavian Republic were treated by their French
       regenerators, and, in the end, it would have been surely
       reconquered and punished by the power which was mistress of
       the sea. … But now that all is over, we can afford to say
       that Tone gallantly ventured his life in what naturally
       appeared to him, and would to a high-spirited Englishman under
       the same circumstances have appeared, a good cause. One of his
       race had but too much reason then to 'hate the very name of
       England,' and to look forward to the burning of her cities
       with feelings in which pity struggled with revenge for
       mastery, but revenge prevailed. … From the Republicans the
       disturbance spread, as in 1641, to that mass of blind
       disaffection and hatred, national, social, agrarian, and
       religious, which was always smouldering among the Catholic
       peasantry. With these sufferers the political theories of the
       French Revolutionists had no influence; they looked to French
       invasion, as well as to domestic insurrection, merely as a
       deliverance from the oppression under which they groaned. …
       The leading Roman Catholics, both clerical and lay, were on
       the side of the government. The mass of the Catholic
       priesthood were well inclined to take the same side, They
       could have no sympathy with an Atheist Republic, red with the
       blood of priests, as well as with the blood of a son of St.
       Louis. If some of the order were concerned in the movement, it
       was as demagogues, sympathizing with their peasant brethren,
       not as priests. Yet the Protestants insisted on treating the
       Catholic clergy as rebels by nature. They had assuredly done
       their best to make them so. … No sooner did the Catholic
       peasantry begin to move and organize themselves than the
       Protestant gentry and yeomanry as one man became Cromwellians
       again. Then commenced a Reign of Terror scarcely less savage
       than that of the Jacobins, against whom Europe was in arms, as
       a hideous and portentous brood of evil, the scourge and horror
       of the whole human race. The suspected conspirators were
       intimidated, and confessions, or pretended confessions, were
       extorted by loosing upon the homes of the peasantry the
       license and barbarity of an irregular soldiery more cruel than
       a regular invader. Flogging, half-hanging, pitch-capping,
       picketing, went on over a large district, and the most
       barbarous scourgings, without trial, were inflicted in the
       Riding-house at Dublin, in the very seat of government and
       justice. This was styled, 'exerting a vigour beyond the law;'
       and to become the object of such vigour, it was enough, as
       under Robespierre, to be suspected of being suspect. No one
       has yet fairly undertaken the revolting but salutary task of
       writing a faithful and impartial history of that period; but
       from the accounts we have, it appears not unlikely that the
       peasantry, though undoubtedly in a disturbed state, and to a
       great extent secretly organized, might have been kept quiet by
       measures of lenity and firmness; and that they were
       gratuitously scourged and tortured into open rebellion. When
       they did rebel, they shewed, as they had shewn in 1641, what
       the galley-slave is when, having long toiled under the lash,
       he contrives in a storm to slip his chains and become master
       of the vessel. The atrocities of Wexford and Vinegar-Hill
       rivalled the atrocities of Portnadown. Nor when the rebellion
       was vanquished did the victors fail to renew the famous feats
       of Sir Charles Coote and of the regiment of Cole. We now
       possess terrible and overwhelming evidence of their sanguinary
       ferocity in the correspondence of Lord Cornwallis, who was
       certainly no friend to rebels, having fought against them in
       America, but who was a man of sense and heart, most wisely
       sent over to quench the insurrection, and pacify the country.
       …
    {1781}
       The murders and other atrocities committed by the Jacobins
       were more numerous than those committed by the Orangemen, and
       as the victims were of higher rank they excited more
       indignation and pity; but in the use of torture the Orangemen
       seem to have reached a pitch of fiendish cruelty which was
       scarcely attained by the Jacobins. … The Jacobin party was
       almost entirely composed of men taken from the lowest of the
       people, whereas among the Irish terrorists were found men of
       high social position and good education."

          Goldwin Smith,
          Irish History and Irish Character,
          pages 166-175.

          ALSO IN:
          R. R. Madden,
          The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times.

          Theobald Wolfe Tone,
          Memoirs.

          Marquis Cornwallis,
          Correspondence,
          chapter 19 (volume 2).

          A. Griffiths,
          French Revolutionary Generals,
          chapter 16.

          Viscount Castlereagh,
          Memoirs and Correspondence,
          volume 1.

          W. H. Maxwell,
          History of the Irish Rebellion in 1798.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
       Formation of the Orange Society.
       Battle of the Diamond.
       Persecution of Catholics by Protestant mobs.

       "The year 1795 is very memorable in Irish history, as the year
       of the formation of the Orange Society, and the beginning of
       the most serious disturbances in the county of Armagh. … The
       old popular feud between the lower ranks of Papists and
       Presbyterians in the northern counties is easy to understand,
       and it is not less easy to see how the recent course of Irish
       politics had increased it. A class which had enjoyed and
       gloried in uncontested ascendency, found this ascendency
       passing from its hands. A class which had formerly been in
       subjection, was elated by new privileges, and looked forward
       to a complete abolition of political disabilities. Catholic
       and Protestant tenants came into a new competition, and the
       demeanour of Catholics towards Protestants was sensibly
       changed. There were boasts in taverns and at fairs, that the
       Protestants would speedily be swept away from the land and the
       descendants of the old proprietors restored, and it was soon
       known that Catholics all over the country were forming
       themselves into committees or societies, and were electing
       representatives for a great Catholic convention at Dublin. The
       riots and outrages of the Peep of Day Boys and Defenders had
       embittered the feeling on both sides. … Members of one or
       other creed were attacked and insulted as they went to their
       places of worship. There were fights on the high roads, at
       fairs, wakes, markets, and country sports, and there were
       occasionally crimes of a much deeper dye. … In September
       1795 riots broke out in this county [Armagh], which continued
       for some days, but at length the parish priest on the one
       side, and a gentleman named Atkinson on the other, succeeded
       in so far appeasing the quarrel that the combatants formally
       agreed to a truce, and were about to retire to their homes,
       when a new party of Defenders, who had marched from the
       adjoining counties to the assistance of their brethren,
       appeared upon the scene, and on September 21 they attacked the
       Protestants at a place called the Diamond. The Catholics on
       this occasion were certainly the aggressors, and they appear
       to have considerably outnumbered their antagonists, but the
       Protestants were better posted, better armed, and better
       organised. A serious conflict ensued, and the Catholics were
       completely defeated, leaving a large number—probably twenty
       or thirty—dead upon the field. It was on the evening of the
       day on which the battle of the Diamond was fought, that the
       Orange Society was formed. It was at first a league of mutual
       defence, binding its members to maintain the laws and the
       peace of the country, and also the Protestant Constitution. No
       Catholic was to be admitted into the society, and the members
       were bound by oath not to reveal its secrets. The doctrine of
       Fitzgibbon, that the King, by assenting to Catholic
       emancipation, would invalidate his title to the throne, was
       remarkably reflected in the oath of the Orangemen, which bound
       them to defend the King and his heirs, 'so long as he or they
       support the Protestant ascendency.' The society took its name
       from William of Orange, the conqueror of the Catholics, and it
       agreed to celebrate annually the battle of the Boyne. In this
       respect there was nothing in it particularly novel. Protestant
       associations, for the purpose of commemorating the events and
       maintaining the principles of the Revolution, had long been
       known. … A very different spirit, however, animated the
       early Orangemen. The upper classes at first generally held
       aloof from the society; for a considerable time it appears to
       have been almost confined to the Protestant peasantry of
       Ulster, and the title of Orangemen was probably assumed by
       numbers who had never joined the organisation, who were simply
       Peep of Day Boys taking a new name, and whose conduct was
       certainly not such as those who instituted the society had
       intended. A terrible persecution of the Catholics immediately
       followed. The animosities between the lower orders of the two
       religions, which had long been little bridled, burst out
       afresh, and after the battle of the Diamond, the Protestant
       rabble of the county of Armagh, and of part of the adjoining
       counties, determined by continuous outrages to drive the
       Catholics from the country. Their cabins were placarded, or,
       as it was termed, 'papered,' with the words, 'To hell or
       Connaught,' and if the occupants did not at once abandon them,
       they were attacked at night by an armed mob. The webs and
       looms of the poor Catholic weavers were cut and destroyed.
       Every article of furniture was shattered or burnt. The houses
       were often set on fire, and the inmates were driven homeless
       into the world. The rioters met with scarcely any resistance
       or disturbance. Twelve or fourteen houses were sometimes
       wrecked in a single night. Several Catholic chapels were
       burnt, and the persecution, which began in the county of
       Armagh, soon extended over a wide area in the counties of
       Tyrone, Down, Antrim, and Derry. … The outrages continued
       with little abatement through a great part of the following
       year. As might have been expected, there were widely differing
       estimates of the number of the victims. According to some
       reports, which were no doubt grossly exaggerated, no less than
       1,400 families, or about 7,000 persons, were driven out of the
       county of Armagh alone. Another, and much more probable
       account, spoke of 700 families, while a certain party among
       the gentry did their utmost to minimise the persecutions."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 27 (volume 7).

    {1782}

    IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
       The Legislative Union with Great Britain.

       "No sooner had the rebellion been suppressed than the
       Government proposed, to the Parliament of each country, the
       union of Great Britain and Ireland under a common legislature.
       This was no new idea. It had frequently been in the minds of
       successive generations of statesmen on both sides of the
       Channel; but had not yet been seriously discussed with a view
       to immediate action. Nothing could have been more safely
       predicted than that Ireland must, sooner or later, follow the
       precedent of Scotland, and yield her pretensions to a separate
       legislation. The measures of 1782, which appeared to establish
       the legislative independence of Ireland, really proved the
       vanity of such a pretension. … On the assembling of the
       British Parliament at the commencement of the year [1799], the
       question of the Union was recommended by a message from the
       Crown; and the address, after some opposition, was carried
       without a division. Pitt, at this, the earliest stage,
       pronounced the decision at which the Government had arrived to
       be positive and irrevocable. … Lord Cornwallis [then Lord
       Lieutenant of Ireland] also expressed his conviction that
       union was the only measure which could preserve the country.
       … The day before the intended Union was signified by a royal
       message to the English Parliament, the Irish Houses assembled;
       and the Viceroy's speech, of course, contained a paragraph
       relative to the project. The House of Lords, completely under
       the control of the Castle, agreed to an address in conformity
       with the speech, after a short and languid debate, by a large
       majority; but the Commons were violently agitated. … An
       amendment to the address pledging the House to maintain the
       Union was lost by one vote, after the House had sat twenty-one
       hours; but, on the report, the amendment to omit the paragraph
       referring to the Union was carried by a majority of four. …
       When it was understood that the Government was in earnest …
       there was little difficulty in alarming a people among whom
       the machinery of political agitation had, for some years, been
       extensively organised. The bar of Dublin took the lead, and it
       at once became evident that the policy of the Government had
       effected a union among Irishmen far more formidable than that
       which all the efforts of sedition had been able to accomplish.
       The meeting of the bar included not merely men of different
       religious persuasions, but, what was of more importance in
       Ireland, men of different sides in politics. … However
       conclusive the argument in favour of Union may appear to
       Englishmen, it was difficult for an Irishman to regard the
       Union in any other view than as a measure to deprive his
       country of her independent constitution, and to extinguish her
       national existence. Mr. Foster, the Speaker, took this view.
       … Sir John Parnell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
       followed the Speaker. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Prime Serjeant, a
       law officer of the Crown, was on the same side. Ponsonby, the
       leader of the Whigs, was vehement against the scheme; so was
       Grattan; so was Curran. Great efforts were made by the
       Government to quiet the Protestants, and to engage the
       Catholics to support the Union. These efforts were so far
       successful that most of the Orange lodges were persuaded to
       refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject. The
       Catholic hierarchy were conciliated by the promise of a
       provision for the clergy, and of an adjustment of the Tithe
       question. Hopes were held out, if promises were not actually
       made, to the Catholic community, that their civil disabilities
       would be removed. … If the Union was to be accomplished by
       constitutional means, it could be effected only by a vote of
       the Irish Parliament, concurring with a vote of the English
       Parliament; and if the Irish assembly were to pronounce an
       unbiased judgment on the question of its extinction, it is
       certain that a very small minority, possibly not a single
       vote, would be found to support the measure. … The vote on
       the address was followed, in a few days, by an address to the
       Crown, in which the Commons pledged themselves to maintain the
       constitution of 1782. The majority in favour of national
       independence had already increased from five to twenty. …
       The votes of the Irish Commons had disposed of the question
       for the current session; but preparations were immediately
       made for its future passage through the Irish Houses. The
       foremost men in Ireland … had first been tempted, but had
       indignantly refused every offer to betray the independence of
       their country. Another class of leading persons was then
       tried, and from these, for the most part, evasive answers were
       received. The minister understood the meaning of these dubious
       utterances. There was one mode of carrying the Union, and one
       mode only. Bribery of every kind must be employed without
       hesitation and without stint."

          W. Massey,
          History of England: Reign of George. III.,
          chapter 38 (volume 4).

       "Lord Cornwallis had to work the system of 'negotiating and
       jobbing,' by promising an Irish Peerage, or a lift in that
       Peerage, or even an English Peerage, to a crowd of eager
       competitors for honours. The other specific for making
       converts was not yet in complete operation. Lord Castlereagh
       [the Irish Chief Secretary] had the plan in his
       portfolio:—borough proprietors to be compensated; … fifty
       barristers in parliament, who always considered a seat as the
       road to preferment, to be compensated; the purchasers of seats
       to be compensated; individuals connected either by residence
       or property with Dublin to be compensated. 'Lord Castlereagh
       considered that £1,500,000 would be required to effect all
       these compensations.' The sum actually paid to the
       borough-mongers alone was £1,260,000. Fifteen thousand pounds
       were allotted to each borough; and 'was apportioned amongst
       the various patrons.' … It had become a contest of bribery
       on both sides. There was an 'Opposition stock-purse,' as Lord
       Castlereagh describes the fund against which he was to
       struggle with the deeper purse at Whitehall. … During the
       administration of Lord Cornwallis, 29 Irish Peerages were
       created; of which seven only were unconnected with the
       question of Union. Six English Peerages were granted on
       account of Irish services; and there were 19 promotions in the
       Irish Peerage, earned by similar assistance." The question of
       Union was virtually decided in the Irish House of Commons on
       the 6th of February, 1800. Lord Castlereagh, on the previous
       day, had read a message from the Lord Lieutenant,
       communicating resolutions adopted by the parliament of Great
       Britain in the previous year. "The question was debated from
       four o'clock in the afternoon of the 5th to one o'clock in the
       afternoon of the 6th.
    {1783}
       During that time the streets of Dublin were the scene of a
       great riot, and the peace of the city was maintained only by
       troops of cavalry. … On the division of the 6th there was a
       majority of 43 in favour of the Union." It was not, however,
       until the 7th of June, that the final legislative
       enactment—the Union Bill—was passed in the Irish House of
       Commons. The first article provided "that the kingdoms of
       Great Britain and Ireland should, upon the 1st of January,
       1801, be united into one kingdom, by the name of The United
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom was
       to be represented in one and the same parliament. In the
       United Parliament there were to be 28 temporal Peers, elected
       for life by the Irish Peerage; and four spiritual Peers,
       taking their places in rotation. There were to be 100 members
       of the Lower House; each county returning two, as well as the
       cities of Dublin and Cork. The University returned one, and 31
       boroughs each returned one. Of these boroughs 23 remained
       close boroughs till the Reform Bill of 1831. … The Churches
       of England and Ireland were to be united. The proportion of
       Revenue to be levied was fixed at fifteen for Great Britain
       and two for Ireland, for the succeeding twenty years.
       Countervailing duties upon imports to each country were fixed
       by a minute tariff, but some commercial restrictions were to
       be removed."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 7, chapter 21.

       "If the Irish Parliament had consisted mainly, or to any
       appreciable extent, of men who were disloyal to the
       connection, and whose sympathies were on the side of rebellion
       or with the enemies of England, the English Ministers would, I
       think, have been amply justified in employing almost any means
       to abolish it. … But it cannot be too clearly understood or
       too emphatically stated, that the legislative Union was not an
       act of this nature. The Parliament which was abolished was a
       Parliament of the most unqualified loyalists; it had shown
       itself ready to make every sacrifice in its power for the
       maintenance of the Empire, and from the time when Arthur
       O'Connor and Lord Edward Fitzgerald passed beyond its walls,
       it probably did not contain a single man who was really
       disaffected. … It must be added, that it was becoming
       evident that the relation between the two countries
       established by the Constitution of 1782 could not have
       continued unchanged. … Even with the best dispositions, the
       Constitution of 1782 involved many and grave probabilities of
       difference. … Sooner or later the corrupt borough ascendency
       must have broken down, and it was a grave question what was to
       succeed it. … An enormous increase of disloyalty and
       religious animosity had taken place during the last years of
       the century, and it added immensely to the danger of the
       democratic Catholic suffrage, which the Act of 1793 had called
       into existence. This was the strongest argument for hurrying
       on the Union; but when all due weight is assigned to it, it
       does not appear to me to have justified the policy of Pitt."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 32 (volume 8).

          ALSO IN:
          T. D. Ingram,
          History of the Legislative Union.

          R. Hassencamp,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 14.

          Marquis Cornwallis,
          Correspondence,
          chapters 19-21 (volumes 2-3).

          Viscount Castlereagh,
          Memoirs and Correspondence,
          volumes 2-3.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1801.
       Pitt's promise of Catholic Emancipation broken by the king.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1801-1803.
       The Emmet insurrection.

       "Lord Hardwicke succeeded Lord Cornwallis as viceroy in May
       [1801]; and for two years, so far as the British public knew,
       Ireland was undisturbed. The harvest of 1801 was abundant. The
       island was occupied by a military force of 125,000 men.
       Distant rumours of disturbances in Limerick, Tipperary, and
       Waterford were faintly audible. Imports and exports increased.
       The debt increased likewise, but, as it was met by loans and
       uncontrolled by any public assembly, no one protested, and few
       were aware of the fact. Landlords and middlemen throve on high
       rents, and peasants as yet could live. … Early in 1803 the
       murmurs in the southwest became louder. Visions of a fixed
       price for potatoes began to shape themselves, and the invasion
       of 'strangers' ready to take land from which tenants had been
       ejected was resisted. The magistrates urged the viceroy to
       obtain and exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act; but
       the evil was not thought of sufficient magnitude, and their
       request was refused: Amidst the general calm, the insurrection
       of Robert Emmett in July broke like a bolt from the blue. A
       young republican visionary, whose brother had taken an active
       part in the rebellion, he had inspired a few score comrades
       with the quixotic hope of rekindling Irish nationality by
       setting up a factory of pikes in a back street of Dublin. On
       the eve of St. James's Day, Quigley, one of his associates,
       who had been sowing vague hopes among the villages of Kildare,
       brought a mixed crowd into Dublin. When the evening fell, a
       sky-rocket was fired. Emmett and his little band sallied from
       Marshalsea Lane into St. James's Street, and distributed pikes
       to all who would take them. The disorderly mob thus armed
       proceeded to the debtors' prison, which they attacked, killing
       the officer who defended it. Emmett urged them on to the
       Castle. They followed, in a confused column, utterly beyond
       his power to control. On their war they fell in with the
       carriage of the Chief Justice, Lord Kilwarden, dragged him
       out, and killed him. By this time a few handfuls of troops had
       been collected. In half an hour two subalterns, with fifty
       soldiers each, had dispersed the whole gathering. By ten
       o'clock all was over, with the loss of 20 soldiers and 50
       insurgents. Emmett and Russell, another of the leaders who had
       undertaken the agitation of Down and Antrim, were shortly
       afterwards taken and executed; Quigley escaped. Such was the
       last reverberation of the rebellion of 1798, or rather of the
       revolutionary fervour that led the way to that rebellion,
       before it had been tainted with religious animosity. Emmett
       died as Shelley would have died, a martyr and an enthusiast;
       but he knew little of his countrymen's condition, little of
       their aspirations, nothing of their needs. He had no
       successors."

          J. H. Bridges,
          Two Centuries of Irish History,
          part 3, chapter 2.

       "Emmet might easily have escaped to France if he had chosen,
       but he delayed till too late. Emmet was a young man, and Emmet
       was in love. 'The idol of his heart,' as he calls her in his
       dying speech, was Sarah Curran, the daughter of John Philpot
       Curran. … Emmet was determined to see her before he went. He
       placed his life upon the cast and lost it. … The White
       Terror which followed upon the failure of Emmet's rising was
       accompanied by almost all the horrors which marked the hours
       of repression after the rebellion of '98. … The old devil's
       dance of spies and informers went merrily forward; the prisons
       were choked with prisoners."

          J. H. McCarthy,
          Ireland Since the Union,
          chapters 5-6.

          ALSO IN:
          R. R. Madden,
          The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times,
          volume 3.

          J. Wills,
          History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen,
          volume 6, pages 68-80.

    {1784}

    IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
       O'Connell and the agitation for Catholic Emancipation
       and the Repeal of the Union.
       Catholic disabilities removed.

       "There is much reason to believe that almost from the
       commencement of his career" Daniel O'Connell, the great Irish
       agitator, "formed one vast scheme of policy which he pursued
       through life with little deviation, and, it must be added,
       with little scruple. This scheme was to create and lead a
       public spirit among the Roman Catholics; to wrest emancipation
       by this means from the Government; to perpetuate the agitation
       created for that purpose till the Irish Parliament had been
       restored; to disendow the Established Church; and thus to open
       in Ireland a new era, with a separate and independent
       Parliament and perfect religious equality. It would be
       difficult to conceive a scheme of policy exhibiting more
       daring than this. The Roman Catholics had hitherto shown
       themselves absolutely incompetent to take any decisive part in
       politics. … O'Connell, however, perceived that it was
       possible to bring the whole mass of the people into the
       struggle, and to give them an almost unexampled momentum and
       unanimity by applying to politics a great power that lay
       dormant in Ireland—the power of the Catholic priesthood. To
       make the priests the rulers of the country, and himself the
       ruler of the priests, was his first great object. … There
       was a party supported by Keogh, the leader in '93, who
       recommended what was called 'a dignified silence'—in other
       words, a complete abstinence from petitioning and agitation.
       With this party O'Connell successfully grappled. His advice on
       every occasion was, 'Agitate, agitate, agitate!' and Keogh was
       so irritated by the defeat that he retired from the society."
       O'Connell's leadership of the movement for Catholic
       Emancipation became virtually established about the beginning
       of 1811. "He avowed himself repeatedly to be an agitator with
       an 'ulterior object,' and declared that that object was the
       repeal of the Union. 'Desiring, as I do, the repeal of the
       Union,' he said in one of his speeches, in 1813, 'I rejoice to
       see how our enemies promote that great object. … They delay
       the liberties of the Catholics, but they compensate us most
       amply because they advance the restoration of Ireland. By
       leaving one cause of agitation, they have created, and they
       will embody and give shape and form to, a public mind and a
       public spirit.' … Nothing can be more untrue than to
       represent the Repeal agitation as a mere afterthought designed
       to sustain his flagging popularity. Nor can it be said that
       the project was first started by him. The deep indignation
       that the Union had produced in Ireland was fermenting among
       all classes, and assuming the form, sometimes of a French
       party, sometimes of a social war, and sometimes of a
       constitutional agitation. … It would be tedious to follow
       into minute detail the difficulties and the mistakes that
       obstructed the Catholic movement, and were finally overcome by
       the energy or the tact of O'Connell. … Several times the
       movement was menaced by Government proclamations and
       prosecutions. Its great difficulty was to bring the public
       opinion of the whole body of the Roman Catholics actively and
       habitually into the question. … All preceding movements
       since the Revolution (except the passing excitement about
       Wood's halfpence) had been chiefly among the Protestants or
       among the higher order of the Catholics. The mass of the
       people had taken no real interest in politics, had felt no
       real pain at their disabilities, and were politically the
       willing slaves of their landlords. For the first time, under
       the influence of O'Connell, the great swell of a really
       democratic movement was felt. The simplest way of
       concentrating the new enthusiasm would have been by a system
       of delegates, but this had been rendered illegal by the
       Convention Act. On the other hand, the right of petitioning
       was one of the fundamental privileges of the constitution. By
       availing himself of this right O'Connell contrived, with the
       dexterity of a practised lawyer, to violate continually the
       spirit of the Convention Act, while keeping within the letter
       of the law. Proclamation after proclamation was launched
       against his society, but by continually changing its name and
       its form he generally succeeded in evading the prosecutions of
       the Government. These early societies, however, all sink into
       insignificance compared with that great Catholic Association
       which was formed in 1824. The avowed objects of this society
       were to promote religious education, to ascertain the
       numerical strength of the different religions, and to answer
       the charges against the Roman Catholics embodied in the
       hostile petitions. It also 'recommended' petitions
       (unconnected with the society) from every parish, and
       aggregate meetings in every county. The real object was to
       form a gigantic system of organisation, ramifying over the
       entire country, and directed in every parish by the priests,
       for the purpose of petitioning and in every other way
       agitating in favour of emancipation. The Catholic Rent [a
       system of small subscriptions—as small as a penny a
       month—collected from the poorest contributors, throughout
       Ireland] was instituted at this time, and it formed at once a
       powerful instrument of cohesion and a faithful barometer of
       the popular feeling. … The success of the Catholic
       Association became every week more striking. The rent rose
       with an extraordinary rapidity [from £350 a week in October to
       £700 a week in December, 1824]. The meetings in every county
       grew more and more enthusiastic, the triumph of priestly
       influence more and more certain. The Government made a feeble
       and abortive effort to arrest the storm by threatening both
       O'Connell and Sheil [Richard Lalor] with prosecution for
       certain passages in their speeches. … The formation of the
       Wellington Ministry [Wellington and Peel, 1828] seemed
       effectually to crush the present hopes of the Catholics, for
       the stubborn resolution of its leader was as well known as his
       Tory opinions. Yet this Ministry was destined to terminate the
       contest by establishing the principle of religious equality.
       … On the accession of the Wellington Ministry to power the
       Catholic Association passed a resolution to the effect that
       they would oppose with their whole energy any Irish member who
       consented to accept office under it. …
    {1785}
       An opportunity for carrying the resolution into effect soon
       occurred. Mr. Fitzgerald, the member for Clare, accepted the
       office of President of the Board of Trade, and was
       consequently obliged to go to his constituents for
       re-election." O'Connell entered the lists against him. "The
       excitement at this announcement rose at once to fever height.
       It extended over every part of Ireland, and penetrated every
       class of society. The whole mass of the Roman Catholics
       prepared to support him, and the vast system of organisation
       which he had framed acted effectually in every direction." For
       the first time, the landlords found that the voting of their
       tenants could not be controlled. Fitzgerald withdrew from the
       contest and O'Connell was elected. "Ireland was now on the
       very verge of revolution. The whole mass of the people had
       been organised like a regular army, and taught to act with the
       most perfect unanimity. … The Ministers, feeling further
       resistance to be hopeless, brought in the Emancipation Bill,
       confessedly because to withhold it would be to kindle a
       rebellion that would extend over the length and breadth of the
       land."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: O'Connell.

       "Peel introduced the Relief Bill on the 5th March [1829]. The
       king had given to it a reluctant assent. At the last hour, the
       intrigues of Eldon and the Duke of Cumberland had so far
       influenced his weak and disingenuous mind that he withdrew his
       assent to his ministers' policy, on the pretence that he had
       not expected, and could not sanction, any modification of the
       Oath of Supremacy. He parted from his ministers with kisses
       and courtesy, and, for a few hours their resignation was in
       his hands. But with night his discretion waxed as his courage
       waned; his ministers were recalled, and their measure
       proceeded. In its main provisions it was thorough and
       far-reaching. It admitted the Roman Catholic to Parliament,
       and to all lay offices under the Crown, except those of
       Regent, Lord Chancellor, whether of England or of Ireland, and
       Lord Lieutenant. It repealed the oath of abjuration, it
       modified the oath of supremacy. … It approximated the Irish
       to the English county franchise by abolishing the
       forty-shilling freeholder, and raising the voters'
       qualifications to £10. All monasteries and institutions of
       Jesuits were suppressed; and Roman Catholic bishops were
       forbidden to assume titles of sees already held by bishops of
       the Church of Ireland. Municipal and other officials were
       forbidden to wear the insignia of their office at Roman
       Catholic ceremonies. Lastly, the new Oath of Supremacy was
       available only for persons thereafter to be elected to
       Parliament"—which nullified O'Connell's election at Clare.
       This petty stroke of malice is said to have been introduced in
       the bill for the gratification of the king. The vote in the
       Commons on the Bill was 353 against 180, and in the Lords 217
       to 112. It received the Royal assent on the 13th of April.

          J. A. Hamilton,
          Life of Daniel O'Connell,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. McCarthy,
          Sir Robert Peel,
          chapters 2-7.

          W. J. Fitzpatrick,
          Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell,
          with notices of his Life and Times,
          volume 1, chapters 1-5.

          W. J. Amherst,
          History of Catholic Emancipation.

          W. C. Taylor,
          Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 1, chapters 16-18
          and volume 2, chapters 1-2.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.
       Rise of the Ribbon Society.

       "Throughout the half-century extending from 1820 to 1870, a
       secret oath-bound agrarian confederacy, known as the 'Ribbon
       Society,' was the constant affliction and recurring terror of
       the landed classes of Ireland. The Vehmgericht itself was not
       more dreaded. … It is assuredly strange—indeed, almost
       incredible—that although the existence of this organisation
       was, in a general way, as well and as widely known as the fact
       that Queen Victoria reigned, or that Daniel O'Connell was once
       a living man; although the story of its crimes has thrilled
       judge and jury, and parliamentary committees have filled
       ponderous blue-books with evidence of its proceedings, there
       is to this hour the widest conflict of assertion and
       conclusion as to what exactly were its real aims, its origin,
       structure, character, and purpose. … I long ago satisfied
       myself that the Ribbonism of one period was not the Ribbonism
       of another; that the version of its aims and character
       prevalent amongst its own members in one county or district
       differed widely from that existing elsewhere. In Ulster it
       professed to be a defensive or retaliatory league against
       Orangeism. In Munster it was at first a combination against
       tithe-proctors. In Connaught it was an organisation against
       rack-renting and evictions. In Leinster it often was mere
       trade-unionism. … The Ribbon Society seems to have been
       wholly confined to small farmers, cottiers, labourers, and, in
       the towns, petty shopkeepers, in whose houses the 'lodges'
       were held. … Although from the inception, or first
       appearance, of Ribbonism the Catholic clergy waged a
       determined war upon it … the society was exclusively
       Catholic. Under no circumstances would a Protestant be
       admitted to membership. … The name 'Ribbon Society' was not
       attached to it until about 1826. It was previously known as
       'Liberty Men'; the 'Religious Liberty System'; the 'United
       Sons of Irish Freedom'; 'Sons of the Shamrock'; and by other
       names. … It has been said, and probably with some truth,
       that it has been too much the habit to attribute erroneously
       to the Ribbon organisation every atrocity committed in the
       country, every deed of blood apparently arising out of
       agrarian combination or conspiracy. … But vain is all
       pretence that the Ribbon Society did not become, whatever the
       original design or intention of its members may have been, a
       hideous organisation of outrage and murder. … There was a
       period when Ribbon outrages had, at all events, a conceivable
       provocation; but there came a time when they sickened the
       public conscience by their wantonness. The vengeance of the
       society was ruthless and terrible. … From 1835 to 1855 the
       Ribbon organisation was at its greatest strength. … With the
       emigration of the labouring classes it was carried abroad, to
       England and to America. At one time the most formidable lodges
       were in Lancashire."

          A. M. Sullivan,
          New Ireland,
          chapter 4.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1831.
       Establishment of National Schools.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—IRELAND.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1832.
       Parliamentary Representation increased by the Reform Bill.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

    {1786}

    IRELAND: A. D. 1840-1841.
       Discontent with the results of the Union.
       Condition of the people.
       O'Connell's revival of agitation for Repeal.

       "The Catholics were at length emancipated in 1829; and now,
       surely, their enemies suggested, they must be contented and
       grateful for evermore? Perverse must the people be who, having
       got what they asked, are not satisfied. Let us see. What they
       asked was to be admitted to their just share, or, at any rate
       to some share, of the government of their native country, from
       which they had been excluded for five generations. But on the
       passing of the Emancipation Act not a single Catholic was
       admitted to an office of authority, great or small. The door
       was opened, indeed, but not a soul was permitted to pass in.
       There were murmurs of discontent, and the class who still
       enjoyed all the patronage of the State, the Church, the army,
       the magistracy, and the public service, demanded if there was
       any use in attempting to conciliate a people so intractable
       and unreasonable? The Catholic Association, which had won the
       victory, was rewarded for its public spirit by being dissolved
       by Act of Parliament. Its leader, who had been elected to the
       House of Commons, had his election declared void by a phrase
       imported into the Emancipation Act for this special purpose.
       The forty-shilling freeholders, whose courage and magnanimity
       had made the cause irresistible, were immediately deprived of
       the franchise. By means of a high qualification and an
       ingeniously complicated system of registry, the electors in
       twelve counties were reduced from upwards of 100,000 to less
       than 10,000. Englishmen cannot comprehend our dissatisfaction.
       … Emancipation was speedily followed by a Reform of the
       House of Commons. In England a sweeping and salutary change
       was made both in the franchise, and in the distribution of
       seats; but Ireland did not obtain either the number of
       representatives she was demonstrably entitled to by population
       and resources, or such a reduction of the franchise as had
       been conceded to England. The Whigs were in power, and Ireland
       was well-disposed to the party. … But the idea of treating
       Ireland on perfectly equal terms, and giving her the full
       advantage of the Union which had been forced on her, did not
       exist in the mind of a single statesman of that epoch. After
       Emancipation and Reform, O'Connell had a fierce quarrel with
       the Whigs, during which he raised the question of Ireland's
       right to be governed exclusively by her own Parliament. The
       people responded passionately to his appeal. The party of
       Protestant Ascendancy had demanded the Repeal of the Union
       before Emancipation, but that disturbing event altered their
       policy, and they withheld all aid from O'Connell. After a
       brief time he abandoned the experiment, to substitute for it
       an attempt to obtain what was called 'justice to Ireland.' In
       furtherance of this project he made a compact with the Whigs
       that the Irish Party under his lead should support them in
       parliament. The Whigs in return made fairer appointments to
       judicial and other public employments, restrained jury
       packing, and established an unsectarian system of public
       education; but the national question was thrown back for more
       than a generation. In 1840-1 O'Connell revived the question of
       Repeal, on the ground that the Union had wholly failed to
       accomplish the end for which it was said to be designed.
       Instead of bringing Ireland prosperity, it had brought her
       ruin. The social condition of the country during the
       half-century, then drawing to a close was, indeed, without
       parallel in Europe. The whole population were dependent on
       agriculture. There were minerals, but none found in what
       miners call 'paying quantities.' There was no manufacture
       except linen, and the remnant of a woollen trade, slowly dying
       out before the pitiless competition of Yorkshire. What the
       island chiefly produced was food; which was exported to richer
       countries to enable the cultivator to pay an inordinate rent.
       Foreign travellers saw with amazement an island possessing all
       the natural conditions of a great commerce, as bare of
       commerce as if it lay in some byeway of the world where
       enterprise had not yet penetrated. … The great proprietors
       were two or three hundred—the heirs of the Undertakers, for
       the most part, and Absentees; the mass of the country was
       owned by a couple of thousand others, who lived in splendour,
       and even profusion; and for these the peasant ploughed, sowed,
       tended, and reaped a harvest which he never shared. Rent, in
       other countries, means the surplus after the farmer has been
       liberally paid for his skill and labour; in Ireland it meant
       the whole produce of the soil except a potato-pit. If a farmer
       strove for more, his master knew how to bring him to speedy
       submission. He could carry away his implements of trade by the
       law of distress, or rob him of his sole pursuit in life by the
       law of eviction. He could, and habitually did, seize the
       growing crop, the stools and pots in his miserable cabin, the
       blanket that sheltered his children, the cow that gave them
       nourishment. There were just and humane landlords, men who
       performed the duties which their position imposed, and did not
       exaggerate its rights; but they were a small minority. …
       Famines were frequent, and every other year destitution killed
       a crowd of peasants. For a hundred and fifty years before,
       whoever has described the condition of Ireland—English
       official, foreign visitor, or Irish patriot—described a
       famine more or less acute. Sometimes the tortured serfs rose
       in nocturnal jacquerie against the system; and then a cry of
       'rebellion' was raised, and England was assured that these
       intractable barbarians were again (as the indictment always
       charged) 'levying war against the King's majesty.' There were
       indeed causes enough for national disaffection, but of these
       the poor peasant knew nothing; he was contending for so much
       miserable food as would save his children from starvation.
       There were sometimes barbarous agrarian murders—murders of
       agents and bailiffs chiefly, but occasionally of landlords. It
       would be shameful to forget that these savage crimes were
       often the result of savage provocation. … The country was
       naked of timber, the cabins of the peasantry were squalid and
       unfurnished. Mr. Carlyle reproves a lazy, thriftless people,
       who would not perform the simple operation of planting trees;
       and Mr. Froude frowns upon cottages whose naked walls are
       never draped by climbing roses or flowering creepers. But how
       much more eloquent is fact than rhetoric? The Irish landlords
       made a law that when the tenant planted a tree it became not
       his own property but his master's; and the established
       practice of four-fifths of the Irish landlords, when a tenant
       exhibited such signs of prosperity as a garden, or a
       white-washed cabin, was to reward his industry by increasing
       his rent.
    {1787}
       Peasants will not plant or make improvements on these
       conditions, nor, I fancy, would philosophers. … It was
       sometimes made a boast in those days that rank, property,
       station, and professional success distinguished the minority
       in Ireland who were imperialists and Protestants. It was not
       an amazing phenomenon, that those upon whom the law had
       bestowed a monopoly of rank, property, and station, for a
       hundred and fifty years, should have still maintained the
       advantage a dozen years after Emancipation. It was a subject
       of scornful reproach that the districts inhabited by
       Protestants were peaceful and prosperous, while the Catholic
       districts were often poor and disorderly. There is no doubt of
       the facts; the contrast certainly existed. But the mystery
       disappears when one comes to reflect that in Down and Antrim
       the Squire regarded his tenantry with as much sympathy and
       confidence as a Squire in Devon or Essex, that their sons were
       trained to bear arms, and taught from the pulpit and platform
       that they belonged to a superior race, that all the local
       employments, paid out of the public purse, were distributed
       among them, that they had certain well understood rights over
       their holdings on which no landlord could safely trench, and
       that they met their masters, from time to time, in the
       friendly equality of an Orange lodge; while in Tipperary, the
       farmer was a tenant at will who never saw his landlord except
       when he followed the hounds across his corn, or frowned at him
       from the bench; whose rent could be raised, or his tenancy
       terminated at the pleasure of his master; who, on the smallest
       complaint, was carried before a bench of magistrates, where he
       had no expectation, and little chance, of justice; and who
       wanted the essential stimulus to thrift and industry, the
       secure enjoyment of his earnings. As a set-off to this long
       catalogue of discouragements, there were two facts of happy
       augury. In 1842 half a million of children were receiving
       education in the National Schools under a system designed to
       establish religious equality, and administered by Catholic and
       Protestant Commissioners. And the Teetotal movement was at its
       height. Thousands were accepting every week a pledge of total
       abstinence from Father Mathew, a young priest whom the gifts
       of nature and the accidents of fortune combined to qualify for
       the mission of a Reformer. … There was the beginning of
       political reforms also. The Whigs sent a Lord Lieutenant and
       Chief Secretary to Ireland who, for the first time since the
       fall of Limerick, treated the bulk of the nation as the social
       and political equals of the minority. The minority had been so
       long accustomed to make and administer the laws, and to occupy
       the places of authority and distinction, that they regarded
       the change as a revolt; and Lord Mulgrave and Thomas Drummond
       as the successors of Tyrconnel and Nugent. In the interval,
       since Emancipation, a few Catholics were elected to
       Parliament, two Catholic lawyers were raised to the bench, and
       smaller appointments distributed among laymen. … The
       exclusion of Catholics from juries was restrained, and the
       practice of appointing partisans of too shameful antecedents
       to public functions was interrupted. … It was under these
       circumstances that O'Connell for the second time summoned the
       Irish people to demand a Repeal of the Union."

          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          A Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
          pages 242-275.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,
          Two Centuries of Irish History,
          part 4, chapters 1-2.

          R. M. Martin,
          Ireland before and after the Union.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.
       O'Connell's last agitation.
       His trial, imprisonment and release.
       His death.
       The "Young Ireland" Party and its rebellion.

       In 1841, O'Connell "left England and went to Ireland, and
       devoted himself there to the work of organization. A
       succession of monster meetings were held all over the country,
       the far-famed one on Tara Hill being, as is credibly asserted,
       attended by no less than a quarter of a million of people.
       Over this vast multitude gathered together around him the
       magic tones of the great orator's voice swept triumphantly;
       awakening anger, grief, passion, delight, laughter, tears, at
       its own pleasure. They were astonishing triumphs, but they
       were dearly bought. The position was, in fact, an impossible
       one to maintain long. O'Connell had carried the whole mass of
       the people with him up to the very brink of the precipice, but
       how to bring them safely and successfully down again was more
       than even he could accomplish. Resistance he had always
       steadily denounced, yet every day his own words seemed to be
       bringing the inevitable moment of collision nearer and nearer.
       The crisis came on October the 5th. A meeting had been
       summoned to meet at Clontarf, near Dublin, and on the
       afternoon of the 4th the Government suddenly came to the
       resolution of issuing a proclamation forbidding it to
       assemble. The risk was a formidable one for responsible men to
       run. Many of the people were already on their way, and only
       O'Connell's own rapid and vigorous measures in sending out in
       all directions to intercept them hindered the actual shedding
       of blood. His prosecution and that of some of his principal
       adherents was the next important event. By a Dublin jury he
       was found guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and
       conveyed to prison, still earnestly entreating the people to
       remain quiet, an order which they strictly obeyed. The jury by
       which he had been condemned was known to be strongly biassed
       against him, and an appeal had been forwarded against his
       sentence to the House of Lords. So strong there, too, was the
       feeling against O'Connell, that little expectation was
       entertained of its being favourably received. Greatly to its
       honour, however, the sentence was reversed and he was set
       free. … The enthusiasm shown at his release was frantic and
       delirious. None the less those months in Richmond prison
       proved the death-knell of his power. He was an old man by this
       time; he was already weakened in health, and that buoyancy
       which had hitherto carried him over any and every obstacle
       never again revived. The 'Young Ireland' party, the members of
       which had in the first instance been his allies and
       lieutenants, had now formed a distinct section, and upon the
       vital question of resistance were in fierce hostility to all
       his most cherished principles. The state of the country, too,
       preyed visibly upon his mind. By 1846 had begun that
       succession of disastrous seasons which, by destroying the
       feeble barrier which stood between the peasant and a cruel
       death, brought about a national tragedy, the most terrible
       perhaps with which modern Europe has been confronted. This
       tragedy, though he did not live to see the whole of it,
       O'Connell—himself the incarnation of the people—felt
       acutely.
    {1788}
       Deep despondency took hold of him. He retired, to a great
       degree, from public life, leaving the conduct of his
       organization in the hands of others. … In 1847 he resolved
       to leave Ireland, and to end his days in Rome. His last public
       appearance was in the House of Commons, where an attentive and
       deeply respectful audience hung upon the faltering and barely
       articulate accents which fell from his lips. In a few deeply
       moving words he appealed for aid and sympathy for his
       suffering countrymen, and left the House. … The camp and
       council chamber of the 'Young Ireland' party was the editor's
       room of 'The Nation' newspaper. There it found its
       inspiration, and there its plans were matured—so far, that
       is, as they can be said to have been ever matured. For an
       eminently readable and all things considered a wonderfully
       impartial account of this movement, the reader cannot do
       better than consult Sir Charles Gavan Duffy's 'Four Years of
       Irish History,' which has the immense advantage of being
       history taken at first hand, written that is by one who
       himself took a prominent part in the scenes which he
       describes. The most interesting figure in the party had,
       however, died before those memorable four years began. Thomas
       Davis, who was only thirty at the time of his death in 1845,
       was a man of large gifts, nay, might fairly be called a man of
       genius. … The whole movement in fact was, in the first
       instance; a literary quite as much as a political one. Nearly
       all who took part in it Gavan Duffy, John Mitchell, Meagher,
       Dillon, Davis himself—were very young men, many fresh from
       college, all filled with zeal for the cause of liberty and
       nationality. The graver side of the movement only showed
       itself when the struggle with O'Connell began. At first no
       idea of deposing, or even seriously opposing the great leader
       seems to have been intended. The attempt on O'Connell's part
       to carry a formal declaration against the employment under any
       circumstances of physical force was, the origin of that
       division, and what the younger spirits considered 'truckling
       to the Whigs' helped to widen the breach. When, too, O'Connell
       had partially retired into the background, his place was
       filled by his son, John O'Connell, the 'Head conciliator,'
       between whom and the 'Young Irelanders' there waged a fierce
       war, which in the end led to the indignant withdrawal of the
       latter from the Repeal council. Before matters reached this
       point, the younger camp had been strengthened by the adhesion
       of Smith O'Brien, who, though not a man of much intellectual
       calibre, carried no little weight in Ireland. … Early in
       January, 1847, O'Connell left on that journey of his which was
       never completed, and by the middle of May Ireland was suddenly
       startled by the news that her great leader was dead. The
       effect of his death was to produce a sudden and immense
       reaction. A vast revulsion of love and reverence sprang up all
       over the country; an immense sense of his incomparable
       services, and with it a vehement anger against all who had
       opposed him. Upon the 'Young Ireland' party, as was
       inevitable, the weight of that anger fell chiefly, and from
       the moment of O'Connell's death whatever claim they had to
       call themselves a national party vanished utterly. The men
       'who killed the Liberator' could never again hope to carry
       with them the suffrages of any number of their countrymen.
       This contumely, to a great degree undeserved, naturally
       reacted upon the subjects of it. The taunt of treachery and
       ingratitude flung at them wherever they went stung and
       nettled. In the general reaction of gratitude and affection
       for O'Connell, his son John succeeded easily to the position
       of leader. The older members of the Repeal Association
       thereupon rallied about him, and the split between them and
       the younger men grew deeper and wider. A wild, impracticable
       visionary now came to play a part in the movement. A deformed
       misanthrope, called James Lalor, endowed with a considerable
       command of vague, passionate rhetoric, began to write
       incentives to revolt in 'The Nation.' These growing more and
       more violent were by the editor at length prudently
       suppressed. The seed, however, had already sown itself in
       another mind. John Mitchell is described by Mr. Justin
       McCarthy as 'the one formidable man amongst the rebels of '48;
       the one man who distinctly knew what he wanted, and was
       prepared to run any risk to get it.' … To him it was
       intolerable that any human being should be willing to go
       further and to dare more in the cause of Ireland than himself,
       and the result was that after awhile he broke away from his
       connection with The Nation,' and started a new organ under
       the name of 'The United Irishmen,' one definitely pledged from
       the first to the policy of action. From this point matters
       gathered speedily to a head. Mitchell's newspaper proceeded to
       fling out challenge after challenge to the Government, calling
       upon the people to gather and to 'sweep-this island clear of
       the English name and nation.' For some months these challenges
       remained unanswered. It was now, however, '48,' and nearly all
       Europe was in revolution. The necessity of taking some step
       began to be evident, and a Bill making all written incitement
       of insurrection felony was hurried through the House of
       Commons, and almost immediately after Mitchell was arrested.
       Even then he seems to have believed that the country would
       rise to liberate him. The country, however, showed no
       disposition to do anything of the sort. He was tried in
       Dublin, found guilty, sentenced to fourteen years'
       transportation, and a few days afterwards put on board a
       vessel in the harbour and conveyed to Spike Island, whence he
       was sent to Bermuda, and the following April in a convict
       vessel to the Cape, and finally to Tasmania. The other 'Young
       Irelanders,' stung apparently by their own previous inaction,
       thereupon rushed frantically into rebellion. The
       leaders—Smith O'Brien, Meagher, Dillon, and others—went
       about the country holding reviews of 'Confederates,' as they
       now called themselves, a proceeding which caused the
       Government to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and to issue a
       warrant for their arrest. A few more gatherings took place in
       different parts of the country, a few more ineffectual
       attempts were made to induce the people to rise, one very
       small collision with the police occurred, and then the whole
       thing was over. All the leaders in the course of a few days
       were arrested and Smith O'Brien and Meagher were sentenced to
       death, a sentence which was speedily changed into
       transportation. Gavan Duffy was arrested and several times
       tried, but the jury always disagreed, and in the end his
       prosecution was abandoned. The 'Young Ireland' movement,
       however, was dead, and never again revived."

          E. Lawless,
          The Story of Ireland,
          chapters 55-56.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          Young Ireland.

          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          Four Years of Irish History, 1845-1849.

          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          Thomas Davis: Memoirs of an Irish Patriot, 1840-1846.

    {1789}

    IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.
       The Devon Commission.
       The Encumbered Estates Act.

       In 1843, Mr. Sharman Crawford "succeeded in obtaining the
       appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the
       'occupation of land in Ireland.' This Commission, known from
       its chairman, Lord Devon, as the Devon Commission, marks a
       great epoch in the Irish land question. The Commissioners, in
       their Report, brought out strongly the facts that great misery
       existed in Ireland, and that the cause of the misery was the
       system of land tenure. The following extract from the Report
       indicates the general nature of its conclusions: 'A reference
       to the evidence of most of the witnesses will show that the
       agricultural labourer of Ireland continues to suffer the
       greatest privations and hardships; that he continues to depend
       upon casual and precarious employment for subsistence; that he
       is badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for
       his labour. Our personal experience and observations during
       our enquiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of
       these statements, and we cannot forbear expressing our strong
       sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes
       have generally exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe,
       than the people of any other country in Europe have to
       sustain.' And the remedy for the evil is to be found,
       continues the Report, in 'an increased and improved
       cultivation of the soil,' to be gained by securing for the
       tenant' fair remuneration for the outlay of his capital and
       labour.' No sooner was this Report issued than great numbers
       of petitions were presented to the House of Lords, and
       supported by Lord Devon, praying for legislative reform of the
       land evils; and in June, 1845, a bill was introduced into the
       House of Lords by Lord Stanley, on behalf of the government of
       Sir Robert Peel, for 'the purpose of providing compensation to
       tenants in Ireland, in certain cases, on being dispossessed of
       their holdings, for such improvements as they may have made
       during their tenancy.' By the selfish opposition of the Irish
       landlords this bill was thrown out. Two days after its
       rejection in the House of Lords Mr. Sharman Crawford brought
       into the House of Commons a Tenant Right Bill, and met with as
       little success. In 1846 a government bill was introduced,
       bearing a strong resemblance to that of Lord Stanley; but the
       ministry was overthrown, and the bill was dropped. A Liberal
       ministry under Lord John Russell came into power in July,
       1846, and Irish hopes again began to rise. In 1847 the
       indefatigable Mr. Crawford brought in a bill, whose purpose
       was to extend the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland; it
       was thrown out. A well-meant but in the end unsuccessful
       attempt to relieve the burdens of embarrassed landlords
       without redressing the grievances of rack-rented tenants, was
       made in 1848 by the measure well known as the Encumbered
       Estates Act. This Act had for its object to restore capital to
       the land; but with capital it brought in a class of
       proprietors who lacked the virtues as well as the vices of
       their predecessors, and were even more oppressive to the
       tenantry."

          E. Thursfield,
          England and Ireland,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          H. L. Jephson,
          Notes on Irish Questions,
          chapter 15.

          D. B. King,
          The Irish Question,
          chapter 9.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1844.
       The Maynooth Grant.

       Towards the close of the session of Parliament in 1844, Sir
       Robert Peel undertook a measure "dealing with higher education
       in Ireland. Means were to be found, in some way, for the
       education of the upper classes of the Irish, and for the more
       efficient education of candidates for the Roman Catholic
       priesthood. Some provision already existed for the education
       of the Irish people. Trinity College, with its considerable
       endowments, afforded opportunities to wealthy Irish. The
       National Board, which Stanley had instituted, had under its
       control 3,153 schools, and 395,000 scholars. But Trinity
       College retained most of its advantages for the benefit of its
       Protestant students, and the 395,000 scholars, whom the
       National Board was educating, did not, after all, include one
       person in every twenty alive in Ireland. The Roman Catholic,
       since 1793, had been allowed to graduate at Trinity; but he
       could hold neither scholarship nor professorship. … Some
       steps had, indeed, been taken for the education of the Roman
       Catholic priesthood. In 1795, Fitzwilliam had proposed, and
       his successor, Camden, had approved, the appropriation of an
       annual sum of money to a college formed at Maynooth for the
       education of Roman Catholic priests. The Irish parliament had
       readily sanctioned the scheme; the payment of the grant had
       been continued, after the Union, by the Parliament of the
       United Kingdom, and, though the sums voted had been reduced to
       £9,000 a year in 1808, this amount had been thenceforward
       regularly allotted to Maynooth. In some respects the grant was
       actually disadvantageous to the college; it was too small to
       maintain the institution; it was large enough to discourage
       voluntary contributions. The surroundings of the college were
       squalid; its professors were wretchedly paid; it was even
       impossible to assign to each of the 440 students a separate
       room; it was dubbed by Macaulay, in a memorable speech, a
       'miserable Dotheboys' Hall,' and it was Peel's deliberate
       opinion that the absolute withdrawal of the grant would be
       better than the continuance of the niggardly allowance." The
       Government "asked Parliament to vote a sum of £30,000 to
       improve the buildings at Maynooth; it proposed that the Board
       of Works should in future be responsible for keeping them in
       repair; it suggested that the salaries of professors should be
       more than doubled; that the position of the students should be
       improved; that the annual grant should be raised from about
       £9,000 to about £26,000, and that this sum, instead of being
       subject to the approval of the legislature once a year, should
       be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Then arose a series of
       debates which have no parallel in the history of the British
       Parliament. … 'The Orangeman raises his howl,' said
       Macaulay, 'and Exeter Hall sets up its bray, and Mr. MacNeile
       is horrified to think that a still larger grant is intended
       for the priests of Baal at the table of Jezebel, and the
       Protestant operatives of Dublin call for the impeachment of
       Ministers in exceedingly bad English.'
    {1790}
       A few years later a man, who was both a Christian and a
       gentleman, declared the Irish famine to be a dispensation of
       Providence in return for the Maynooth grant. … Night after
       night it rained petitions; 298 petitions against the bill were
       presented on the 3rd of April, when Peel explained his scheme;
       148 on the 8th; 254 on the 9th; 552 on the 10th; 2,262 on the
       11th, when the bill was put down for a second reading; 662 on
       the 14th; 581 on the 15th; 420 on the 16th; 335 on the 17th;
       371 on the 18th. The petitions hardly allowed a doubt to
       remain as to the opinion of the country. Peel, indeed, was
       again exposed to the full force of the strongest power which
       any British Minister can encounter. The Mussulman, driven to
       his last defence, raises the standard of the Prophet, and
       proclaims a holy war. But the Englishman, if Protestantism be
       in danger, shouts, 'No Popery!' and creates equal enthusiasm.
       … Yet, vast as was the storm which the Minister had
       provoked, the issues which he had directly raised were of the
       smallest proportions. Hardly anyone ventured to propose that
       the original vote to Maynooth should be withdrawn. A grant,
       indeed, which had been sanctioned by George III., which had
       been fixed by Perceval, which had been voted in an unreformed
       Parliament, almost without debate, and which had been
       continued for fifty years, could not be withdrawn. Peel's
       opponents, therefore, were compelled to argue that there was
       no harm in sacrificing £9,000 a year to Baal, but that a
       sacrifice of £26,000 was full of harm. … They debated the
       second reading of the bill for six nights, the third reading
       for three nights, and they seized other opportunities for
       protracting the discussion. Even the Lords forgot their
       customary habits and sat up till a late hour on three
       successive evenings to discuss an amendment for inquiring into
       the class of books used at Maynooth. But this unusual display
       of zeal proved useless. A majority in both Houses steadily
       supported the Minister, and zealous Protestants and
       old-fashioned Tories were unable to defeat a scheme which was
       proposed by Peel and supported by Russell."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 19 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN;
          H. Martineau,
          History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
          book 6, chapter 8.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.
       The Famine.

       "In 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,175,124 souls. By
       1845 it had probably reached to nearly nine millions. … To
       anyone looking beneath the surface the condition of the
       country was painfully precarious. Nine millions of a
       population living at best in a light-hearted and hopeful
       hand-to-mouth contentment, totally dependent on the hazards of
       one crop, destitute of manufacturing industries, and utterly
       without reserve or resource to fall back upon in time of
       reverse; what did all this mean but a state of things critical
       and alarming in the extreme? Yet no one seemed conscious of
       danger. The potato crop had been abundant for four or five
       years, and respite from dearth and distress was comparative
       happiness and prosperity. Moreover, the temperance movement
       [of Father Mathew] had come to make the 'good times' still
       better. Everything looked bright. No one concerned himself to
       discover how slender and treacherous was the foundation for
       this general hopefulness and confidence. Yet signs of the
       coming storm had been given. Partial famine caused by failing
       harvests had indeed been intermittent in Ireland, and, quite
       recently, warnings that ought not to have been mistaken or
       neglected had given notice that the esculent which formed the
       sole dependence of the peasant millions was subject to some
       mysterious blight. In 1844 it was stricken in America, but in
       Ireland the yield was healthy and plentiful as ever. The
       harvest of 1845 promised to be the richest gathered for many
       years. Suddenly, in one short month, in one week it might be
       said, the withering breath of a simoom seemed to sweep the
       land, blasting all in its path. I myself saw whole tracts of
       potato growth changed in one night from smiling luxuriance to
       a shrivelled and blackened waste. A shout of alarm arose. But
       the buoyant nature of the Celtic peasant did not yet give way.
       The crop was so profuse that it was expected the healthy
       portion would reach an average result. Winter revealed the
       alarming fact that the tubers had rotted in pit and
       store-house. Nevertheless the farmers, like hapless men who
       double their stakes to recover losses, made only the more
       strenuous exertions to till a larger breadth in 1846. Although
       already feeling the pinch of sore distress, if not actual
       famine, they worked as if for dear life; they begged and
       borrowed on any terms the means whereby to crop the land once
       more. The pawn-offices were choked with the humble finery that
       had shone at the village dance or the christening feast; the
       banks and local money-lenders were besieged with appeals for
       credit. Meals were stinted, backs were bared. Anything,
       anything to tide over the interval to the harvest of
       'Forty-six.' O God, it is a dreadful thought that all this
       effort was but more surely leading them to ruin! It was this
       harvest of Forty-six that sealed their doom. Not partially but
       completely, utterly, hopelessly, it perished. As in the
       previous year, all promised brightly up to the close of July.
       Then, suddenly, in a night, whole areas were blighted; and
       this time, alas! no portion of the crop escaped. A cry of
       agony and despair went up all over the land. The last
       desperate stake for life had been played, and all was lost.
       The doomed people realised but too well what was before them.
       Last year's premonitory sufferings had exhausted them, and
       now?—they must die! My native district figures largely in the
       gloomy record of that dreadful time. I saw the horrible
       phantasmagoria—would God it were but that!—pass before my
       eyes. Blank stolid dismay, a sort of stupor, fell upon the
       people, contrasting remarkably with the fierce energy put
       forth a year before. It was no uncommon sight to see the
       cottier and his little family seated on the garden fence
       gazing all day long in moody silence at the blighted plot that
       had been their last hope. Nothing could arouse them. You
       spoke; they answered not. You tried to cheer them; they shook
       their heads. I never saw so sudden and so terrible a
       transformation. When first in the autumn of 1845 the partial
       blight appeared, wise voices were raised in warning to the
       Government that a frightful catastrophe was at hand; yet even
       then began that fatal circumlocution and inaptness which it
       maddens one to think of. It would be utter injustice to deny
       that the Government made exertions which judged by ordinary
       emergencies would be prompt and considerable.
    {1791}
       But judged by the awful magnitude of the evil then at hand or
       actually befallen, they were fatally tardy and inadequate.
       When at length the executive did hurry, the blunders of
       precipitancy outdid the disasters of excessive deliberation.
       … In October 1845 the Irish Mansion House Relief Committee
       implored the Government to call Parliament together and throw
       open the ports. The Government refused. Again and again the
       terrible urgency of the case, the magnitude of the disaster at
       hand, was pressed on the executive. It was the obstinate
       refusal of Lord John Russell to listen to these remonstrances
       and entreaties, and the sad verification subsequently of these
       apprehensions, that implanted in the Irish mind the bitter
       memories which still occasionally find vent in passionate
       accusation of 'England.' Not but the Government had many and
       weighty arguments in behalf of the course they took. … The
       situation bristled with difficulties. … At first the
       establishment of public soup-kitchens under local relief
       committees, subsidised by Government, was relied upon to
       arrest the famine. I doubt if the world ever saw so huge a
       demoralisation, so great a degradation, visited upon a once
       high-spirited and sensitive people. All over the country large
       iron boilers were set up, in which what was called 'soup' was
       concocted; later on Indian-meal stirabout was boiled. Around
       these boilers on the roadside there daily moaned and shrieked
       and fought and scuffled crowds of gaunt, cadaverous creatures
       that once had been men and women made in the image of God. The
       feeding of dogs in a kennel was far more decent and orderly.
       … I frequently stood and watched the scene till tears
       blinded me and I almost choked with grief and passion. … The
       conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period
       has been variously described, and has been, I believe,
       generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them
       too sweeping. … On many of them no blame too heavy could
       possibly fall. A large number were permanent absentees; their
       ranks were swelled by several who early fled the post of duty
       at home—cowardly and selfish deserters of a brave and
       faithful people. Of those who remained, some may have grown
       callous; it is impossible to contest authentic instances of
       brutal heartlessness here and there. But … the overwhelming
       balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish
       landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. … In
       the autumn of 1846 relief works were set on foot, the
       Government having received parliamentary authority to grant
       baronial loans for such undertakings. There might have been
       found many ways of applying these funds in reproductive
       employment, but the modes decided on were draining and
       road-making. … The result was in every sense deplorable
       failure. The wretched people were by this time too wasted and
       emaciated to work. The endeavour to do so under an inclement
       winter sky only hastened death. They tottered at day-break to
       the roll-call; vainly tried to wheel the barrow or ply the
       pick, but fainted away on the 'cutting,' or lay down on the
       wayside to rise no more. As for the roads on which so much
       money was wasted, and on which so many lives were sacrificed,
       hardly any of them were finished. Miles of grass-grown earth
       works throughout the country now mark their course and
       commemorate for posterity one of the gigantic blunders of the
       famine time. The first remarkable sign of the havoc which
       death was making was the decline, and disappearance of
       funerals. … Soon, alas! neither coffin nor shroud could be
       supplied. Daily in the street and on the footway some poor
       creature lay down as if to sleep, and presently was stiff and
       stark. In our district it was a common occurrence to find, on
       opening the front door in early morning, leaning against it,
       the corpse of some victim who in the night-time had 'rested'
       in its shelter. We raised a public subscription, and employed
       two men with horse and cart to go around each day and gather
       up the dead. One by one they were taken to a great pit at
       Ardnabrahair Abbey and dropped through the hinged bottom of a
       'trap-coffin' into a common grave below. In the remoter rural
       districts even this rude sepulture was impossible. In the
       field and by the ditchside the victims lay as they fell, till
       some charitable hand was found to cover them with the adjacent
       soil. It was the fever which supervened on the famine that
       wrought the greatest slaughter and spread the greatest terror.
       … To come within the reach of this contagion was certain
       death. Whole families perished unvisited and unassisted. By
       levelling above their corpses the sheeling in which they died,
       the neighbours gave them a grave."

          A. M. Sullivan,
          New Ireland,
          chapter 6.

       "In July 1847 as many as three millions of persons were
       actually receiving separate rations. A loan of £8,000,000 was
       contracted by the Government, expressly to supply such wants,
       and every step was taken by two successive administrations,
       Sir Robert Peel's and Lord John Russell's, to alleviate the
       sufferings of the people. Nor was private benevolence lacking.
       The Society of Friends, always ready in acts of charity and
       love, was foremost in the good work. A British Association was
       formed for the relief of Ireland, including Jones Lloyd (Lord
       Overstone), Thomas Baring, and Baron Rothschild. A Queen's
       letter was issued. … Subscriptions were received from almost
       every quarter of the world. The Queen's letter alone produced
       £171,533. The British Association collected £263,000; the
       Society of Friends £43,000; and £168,000 more were entrusted
       to the Dublin Society of Friends. The Sultan of Turkey sent
       £1,000. The Queen gave £2,000, and £500 more to the British
       Ladies' Clothing Fund. Prince Albert gave £500. The National
       Club collected £17,930. America sent two ships of war, the
       'Jamestown' and the 'Macedonian,' full of provisions; and the
       Irish residents in the United States sent upwards of £200,000
       to their relatives, to allow them to emigrate."

          L. Levi,
          History of British Commerce,
          part 4, chapter 4.

       "By the end of 1847 cheap supplies of food began to be brought
       into the country by the ordinary operation of the laws of
       supply and demand, at far cheaper rates, owing to an abundant
       harvest abroad, than if the Government had tried to constitute
       itself the sole distributor. The potato harvest of 1847, if
       not bountiful, was at least comparatively good. … By March,
       1848, the third and last period of the famine may be said to
       have terminated. But, though the direct period of distress was
       over, the economic problems which remained for solution were
       of overwhelming magnitude. … A million and a half of the
       people had disappeared. The land was devastated with fever and
       the diseases which dog the steps of famine. … The waters of the
       great deep were indeed going down, but the land was seen to be
       without form and void."

          Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,
          Two Centuries of Irish History,
          part 4, chapter 4.

    {1792}

       "The famine and plague of 1846-47 was accompanied, and
       succeeded, by a wholesale clearance of congested districts and
       by cruel evictions. The new landlords [who had acquired
       property under the Encumbered Estates Act], bent on
       consolidating their property, turned out their tenants by
       regiments, and in the autumn of 1847 enormous numbers were
       deported. It is absolutely necessary to bear this strictly in
       mind, if we would judge of the intense hatred which prevails
       amongst the Irish in America to Great Britain. The children of
       many of those who were exiled then have raised themselves to
       positions of affluence and prosperity in the United States.
       But they have often heard from their fathers, and some of them
       may perhaps recall, the circumstances under which they were
       driven from their old homes in Ireland. … But there is a
       further and awful memory connected with that time. The people
       who had been suffering from fever carried the plague with them
       on board, and the vessels sometimes became floating
       charnel-houses. During the year 1847, out of 106,000 emigrants
       who crossed the Atlantic for Canada and New Brunswick, 6,100
       perished on the ocean, 4,100 immediately on landing, 5,200
       subsequently in the hospitals, and 1,900 in the towns to which
       they repaired. … Undoubtedly, historical circumstances have
       … had much to do with the political hatred to Great Britain;
       but its newly acquired intensity is owing to the still fresh
       remembrances of what took place after the famine, and to the
       fact that the wholesale clearances of Irish estates were, to
       say the least, not discouraged in the writings and speeches of
       English lawgivers, economists and statesmen."

          Sir R. Blennerhassett,
          Ireland ("Reign of Queen Victoria,"
          edited by T. H. Ward,
          volume 1, pages 563-565).

       "The deaths from fever in the year 1846 were 17,145, in the
       following year 57,000, to which 27,000 by dysentery must be
       added."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 4, page 164.

       "Between the years 1847 and 1851 (both inclusive) the almost
       incredible number of over one million Irish—men, women, and
       children—were conveyed in emigrant ships to America—a
       whole population. In 1847, 215,444 emigrated; in 1849,
       218,842, and in 1851, 249,721."

          H. L. Jephson,
          Notes on Irish Questions,
          page 298.

       "The population of Ireland by March 30, 1851, at the same
       ratio of increase as held in England and Wales, would have
       been 9,018,799—it was 6,552,385. It was the calculation of
       the Census Commissioners that the deficit, independently of
       the emigration, represented by the mortality in the five
       famine years, was 985,366."

          T. P. O'Connor,
          The Parnell Movement,
          page 125.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1846.
       Defeat of Peel's Coercion Bill.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.
       Tenant organizations.
       The Ulster Tenant Right.
       The Tenant League.

       "The famine … and the evictions that followed it made the
       people more discontented than ever with the land system. The
       Democratic Association, organized about this time, adopted as
       its rallying cry, 'the land for the people.' … This
       association, whose aims are said to have been 'largely
       communistic and revolutionary,' opposed the Irish Alliance,
       the Nationalist Society organized by Charles Gavan Duffy. …
       During the years '49 and '50 numerous Tenant Protection
       Societies were formed throughout the country, the
       Presbyterians of Ulster taking quite as active a part as the
       Celtic Catholics of the other provinces. In May, 1850, the
       Presbyterian Synod of Ulster … resolved, against the
       protest, it is true, of the more conservative men, to petition
       Parliament to extend to the rest of Ireland the benefits of
       rights and securities similar to those of the Ulster custom.
       … The Ulster tenant right … has occupied an important
       place in the Irish land question for a long time. … The
       right differs much on different estates. On no two does it
       seem to be precisely the same. It is therefore not a right
       capable of being strictly defined. Nor did it have any legal
       sanction until the year 1870. The law did not recognize it.
       One of its chief incidents was that the tenant was entitled to
       live on his farm from year to year indefinitely on condition
       of acting properly, and paying his rent, which the landlord
       might raise from time to time to a reasonable extent, but not
       so as to extinguish the tenant's interest. In the second
       place, if the tenant got in debt, and could not pay the rent,
       or wished for any other reason to leave the holding, he could
       sell his interest, but the landlord had a right to be
       consulted, and could object to the purchaser. In the third
       place, the landlord, if he wanted to take the land for his own
       purposes, must pay the tenant a fair sum for his tenant-right.
       In the fourth place, all arrears of rent must be paid before
       the interest was transferred. These are said to be universal
       characteristics of every Ulster tenant-right custom. There
       were often additional restrictions or provisions, usually in
       limitation of the tenant's right to sell, or of the landlord's
       right to raise the rent, veto the sale of land, or take it for
       his own use. There were commonly established usages in
       reference to fixing a fair rent. Valuators were generally
       employed, and on their estimates, and not on competition in
       open market, the rent was fixed. … The Irish Tenant League
       was organized August 6, 1850, in Dublin. Among the resolutions
       adopted was one, calling for 'a fair valuation of rent between
       landlord and tenant in Ireland,' and another, 'that the tenant
       should not be disturbed in his holding as long as he paid his
       rent.' The question of arrears received a great deal of
       attention. The great majority of the tenants of Ireland were
       in arrears, owing to the successive failures of the crops, and
       were of course liable to eviction. … The Tenant League was a
       very popular one and spread throughout the country. There was
       much agitation, and in the general election in 1852, when the
       excitement was at its height, fifty-eight Tenant Leaguers were
       elected to Parliament. The Tenant League members resolved to
       hold themselves 'independent of and in opposition to all
       governments which do not make it a part of their policy' to
       give the tenants a measure of relief such as the League
       desired. It looked as though the party would hold the balance
       of power and be able to secure its objects. When however
       Sadlier and Keogh, two of the most prominent men in the party
       and men of great influence, accepted positions in the new
       government, 'bribed by office,' it has always been charged by
       the Irish, 'to betray the cause to which they had been most
       solemnly pledged,' the party was broken up without
       accomplishing its purpose."

          D. B. King,
          The Irish Question,
          chapters 5 and 9.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir C. G. Duffy,
          League of the North and South.

          A. M. Sullivan,
          New Ireland,
          chapter 13.

          J. Godkin,
          The Land War in Ireland,
          chapter 17.

    {1793}

    IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.
       The Fenian Movement.

       "The Fenian movement differed from nearly all previous
       movements of the same kind in Ireland, in the fact that it
       arose and grew into strength without the patronage or the help
       of any of those who might be called the natural leaders of the
       people. … Its leaders were not men of high position, or
       distinguished name, or proved ability. They were not of
       aristocratic birth; they were not orators; they were not
       powerful writers. It was not the impulse of the American Civil
       War that engendered Fenianism; although that war had great
       influence on the manner in which Fenianism shaped its course.
       Fenianism had been in existence, in fact, although it had not
       got its peculiar name, long before the American War created a
       new race of Irishmen—the Irish-American soldiers—to turn
       their energies and their military inclination to a new
       purpose. … The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in
       consequence of the 1848 movement, led, as a matter of course,
       to secret association. Before the trials of the Irish leaders
       were well over in that year, a secret association was formed
       by a large number of young Irishmen in cities and towns. …
       After two or three attempts to arrange for a simultaneous
       rising had failed, or had ended only in little abortive and
       isolated ebullitions, the young men became discouraged. Some
       of the leaders went to France, some to the United States, some
       actually to England; and the association melted away. … Some
       years after this, the 'Phœnix' clubs began to be formed in
       Ireland. They were for the most part associations of the
       peasant class, and were on that account, perhaps, the more
       formidable and earnest. … The Phœnix clubs led to some of
       the ordinary prosecutions and convictions; and that was all.
       … After the Phœnix associations came the Fenians. 'This is a
       serious business now,' said a clever English literary man when
       he heard of the Fenian organisation; 'the Irish have got hold
       of a good name this time; the Fenians will last.' The Fenians
       are said to have been the ancient Irish militia. … There was
       an air of Celtic antiquity and of mystery about the name of
       Fenian which merited the artistic approval given to it by the
       impartial English writer whose observation has just been
       quoted. The Fenian agitation began about 1858, and it came to
       perfection about the middle of the American Civil War. It was
       ingeniously arranged on a system by which all authority
       converged towards one centre [called the Head-Centre], and
       those farthest away from the seat of direction knew
       proportionately less and less about the nature of the plans.
       They had to obey instructions only, and it was hoped that by
       this means weak or doubtful men would not have it in their
       power prematurely to reveal, to betray, or to thwart the
       purposes of their leaders. A convention was held in America,
       and the Fenian Association was resolved into a regular
       organised institution. A provisional government was
       established in the neighbourhood of Union Square, New York,
       with all the array and the mechanism of an actual working
       administration. … The Civil War had introduced a new figure
       to the world's stage. This was the Irish-American soldier. …
       Many of these men—thousands of them—were as sincerely
       patriotic in their way as they were simple and brave. It is
       needless to say that they were fastened on in some instances
       by adventurers, who fomented the Fenian movement out of the
       merest and the meanest self-seeking. … Some were making a
       living out of the organisation—out of that, and apparently
       nothing else. The contributions given by poor Irish
       hack-drivers and servant girls, in the sincere belief that
       they were helping to man the ranks of an Irish army of
       independence, enabled some of these self-appointed leaders to
       wear fine clothes and to order expensive dinners. … But in
       the main it is only fair to say that the Fenian movement in
       the United States was got up, organised and manned by persons
       who … were single-hearted, unselfish, and faithfully devoted
       to their cause. … After a while things went so far that the
       Fenian leaders in the United States issued an address,
       announcing that their officers were going to Ireland to raise
       an army there for the recovery of the country's independence.
       Of course the Government here were soon quite prepared to
       receive them; and indeed the authorities easily managed to
       keep themselves informed by means of spies of all that was
       going on in Ireland. … Meanwhile the Head Centre of
       Fenianism in America, James Stephens, who had borne a part in
       the movement of 1848, arrived in Ireland. He was arrested …
       [and] committed to Richmond Prison, Dublin, early in November,
       1865; but before many days had passed the country was startled
       by the news that he had contrived to make his escape. The
       escape was planned with skill and daring. For a time it helped
       to strengthen the impression on the mind of the Irish
       peasantry that in Stephens there had at last been found an
       insurgent leader of adequate courage, craft, and good fortune.
       Stephens disappeared for a moment from the stage. In the
       meantime disputes and dissensions had arisen among the Fenians
       in America. The schism had gone so far as to lead to the
       setting up of two separate associations. There were of course
       distracted plans. One party was for an invasion of Canada;
       another pressed for operations in Ireland itself. The Canadian
       attempt actually was made. …

          See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

       Then Stephens came to the front again. It was only for a
       moment. He had returned to New York, and he now announced that
       he was determined to strike a blow in Ireland. Before long the
       impression was spread abroad that he had actually left the
       States to return to the scene of his proposed insurrection.
       The American-Irish kept streaming across the Atlantic, even in
       the stormy winter months, in the firm belief that before the
       winter had passed away, or at the farthest while the spring
       was yet young, Stephens would appear in Ireland at the head of
       an insurgent army. … Stephens did not reappear in Ireland.
       He made no attempt to keep his warlike promise. He may be said
       to have disappeared from the history of Fenianism. But the
       preparations had gone too far to be suddenly stopped. … It
       was hastily decided that something should be done. One venture
       was a scheme for the capture of Chester Castle [and the arms
       it contained]. … The Government were fully informed of the
       plot in advance; the police were actually on the look-out for
       the arrival of strangers in Chester, and the enterprise melted
       away.
    {1794}
       In March, 1867, an attempt at a general rising was made in
       Ireland. It was a total failure; the one thing on which the
       country had to be congratulated was that it failed so
       completely and so quickly as to cause little bloodshed. Every
       influence combined to minimise the waste of life. The snow
       fell that spring as it had scarcely ever fallen before in the
       soft, mild climate of Ireland. … It made the gorges of the
       mountains untenable, and the gorges of the mountains were to
       be the encampments and the retreats of the Fenian insurgents.
       The snow fell for many days and nights, and when it ceased
       falling the insurrectionary movement was over. The
       insurrection was literally buried in that unlooked-for snow.
       There were some attacks on police barracks in various places
       —in Cork, in Kerry, in Limerick, in Tipperary, in Louth;
       there were some conflicts with the police; there were some
       shots fired, many captures made, a few lives lost; and then
       for the time at least all was over. The Fenian attempt thus
       made had not from the beginning a shadow of hope to excuse
       it." Some months afterwards a daring rescue of Fenian
       prisoners at Manchester stirred up a fresh excitement in
       Fenian circles. A policeman was killed in the affair, and
       three of the rescuers were hanged for his murder. On the 13th
       of December, 1867, an attempt was made to blow up the
       Clerkenwell House of Detention, where two Fenian prisoners
       were confined. "Six persons were killed on the spot; about six
       more died from the effects of the injuries they received; some
       120 persons were wounded. … It is not necessary to follow
       out the steps of the Fenian movement any further. There were
       many isolated attempts; there were many arrests, trials,
       imprisonments, banishments. The effect of all this, it must be
       stated as a mere historical fact, was only to increase the
       intensity of dissatisfaction and discontent among the Irish
       peasantry. … There were some public men who saw that the
       time had come when mere repression must no longer be relied
       upon as a cure for Irish discontent."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 53 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          T. P. O'Connor,
          The Parnell Movement,
          chapters 7.

          G. P. Macdonell,
          Fenianism,
          Two Centuries of Irish History,
          part 5, chapter 4.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1868.
       Parliamentary Reform.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
       Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
       Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.
       The land question and the recent land laws.

       "The reason for exceptional legislation in Ireland rested
       chiefly on the essential difference between the landlord and
       tenant systems in England and in Ireland. In 1845 the Devon
       Royal Commission reported that the introduction of the English
       system would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable. The
       difference, it said, between the English and Irish systems
       'consisted in this, that in Ireland the landlord builds
       neither dwelling-house nor farm offices, nor puts fences,
       gates, etc., into good order before he lets his land. In most
       cases, whatever is done in the way of building or fencing is
       done by the tenant; and, in the ordinary language of the
       country, houses, farm buildings, and even the making of fences
       are described by the general word "improvements," which is
       thus employed to denote the necessary adjuncts to a farm
       without which in England or Scotland no tenant would be found
       to rent it.' Thirty years later, John Bright summarized the
       matter by saying that if the land of Ireland were stripped of
       the improvements made upon it by the labor of the occupier,
       the face of the country would be 'as bare and naked as an
       American prairie.' This fundamental difference between the
       English and Irish land systems has never been fully
       appreciated in England, where the landlord's expenditure on
       buildings, fences, drainage, farm roads, etc., and on
       maintenance absorbs a large part of the rental. Reform of the
       Irish system began in 1870. Before that time little had been
       done to protect the Irish tenant except to forbid evictions at
       night, on Christmas Day, on Good Friday, and the pulling off
       the roofs of houses until the inmates had been removed. The
       Land Act of 1870 recognized, in principle, the tenant's
       property in his improvements by giving him a right to claim
       compensation if disturbed or evicted. This was not what the
       tenants wanted, viz., security of tenure. The results of
       compensation suits by 'disturbed' tenants were uncertain;
       compensation for improvements was limited in various ways, and
       the animus of the courts administering the act was distinctly
       hostile to the tenants. Many works necessary to the existence
       of tenants on small farms were not improvements in the eyes of
       the landlord, of the law, or of the judges; it was often
       impossible to adduce legal evidence of costly works done
       little by little, and at intervals, representing the savings
       of labor embodied in drainage, reclamation, or fencing.
       Buildings and other works of a superior character might be
       adjudged 'unsuitable' to small farms, and therefore not the
       subject of any compensation; moreover, it was expressly laid
       down that the use and enjoyment by the tenant of works
       effected wholly at his expense were to be accounted
       compensation to him by the landlord, and that, therefore, by
       lapse of time, the tenant's improvements became the landlord's
       property. The act of 1870 tended to make capricious and
       heartless evictions expensive and therefore less common; but
       it gave no security of tenure, and left the landlord still at
       liberty to raise the rent of improving tenants. It left the
       tenant still in a state of dependence and servility; it gave
       him no security for his expenditure, for the landlord's right
       to keep the rent continually rising was freely exercised. Even
       if the act had been liberally administered, it would have
       failed to give contentment, satisfy the demands of justice, or
       encourage the expenditure of capital by tenant farmers.
       Measure after measure proposed by Irish members for further
       reforms were rejected by Parliament between 1870 and 1880, and
       discontent continued to increase. … The Land Law Act of 1881
       was based on the Report in 1880 of the Bessborough Royal
       Commission, but many of the most useful suggestions made were
       disregarded. This act purported to give the Irish yearly
       tenants
       (1) the right to sell their tenancies and improvements;
       (2) the right to have a 'fair' rent fixed by the land courts
       at intervals of fifteen years;
       (3) security of tenure arising from this right to have the
       rent fixed by the court instead of by the landlord.

    {1795}

       … No definition of what constituted a fair rent was embodied
       in the act, but what is known as the Healy clause provided that
       'no rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of
       improvements made by a tenant or his predecessors.' … When
       the Irish courts came to interpret it, they held that the term
       improvements' meant only that interest in his improvements for
       which the tenant might have obtained compensation under the
       Land Act of 1870 if he had been disturbed or evicted, and that
       the time during which the tenant had had the use and enjoyment
       of his own expenditure was still to be accounted compensation
       made to him by his landlord, so that by mere lapse of time the
       tenant's improvements became the landlord's property. … In
       view of the continually falling prices of agricultural produce
       and diminishing farm profits, the operation of the land laws
       has not brought about peace between landlords and tenants. …
       In 1887 the Cowper Commission reported that the 200,000 rents
       which had been fixed were too high in consequence of the
       continued fall in prices. As a result of the report of this
       commission the fair-rent provisions of the law were extended
       to leaseholders holding for less than sixty years; but the
       courts still adhering to their former methods of
       interpretation, numbers of leaseholders who had made and
       maintained all the buildings, improvements, and equipments of
       their farms found themselves either excluded on narrow and
       technical points, or expressly rented on their own
       expenditure. In 1891 the fair-rent provisions were further
       extended to leaseholders holding for more than sixty years by
       the Redemption of Rent Act, under which long leasehold tenants
       could compel their landlords either to sell to them, or allow
       a fair rent to be fixed on their farms. … Concurrently with
       these attempts to place the relations of landlord and tenant
       on a peaceful and equitable basis, a system of State loans to
       enable tenants to buy their farms has been in operation. …
       It is now proposed to have an inquiry by a select committee of
       the House of Commons into

       (1) the principles adopted in fixing fair rents, particularly
       with respect to tenants' improvements;
       (2) the system of purchase and security offered for the loans
       of public money;
       (3) the organization and administrative work of the Land
       Commission

       —a department which has cost the country about £100,000 a
       year since 1881. The popular demand for inquiry and reform
       comes as much from the Protestant North as from the Catholic
       South."

          The Nation,
          February 15, 1894.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
       The Home Rule Movement.
       Organization of the Land League.

       "For some years after the failure of the Fenian insurrection
       there was no political agitation in Ireland; but in 1873 a new
       national movement began to make itself felt; this was the Home
       Rule Movement. It had been gradually formed since 1870 by one
       or two leading Irishmen, who thought the time was ripe for a
       new constitutional effort; chief among them was Mr. Isaac
       Butt, a Protestant, an eminent lawyer, and an earnest
       politician. The movement spread rapidly, and took a firm hold
       of the popular mind. After the General Election of 1874, some
       sixty Irish Members were returned who had stood before their
       constituencies as Home Rulers. The Home Rule demand is clear
       and simple enough; it asks for Ireland a separate Government,
       still allied with the Imperial Government, on the principles
       which regulate the alliance between the United States of
       America. The proposed Irish Parliament in College Green would
       bear just the same relation to the Parliament at Westminster
       that the Legislature and Senate of every American State bear
       to the head authority of the Congress in the Capitol at
       Washington. All that relates to local business it was proposed
       to delegate to the Irish Assembly; all questions of imperial
       policy were still to be left to the Imperial Government. There
       was nothing very startling, very daringly innovating, in the
       scheme. In most of the dependencies of Great Britain, Home
       Rule systems of some kind were already established. In Canada,
       in the Australasian Colonies, the principle might be seen at
       work upon a large scale; upon a small scale it was to be
       studied nearer home in the neighbouring Island of Man. … At
       first the Home Rule Party was not very active. Mr. Butt used
       to have a regular Home Rule debate once every Session, when he
       and his followers stated their views, and a division was taken
       and the Home Rulers were of course defeated. Yet, while the
       English House of Commons was thus steadily rejecting year
       after year the demand made for Home Rule by the large majority
       of the Irish Members, it was affording a strong argument in
       favour of some system of local Government, by consistently
       outvoting every proposition brought forward by the bulk of the
       Irish Members relating to Irish Questions. … Mr. Butt and
       his followers had proved the force of the desire for some sort
       of National Government in Ireland, but the strength of the
       movement they had created now called for stronger leaders. A
       new man was coming into Irish political life who was destined
       to be the most remarkable Irish leader since O'Connell. Mr.
       Charles Stuart Parnell, who entered the House of Commons in
       1875 as Member for Meath, was a descendant of the English poet
       Parnell, and of the two Parnells, father and son, John and
       Henry, who stood by Grattan to the last in the struggle
       against the Union. He was a grand-nephew of Sir Henry Parnell,
       the first Lord Congleton, the advanced Reformer and friend of,
       Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. He was Protestant, and a member
       of the Protestant Synod. Mr. Parnell set himself to form a
       party of Irishmen in the House of Commons who should be
       absolutely independent of any English political party, and who
       would go their own way with only the cause of Ireland to
       influence them. Mr. Parnell had all the qualities that go to
       make a good political leader, and he succeeded in his purpose.
       The more advanced men in and out of Parliament began to look
       up to him as the real representative of the popular voice. In
       1878 Mr. Butt died. … The leadership of the Irish
       Parliamentary Party was given to Mr. William Shaw, Member for
       Cork County, an able, intelligent man, who proved himself in
       many ways a good leader. In quieter times his authority might
       have remained unquestioned, but these were unquiet, times. The
       decorous and demure attitude of the early Home Rule Party was
       to be changed into a more aggressive action, and Mr. Parnell
       was the champion of the change. It was soon obvious that he
       was the real leader recognised by the majority of the Irish
       Home Rule Members, and by the country behind them. Mr. Parnell
       and his following have been bitterly denounced for pursuing an
       obstructive policy.
    {1796}
       They are often written about as if they had invented
       obstruction; as if obstruction of the most audacious kind had
       never been practised in the House of Commons before Mr.
       Parnell entered it. It may perhaps be admitted that the Irish
       Members made more use of obstruction than had been done before
       their time. … The times undoubtedly were unquiet; the policy
       which was called in England obstructive and in Ireland active
       was obviously popular with the vast majority of the Irish
       people. The Land Question, too, was coming up again, and in a
       stronger form than ever. Mr. Butt, not very long before his
       death, had warned the House of Commons that the old land war
       was going to break out anew, and he was laughed at for his
       vivid fancy by the English Press and by English public
       opinion; but he proved a true prophet. Mr. Parnell had
       carefully studied the condition of the Irish tenant, and he
       saw that the Land Act of 1870 was not the last word of
       legislation on his behalf. Mr. Parnell was at first an ardent
       advocate of what came to be known as the Three F's, fair rent,
       fixity of tenure, and free sale. But the Three F's were soon
       to be put aside in favour of more advanced ideas. Outside
       Parliament a strenuous and earnest man was preparing to
       inaugurate the greatest land agitation ever seen in Ireland.
       Mr. Michael Davitt was the son of an evicted tenant. … When
       he grew to be a young man he joined the Fenians, and in 1870,
       on the evidence of an informer, he was arrested and sentenced
       to fifteen years' penal servitude; seven years later he was
       let out on ticket-of-leave. In his long imprisonment he had
       thought deeply upon the political and social condition of
       Ireland and the best means of improving it; when he came out
       he had abandoned his dreams of armed rebellion, and he went in
       for constitutional agitation to reform the Irish land system.
       The land system needed reforming; the condition of the tenant
       was only humanly endurable in years of good harvest. The three
       years from 1876 to 1879 were years of successive bad harvests.
       … Mr. Davitt had been in America, planning out a land
       organization, and had returned to Ireland to carry out his
       plan. Land meetings were held in many parts of Ireland, and in
       October Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Patrick Egan, and Mr.
       Thomas Brennan founded the Irish National Land League, the
       most powerful political organization that had been formed in
       Ireland since the Union. The objects of the Land League were
       the abolition of the existing landlord system and the
       introduction of peasant proprietorship."

          J. H. McCarthy,
          Outline of Irish History,
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          T. P. O'Connor,
          The Parnell Movement,
          chapters 8-10.

          A. V. Dicey,
          England's Case against Home Rule.

          G. Baden-Powell, editor,
          The Truth about Home Rule.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1880.
       The breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

       "The new Irish party which followed the lead of Mr. Parnell
       has been often represented by the humourist as a sort of
       Falstaffian 'ragged regiment.' … From dint of repetition
       this has come to be almost an article of faith in some
       quarters. Yet it is curiously without foundation. A large
       proportion of Mr. Parnell's followers were journalists. …
       Those who were not journalists in the Irish party were
       generally what is called well-to-do. … At first there seemed
       no reason to expect any serious disunion between the Irish
       members and the Liberal' party. … The Irish vote in England
       had been given to the Liberal cause. The Liberal speakers and
       statesmen, without committing themselves to any definite line
       of policy, had manifested friendly sentiments towards Ireland;
       and though indeed nothing was said which could be construed
       into a recognition of the Home Rule claim, still the new
       Ministry was known to contain men favourable to that claim.
       The Irish members hoped for much from the new Government; and,
       on the other hand, the new Government expected to find cordial
       allies in all sections of the Irish party. The appointment of
       Mr. Forster to the Irish Secretaryship was regarded by many
       Irishmen, especially those allied to Mr. Shaw and his
       following, as a marked sign of the good intentions of the
       Government towards Ireland. … The Queen's Speech announced
       that the Peace Preservation Act would not be renewed. This was
       a very important announcement. Since the Union Ireland had
       hardly been governed by the ordinary law for a single year.
       … Now the Government was going to make the bold experiment
       of trying to rule Ireland without the assistance of coercive
       and exceptional law. The Queen's Speech, however, contained
       only one other reference to Ireland, in a promise that a
       measure would be introduced for the extension of the Irish
       borough franchise. This was in itself an important promise.
       … But extension of the borough franchise did not seem, to
       the Irish members in 1880 the most important form that
       legislation for Ireland could take just then. The country was
       greatly depressed by its recent suffering; the number of
       evictions was beginning to rise enormously. The Irish members
       thought that the Government should have made some promise to
       consider the land question, and above all should have done
       something to stay the alarming increase of evictions.
       Evictions had increased from 463 families in 1877 to 980 in
       1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still on the increase,
       as was shown at the end of 1880, when it was found that 2,110
       families were evicted. An amendment to the Address was at once
       brought forward by the Irish party, and debated at some
       length. The Irish party called for some immediate legislation
       on behalf of the land question. Mr. Forster replied, admitting
       the necessity for some legislation, but declaring that there
       would not be time for the introduction of any such measure
       that session. Then the Irish members asked for some temporary
       measure to prevent the evictions … ; but the Chief Secretary
       answered that while the law existed it was necessary to carry
       it out, and he could only appeal to both sides to be moderate.
       Matters slowly drifted on in this way for a short time. …
       Evictions steadily increased, and Mr. O'Connor Power brought
       in a Bill for the purpose of staying evictions. Then the
       Government, while refusing to accept the Irish measure,
       brought in a Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which adopted
       some of the Irish suggestions. … On Friday, June 25, the
       second reading of the Bill was moved by Mr. Forster, who
       denied that it was a concession to the anti-rent agitation,
       and strongly denounced the outrages which were taking place in
       Ireland. … This was the point at which difference between
       the Irish party and the Government first became marked.
    {1797}
       The increase of evictions in Ireland, following as it did upon
       the widespread misery caused by the failure of the harvests
       and the partial famine, had generated—as famine and hunger
       have always generated—a certain amount of lawlessness.
       Evictions were occasionally resisted with violence; here and
       there outrages were committed upon bailiffs, process-servers,
       and agents. In different places, too, injuries had been
       inflicted upon the cattle and horses of landowners and land
       agents. … There is no need, there should be no attempt, to
       justify these crimes. But, while condemning all acts of
       violence, whether upon man or beast, it must be remembered
       that these acts were committed by ignorant peasants of the
       lowest class, maddened by hunger, want, and eviction, driven
       to despair by the sufferings of their wives and children,
       convinced of the utter hopelessness of redress, and longing
       for revenge. … The Compensation for Disturbance Bill was
       carried in the Commons after long debates in which the Irish
       party strove to make its principles stronger. … It was sent
       up to the Lords, where it was rejected on Tuesday, August 3,
       by a majority of 231. The Government answered the appeals of
       Irish members by refusing to take any steps to make the Lords
       retract their decision, or to introduce any similar measure
       that session. From that point the agitation and struggle of
       the past four years [1880-1884] may be said to date."

          J. H. McCarthy,
          England under Gladstone, 1880-1884,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          T. W. Reid,
          Life of William Edward Forster,
          volume 2, chapter 6-7.

    IRELAND: A. D, 1881-1882.
       The Coercion Bill and the Land Act.
       Arrest of the Irish leaders.
       Suppression of the Land League.
       The alleged Kilmainham Treaty, and release of Mr. Parnell and
       others.

       Early in 1881, the Government armed itself with new powers for
       suppressing the increased lawlessness which showed itself in
       Ireland, and for resisting the systematic policy of
       intimidation which the Nationalists appeared to have planned,
       by the passage of a measure known as the Coercion Bill. This
       was followed, in April, by the introduction of a Land Bill,
       intended to redress the most conspicuous Irish grievance by
       establishing an authoritative tribunal for the determination
       of rents, and by aiding and facilitating the purchase of small
       holdings by the peasants. The Land Bill became law in August;
       but it failed to satisfy the demands of the Land League or to
       produce a more orderly state of feeling in Ireland. Severe
       proceedings were then decided upon by the Government. "The
       Prime Minister, during his visit to Leeds in the first week of
       October, had used language which could bear only one meaning.
       The question, he said, had come to be simply this, 'whether
       law or lawlessness must rule in Ireland;' the Irish people
       must not be deprived of the means of taking advantage of the
       Land Act by force or fear of force. He warned the party of
       disorder that 'the resources of civilisation were not yet
       exhausted.' A few days later Mr. Gladstone, speaking at the
       Guildhall, amid enthusiastic cheers, was able to announce that
       the long-delayed blow had fallen. Mr. Parnell was arrested in
       Dublin under the Coercion Act, and his arrest was followed by
       those of Mr. Sexton, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Kelly, and other
       prominent leaders of the agitation. The warnings of the
       Government had been met at first with derision and defiance,
       and the earlier arrests were furiously denounced; but the
       energy and persistence of the Government soon began to make an
       impression. … A Parthian shot was fired in the issue of a
       manifesto, purporting to be signed, not only by the 'suspects'
       in Kilmainham, but also by [Michael] Davitt, … in Portland
       Prison, which adjured the tenantry to pay no rent whatever
       until the Government had done penance for its tyranny and
       released the victims of British despotism. This open
       incitement to defiance of legal authority and repudiation of
       legal right was instantly met by the Irish Executive in a
       resolute spirit. On the 20th of October a proclamation was
       issued declaring the League to be 'an illegal and criminal
       association, intent on destroying the obligation of contracts
       and subverting law,' and announcing that its operations would
       thenceforward be forcibly suppressed, and those taking part in
       them held responsible."

          Annual Summaries reprinted from The Times,
          volume 2, page 155.

       "In the month of April [1882] Mr. Parnell was released from
       Kilmainham on parole—urgent business demanding his presence
       in Paris. This parole the Irish National leader faithfully
       kept. Whether the sweets of liberty had special charms for Mr.
       Parnell does not appear; but certain it is that after his
       return to Kilmainham, the Member for Cork wrote to Captain
       O'Shea, one of the Irish Members, and indirectly to the
       Government, intimating that if the question of arrears could
       be introduced in Parliament by way of relieving the tenants of
       holdings and lessening greatly the number of evictions in the
       country for non-payment of rent, and providing the purchase
       clauses of the Land Bill were discussed, steps might be taken
       to lessen the number of outrages. The Government had the
       intimation conveyed to them, in short, which gave to their
       minds the conviction that Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and
       O'Kelly, once released, and having in view the reforms
       indicated to them, would range themselves on the side of law
       and order in Ireland. Without any contract with the three
       members the release of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly
       was ordered, after they had been confined for a period
       bordering on three months. Michael Davitt had been released,
       likewise, and had been elected for Meath; but the seat was
       declared vacant again, owing to the conditions of his
       ticket-of-leave not permitting his return. Much has been said,
       and much has been written with regard to the release of the
       three Irish M. P.'s. The 'Kilmainham Treaty' has been … a
       term of scorn addressed to Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues.
       … As a fact … there was no Kilmainham Treaty. … Mr.
       Forster [the Secretary for Ireland] resigned because he did
       not think it right to share the responsibility of the release
       of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly. The Government had
       detained the Queen's subjects in prison without trial for the
       purpose of preventing crime, not for punishment, Mr. Forster
       said in vindication. Mr. Forster contended that the unwritten
       law, as promulgated by them, had worked the ruin and the
       injury of the Queen's subjects by instructions of one kind and
       another—biddings carried out to such a degree that no power
       on earth could have allowed it to continue without becoming a
       Government not merely in name but in shame.
    {1798}
       Mr. Forster would have given the question of the release of
       the three consideration, if they had pledged themselves not to
       set their law up against the law of the land, or if Ireland
       had been quiet, or if there had been an accession of fresh
       powers on behalf of the Government: but these conditions were
       wanting. What Mr. Forster desired was an avowal of a change of
       purpose. He entreated his colleagues 'not to try to buy
       obedience,' as he termed it, and not to rely on appearances.
       The Government did rely on the intimation of Mr. Parnell … ;
       there was no treaty."

          W. W. Pimblett,
          English Political History, 1880-1885,
          chapter 10.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1882.
       The Phœnix Park murders.

       Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, resigned in April,
       1882, and was succeeded by Lord Frederick Cavendish, brother
       of the Marquis of Hartington and son of the Duke of
       Devonshire. Earl Spencer at the same time became Viceroy, in
       place of Lord Cowper, resigned. "On the night of Friday, May
       5th, Earl Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish crossed over to
       Ireland, and arrived in Dublin on the following day. The
       official entry was made in the morning, when the reception
       accorded by the populace to the new officials was described as
       having been very fairly favourable. Events seemed to have
       taken an entirely prosperous turn, and it was hoped that at
       last the long winter of Irish discontent had come to an end.
       On Sunday morning there spread through the United Kingdom the
       intelligence that the insane hatred of English rule had been
       the cause of a crime, even more brutal and unprovoked than any
       of the numerous outrages that had, during the last three
       years, sullied the annals of Ireland. It appeared that Lord
       Frederick Cavendish, having taken the oaths at the Castle,
       took a car about half-past seven in order to drive to the
       Viceregal Lodge. On the way he met Mr. Burke, the Permanent
       Under-Secretary, who, though his life had been repeatedly
       threatened, was walking along, according to his usual custom,
       without any police escort. Lord Frederick dismissed his car,
       and walked with him through the Phœnix Park. There, in broad
       daylight—for it was a fine summer evening—and in the middle
       of a public recreation ground, crowded with people, they were
       surrounded and murdered. More than one spectator witnessed
       what they imagined to be a drunken brawl, saw six men
       struggling together, and four of them drive off outside a car,
       painted red, which had been waiting for them the while, the
       carman sitting still and never turning his head. The bodies of
       the two officials were first discovered by two shop-boys on
       bicycles who had previously passed them alive. Lord Frederick
       Cavendish had six wounds, and Mr. Burke eleven, dealt
       evidently with daggers used by men of considerable strength.
       Lord Spencer himself had witnessed the struggle from the
       windows of the Viceregal Lodge, and thinking that some
       pickpockets had been at work sent a servant to make inquiries.
       A reward of £10,000, together with full pardon to anyone who
       was not one of the actual murderers, was promptly offered, but
       for many long months the telegrams from Dublin closed with the
       significant information—'No definite clue in the hands of the
       police.' All parties in Ireland at once united to express
       their horror and detestation at this dastardly crime."

          Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
          volume 10, chapter 50.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir C. Russell,
          The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech,
          pages 282-291.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1884.
       Enlargement of the Suffrage.
       Representation of the People Act.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
       Change of opinion in England.
       Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill and Irish Land Bill and
       their defeat.

       "All through the Parliament which sat from 1880 till 1885, the
       Nationalists' party, led by Mr. Parnell, and including at
       first less than half, ultimately about half, of the Irish
       members, was in constant and generally bitter opposition to
       the Government of Mr. Gladstone. But during these five years a
       steady, although silent and often unconscious, process of
       change was passing in the minds of English and Scotch members,
       especially Liberal members, due to their growing sense of the
       mistakes which Parliament committed in handling Irish
       questions, and of the hopelessness of the efforts which the
       Executive was making to pacify the country on the old methods.
       First, they came to feel that the present system was
       indefensible. Then, while still disliking the notion of an
       Irish Legislature, they began to think it deserved
       consideration. Next they admitted, though usually in
       confidence to one another, that although Home Rule might be a
       bad solution, it was a probable one, toward which events
       pointed. Last of all, and not till 1884, they asked themselves
       whether, after all, it would be a bad solution, provided a
       workable scheme could be found. But as no workable scheme had
       been proposed, they still kept their views, perhaps unwisely,
       to themselves, and although the language held at the general
       election of 1885 showed a great advance in the direction of
       favoring Irish self-government, beyond the attitude of 1880,
       it was still vague and hesitating, and could the more easily
       remain so because the constituencies had not (strange as it
       may now seem) realized the supreme importance of the Irish
       question. Few questions were put to candidates on the subject,
       for both candidates and electors wished to avoid it. It was
       disagreeable; it was perplexing; so they agreed to leave it on
       one side. But when the result of the Irish elections showed,
       in December, 1885, an overwhelming majority in favor of the
       Home Rule party, and when they showed, also, that this party
       held the balance of power in Parliament, no one could longer
       ignore the urgency of the issue. There took place what
       chemists call a precipitation of substance held in solution.
       Public opinion on the Irish question had been in a fluid
       state. It now began to crystallize, and the advocates and
       opponents of Irish self-government fell asunder into two
       masses, which soon solidified. This process was hastened by
       the fact that Mr. Gladstone's view, the indications of which,
       given by himself some months before, had been largely
       overlooked, now became generally understood. … In the spring
       of 1886 the question could be no longer evaded or postponed.
       It was necessary to choose between … two courses: the
       refusal of the demand for self-government, coupled with the
       introduction of a severe Coercion Bill, or the concession of
       it by the introduction of a Home Rule Bill. …
    {1799}
       How the Government of Ireland Bill was brought into the House
       of Commons on April 8th, amid circumstances of curiosity and
       excitement unparalleled since 1832: how, after debates of
       almost unprecedented length, it was defeated in June, by a
       majority of thirty; how the policy it embodied was brought
       before the country at the general election, and failed to win
       approval; how the Liberal party has been rent in twain upon
       the question; how Mr. Gladstone resigned, and has been
       succeeded by a Tory Ministry, which the dissentient Liberals,
       who condemn Home Rule, are now supporting—all this is …
       well known.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

       … But the causes of the disaster may not be equally
       understood. … First, and most obvious, although not most
       important, was the weight of authority arrayed against the
       scheme. … The two most eminent leaders of the moderate
       Liberal, or, as it is often called, Whig, party, Lord
       Hartington and Mr. Goschen, both declared against the bill,
       and put forth all their oratory and influence against it. At
       the opposite extremity of the party, Mr. John Bright, the
       veteran and honored leader of the Radicals, Mr. Chamberlain,
       the younger and latterly more active and prominent chief of
       that large section, took up the same position of hostility.
       Scarcely less important was the attitude of the social
       magnates of the Liberal party all over the country. … As, at
       the preceding general election, in December, 1885, the
       Liberals had obtained a majority of less than a hundred over
       the Tories, a defection such as this was quite enough to
       involve their defeat. Probably the name of Mr. Bright alone
       turned the issue in some twenty constituencies, which might
       otherwise have cast a Home Rule vote. The mention of this
       cause, however, throws us back on the further question, Why
       was there such a weight of authority against the scheme
       proposed by Mr. Gladstone? How came so many of his former
       colleagues, friends, supporters, to differ and depart from him
       on this occasion? Besides some circumstances attending the
       production of the bill, … which told heavily against it,
       there were three feelings which worked upon men's minds,
       disposing them to reject it. The first of these was dislike
       and fear of the Irish Nationalist members. In the previous
       House of Commons this party had been uniformly and bitterly
       hostile to the Liberal Government. Measures intended for the
       good of Ireland, like the Land Act of 1881, had been
       ungraciously received, treated as concessions extorted, for
       which no thanks were due—inadequate concessions, which must
       be made the starting-point for fresh demands. Obstruction had
       been freely practised to defeat not only bills restraining the
       liberty of the subject in Ireland, but many other measures.
       Some members of the Irish party, apparently with the approval
       of the rest, had systematically sought to delay all English
       and Scotch legislation, and, in fact, to bring the work of
       Parliament to a dead stop. … There could be no doubt as to
       the hostility which they, still less as to that which their
       fellow-countrymen in the United States, had expressed toward
       England, for they had openly wished success to Russia while
       war seemed impending with her, and the so-called Mahdi of the
       Sudan was vociferously cheered at many a Nationalist meeting.
       … To many Englishmen, the proposal to create an Irish
       Parliament seemed nothing more or less than a proposal to hand
       over to these men the government of Ireland, with all the
       opportunities thence arising to oppress the opposite party in
       Ireland and to worry England herself. It was all very well to
       urge that the tactics which the Nationalists had pursued when
       their object was to extort Home Rule would be dropped, because
       superfluous, when Home Rule had been granted; or to point out
       that an Irish Parliament would probably contain different men
       from those who had been sent to Westminster as Mr. Parnell's
       nominees. Neither of these arguments could overcome the
       suspicious antipathy which many Englishmen felt. … The
       internal condition of Ireland supplied more substantial
       grounds for alarm. … Three-fourths of the people are Roman
       Catholics, one-fourth Protestants, and this Protestant fourth
       sub-divided into bodies not fond of one another, who have
       little community of sentiment. Besides the Scottish colony in
       Ulster, many English families have settled here and there
       through the country. They have been regarded as intruders by
       the aboriginal Celtic population, and many of them, although
       hundreds of years may have passed since they came, still look
       on themselves as rather English than Irish. … Many people in
       England assumed that an Irish Parliament would be under the
       control of the tenants and the humbler class generally, and
       would therefore be hostile to the landlords. They went
       farther, and made the much bolder assumption that as such a
       Parliament would be chosen by electors, most of whom were
       Roman Catholics, it would be under the control of the Catholic
       priesthood, and hostile to Protestants. Thus they supposed
       that the grant of self-government to Ireland would mean the
       abandonment of the upper and wealthier class, the landlords
       and the Protestants, to the tender mercies of their enemies.
       … The fact stood out that in Ireland two hostile factions
       had been contending for the last sixty years, and that the
       gift of self-government might enable one of them to tyrannize
       over the other. True, that party was the majority, and,
       according to the principles of democratic government,
       therefore entitled to prevail. But it is one thing to admit a
       principle and another to consent to its application. The
       minority had the sympathy of the upper classes in England,
       because the minority contained the landlords. It had the
       sympathy of a large part of the middle class, because it
       contained the Protestants. … There was another anticipation,
       another forecast of evils to follow, which told most of all
       upon English opinion. This was the notion that Home Rule was
       only a stage in the road to the complete separation of the two
       islands."

          J. Bryce,
          Past and Future of the Irish Question
          (New Princeton Review, Jan., 1887).

    IRELAND: A. D. 1886.
       The "Plan of Campaign."

       On the 11th of September Mr. Parnell had introduced in the
       House of Commons a bill to make temporary provision for the
       relief of suffering tenants in Ireland, and it had been
       defeated after a sharp debate by a majority of 95. The chief
       argument for the bill had been that "something must be done to
       stay evictions during the approaching winter. The rents would
       be due in November, and the fall in agricultural prices had
       been so great, that the sale of their whole produce by the
       tenants would not, it was contended, bring in money enough to
       enable them to pay in full. … The greatest public interest
       in the subject was roused by Lord Clanricarde's evictions at
       Woodford in Galway. … His quarrel with his Woodford tenants
       was of old standing.
    {1800}
       When the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament the National
       League urged them not to bring matters to a crisis, but their
       sufferings were too great to be borne, and they set the
       National League at defiance, and established a Plan of
       Campaign of their own. Lord Clanricarde would grant them no
       reduction, and they leagued themselves together, 316 in
       number, and when the November rent day came round in 1885 they
       resolved not to pay any rent at all if twenty-five per cent.
       reduction was refused. This was refused, and they withheld
       their rent. … The eviction of four of these tenants, in
       August, 1886, attracted general attention by the long fight
       the people made for their homes. Each house was besieged and
       defended like some mediæval city. One stone house, built by a
       tenant at a cost of £200, got the name of Saunders's fort. It
       was held by a garrison of 24, who threw boiling water on their
       assailants, and in one part of the fight threw out among them
       a hive of bees. … To evict these four men the whole
       available forces of the Crown in Galway were employed from
       Thursday the 19th of August to Friday the 27th. Seven hundred
       policemen and soldiers were present to protect the emergency
       men who carried out the evictions, and 60 peasants were taken
       to Galway gaol. It was to meet cases of this kind that, after
       the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill, the Plan
       of Campaign was started. In a speech at Woodford on the 17th
       of October Mr. John Dillon gave an outline of the scheme on
       which he thought a tenants' campaign against unjust rents
       might be started and carried on all over the country. … On
       the 23rd of October the 'Plan of Campaign' was published in
       full detail in 'United Ireland.' The first question to be
       answered, said the 'Plan,' was, How to meet the November
       demand for rent? On every estate the tenantry were to come
       together and decide whether to combine or not in resistance to
       exorbitant rent. When they were assembled, if the priest were
       not with them, they were to 'appoint an intelligent and sturdy
       member of their body as chairman, and after consulting, decide
       by resolution on the amount of abatement they will demand.' A
       committee of six or more and the chairman were then to be
       elected, to be called a Managing Committee, to take charge of
       the half year's rent of each tenant should the landlord refuse
       it. Everyone present was to pledge himself

       (1) To abide by the decision of the majority;
       (2) To hold no communication with the landlord or his agents,
       except in presence of the body of the tenantry;
       (3) To accept no settlement for himself that was not given to
       every tenant on the estate.

       Having thus pledged themselves each to the others they were to
       go to the rent office in a body on the rent day, or the gale
       day, as it is called in Ireland, and if the agent refused to
       see them in a body they were to depute the chairman to act as
       their spokesman and tender the reduced rent. If the agent
       refused to accept it, then the money was to be handed to the
       Managing Committee 'to fight the landlord with.' The fund thus
       got together was to be employed in supporting tenants who were
       dispossessed by sale or ejectment. The National League was to
       guarantee the continuance of the grants if needful after the
       fund was expended, or as long as the majority of the tenants
       held out."

          P. W. Clayden,
          England under the Coalition,
          chapter. 8.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1888-1889.
       The Parnell Commission.

       Early in 1887, certain letters appeared in "The Times"
       newspaper, of London, one of which, printed in facsimile,
       "implied Mr. Parnell's sanction to the Park murders of 1882."
       It created a great sensation, and, "after many bitter debates
       in Parliament, a commission was appointed (1888) consisting of
       three judges to inquire not only into the authenticity of this
       and other letters attributed to several persons as their
       authors, but into the whole course of conduct pursued by many
       of the Irish Members of Parliament, in reference to the
       previous agitation in Ireland and their connexion with an
       extreme faction in America, who tried to intimidate this
       country by dastardly attempts to blow up our public buildings
       on several occasions between the years 1884 and 1887. The
       court sat from the winter months of 1888 until the summer of
       the following year, and examined dozens of witnesses,
       including Mr. Parnell and most of the other accused members,
       as well as dozens of the Irish peasantry who could give
       evidence as to outrages in their several districts. One of the
       witnesses, a mean and discarded Dublin journalist named
       Pigott, turned out to be the forger of the letters; and,
       having fled from the avenging hand of justice to Madrid, there
       put an end to his life by means of a revolver. Meantime, the
       interest in the investigation had flagged, and the report of
       the Commission, which deeply implicated many of the Irish
       members as to their connexion with the Fenian Society previous
       to their entrance to Parliament, on their own acknowledgment,
       fell rather flat on the public ear, wearied out in reiteration
       of Irish crime from the introduction of the Land League until
       the attempt to blow up London Bridge by American filibusters
       (1886). The unfortunate man Pigott had sold his forged letters
       to the over credulous Times newspaper at a fabulous price; and
       even experts in handwriting, so dexterously had they been
       manipulated, were ready to testify in open court to the
       genuineness of the letters before the tragic end of their
       luckless author left not a particle of doubt as to their
       origin."

          R. Johnston,
          Short History of the Queen's Reign,
          page 65.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir C. Russell,
          The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech for the Defence.

          M. Davitt, Speech in Defence.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1889-1891.
       Political fall and death of Mr. Parnell.

       On the 28th of December, 1889, Captain O'Shea, one of the
       Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament, filed a petition for
       divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery with Mr.
       Parnell. The Irish leader tacitly confessed his guilt by
       making no answer, and in November, 1890, the divorce was
       granted to Captain O'Shea. In the following June Mr. Parnell
       and Mrs. O'Shea were married. The stigma which this affair put
       upon Mr. Parnell caused Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the
       English Liberals, to demand his retirement from the leadership
       of the Home Rule Party. He refused to give way, and was
       supported in the refusal by a minority of his party. The
       majority, however, took action to depose him, and the party
       was torn asunder. A sudden illness ended Mr. Parnell's life on
       the 6th of October, 1891; but his death failed to restore
       peace, and the Irish Nationalists are still divided.

    IRELAND: A. D. 1893.
       Passage of the Home Rule Bill by the British House of Commons.
       Its defeat by the House of Lords.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.

       ----------IRELAND: End--------

    {1801}

    IRENE, Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 797-802.

    IRISH NIGHT, The.

          See LONDON: A. D. 1688.

    IRMINSUL, The.

          See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.

    IRON AGE.

          See STONE AGE.

    IRON CROSS, Order of the.

       A Prussian order of knighthood instituted in 1815 by Frederick
       William III.

    IRON CROWN, The Order of the,

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    IRON CROWN OF LOMBARDY, The.

          See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.

    IRON MASK, The Man in the.

       "It is known that a masked and unknown prisoner, the object of
       extraordinary surveillance, died, in 1703, in the Bastille, to
       which he had been taken from the St. Marguerite Isles in 1698;
       he had remained about ten years incarcerated in these isles,
       and traces of him are with certainty found in the fort of
       Exilles, and at Pignerol, as far back as about 1681. This
       singular fact, which began to be vaguely bruited a little
       before the middle of the 18th century, excited immense
       curiosity after Voltaire had availed himself of it in his
       'Siècle de Louis XIV.', wherein he exhibited it in the most
       touching and tragic light. A thousand conjectures circulated:
       no great personage had disappeared in Europe about 1680. What
       interest so powerful had the government of Louis XIV. for
       concealing this mysterious visage from every human eye? Many
       explanations more or less plausible, more or less chimerical,
       have been attempted in regard to the 'man with the iron mask'
       (an erroneous designation that has prevailed; the mask was not
       of iron, but of black velvet; it was probably one of those
       'loups' so long in use), when, in 1837, the bibliophile Jacob
       (M. Paul Lacroix) published a very ingenious book on this
       subject, in which he discussed all the hypotheses, and
       skilfully commented on all the facts and dates, in order to
       establish that, in 1680, Fouquet was represented as dead; that
       he was masked, sequestered anew, and dragged from fortress to
       fortress till his real death in 1703. It is impossible for us
       to admit this solution of the problem; the authenticity of the
       minister Louvois' correspondence with the governor of the
       prison of Pignerol, on the subject of Fouquet's death, in
       March, 1680, appears to us incontestable; and did this
       material proof not exist, we still could not believe in a
       return of rigor so strange, so barbarous, and so unaccountable
       on the part of Louis XIV., when all the official documents
       attest that his resentment had gradually been appeased, and
       that an old man who asked nothing more than a little free air
       before dying had ceased to be feared. There are many more
       presumptions in favor of Baron Heiss' opinion, reproduced by
       several writers, and, in the last instance, by M. Delort
       ('Histoire de l'homme au masque de fer'; 1825),—the opinion
       that the 'man with a mask' was a secretary of the Duke of
       Mantua, named Mattioli, carried off by order of Louis XIV. in
       1679, for having deceived the French government, and having
       sought to form a coalition of the Italian princes against it.
       But however striking, in certain respects, may be the
       resemblances between Mattioli and the 'iron mask,' equally
       guarded by the governor St. Mars at Pignerol and at Exilles,
       however grave may be the testimony according to which Mattioli
       was transferred to the St. Marguerite Isles, the subaltern
       position of Mattioli, whom Catinat and Louvois, in their
       letters, characterize as a 'knave' and St. Mars threatens with
       a cudgel, ill accords, we do not say with the traditions
       relating to the profound respect shown the prisoner by the
       keepers, the governor, and even the minister,—these
       traditions may be contested,—but with the authentic details
       and documents given by the learned and judicious Father
       Griffet in regard to the extreme mystery in which the prisoner
       at the Bastille was enveloped, more than twenty years after
       the abduction of the obscure Mattioli, in regard to the mask
       that he never put off, in regard to the precautions taken
       after his death to annihilate the traces of his sojourn at the
       Bastille, which explains why nothing was found concerning him
       after the taking of that fortress. Many minds will always
       persist in seeking, under this impenetrable mask, a more
       dangerous secret, a mysterious accusing resemblance; and the
       most popular opinion, although the most void of an proof, will
       always doubtless be that suffered to transpire by Voltaire,
       under cover of his publisher, in the eighth edition of his
       'Dictionnaire philosophique' (1771). According to this
       opinion, the honor of the royal household was involved in the
       secret, and the unknown victim was an illegitimate son of Anne
       of Austria. The only private crime of which Louis XIV. was
       perhaps capable, was a crime inspired by fanaticism for
       monarchical honor. However this may be, history has no right
       to pronounce upon what will never emerge from the domain of
       conjecture."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, page 40, foot-note.

       "The Paris correspondent of the 'Daily Telegraph' records a
       fact which, if it is correctly reported, goes a long way
       towards clearing up one of the problems of modern history. A
       letter to Louvois by Louis XIV., written in cipher, has been
       long in the archives of the Ministry of War, and has at length
       been deciphered. In it the King orders Louvois to arrest
       General de Burlonde for having raised the siege of Conti
       without permission, to send him to Pignerol, and to conceal
       his features under a 'loup' or black-velvet mask. The order
       was executed, and the presumption is therefore violent that
       the 'Man in the Iron Mask'—it was a black-velvet one with
       iron springs—was General de Burlonde. The story tallies with
       the known fact that the prisoner made repeated attempts to
       communicate his name to soldiers, that he was treated with
       respect by his military jailors, and that Louis XV., who knew
       the truth of the whole affair, declared it to be a matter of
       no importance. The difficulty is to discover the King's motive
       for such a precaution; but he may have feared discontent among
       his great officers, or the soldiery."

          The Spectator,
          October 14, 1893.

       The cipher despatch above referred to, and the whole subject
       of the imprisonment of General de Burlonde, are discussed at
       length, in the light of official records and correspondence,
       by M. Émile Burgaud and Commandant Bazeries (the latter of
       whom discovered the key to the cipher), in a book entitled "Le
       Masque de Fer: Révélation de la correspondance chiffrée de
       Louis XIV.," published at Paris in 1893. It seems to leave
       small doubt that the mysteriously masked prisoner was no other
       than General de Burlonde,

          ALSO IN:
          G. A. Ellis,
          True History of the State Prisoner commonly called
          the Iron Mask.

          E. Lawrence,
          The Man in the Iron Mask
          (Harper's Magazine, volume 43, page 98).

          M. Topin,
          The Man in the Iron Mask
          (Cornhill Magazine, volume 21, page 333).

          Quarterly Review,
          volume 34, page 19.

    {1802}

    IRONCLAD OATH.

       An oath popularly styled the "Ironclad oath" was prescribed by
       the Congress of the United States, during the War of the
       Rebellion, in July, 1862, to be taken by every person elected
       or appointed to any office under the Government of the United
       States, the President only excepted. He was required to swear
       that he had "never voluntarily borne arms against the United
       States"; that he had "voluntarily given no aid, countenance,
       counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed
       hostility to the National Government"; that he had "neither
       sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions
       of any office whatever under authority or pretended authority
       in hostility to the United States"; that he had "never yielded
       a voluntary support to any pretended Government within the
       United States, hostile or inimical thereto."

          J. G. Blaine,
          Twenty Years of Congress,
          volume 2, page 88.

    IRONSIDES, Cromwell's.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).

    "IRONSIDES, Old."

       A name popularly given to the American frigate "Constitution."

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

    IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, The.

       According to their traditions, the founder of the League or
       confederacy which united the five nations of the Iroquois—the
       Mohawks, the Onondagas, the Oneidas, the Cayugas, and the
       Senecas, was Hiawatha, the hero of Iroquois legend.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

       He was an Onondaga chief, and is supposed to have lived about
       the middle of the 15th century. "Hiawatha had long beheld with
       grief the evils which afflicted not only his own nation, but
       all the other tribes about them, through the continual wars in
       which they were engaged, and the misgovernment and miseries at
       home which these wars produced. With much meditation he had
       elaborated in his mind the scheme of a vast confederation
       which would ensure universal peace. In the mere plan of a
       confederation there was nothing new. There are probably few,
       if any, Indian tribes which have not, at one time or another,
       been members of a league or confederacy. It may almost be said
       to be their normal condition. But the plan which Hiawatha had
       evolved differed from all others in two particulars. The
       system which he devised was to be not a loose and transitory
       league, but a permanent government. While each nation was to
       retain its own council and its management of local affairs,
       the general control was to be lodged in a federal senate,
       composed of representatives elected by each nation, holding
       office during good behavior, and acknowledged as ruling chiefs
       throughout the whole confederacy. Still further, and more
       remarkably, the confederation was not to be a limited one. It
       was to be indefinitely expansible. The avowed design of its
       proposer was to abolish war altogether. He wished the
       federation to extend until all the tribes of men should be
       included in it, and peace should everywhere reign. Such is the
       positive testimony of the Iroquois themselves: and their
       statement, as will be seen, is supported by historical
       evidence. … His conceptions were beyond his time, and beyond
       ours; but their effect, within a limited sphere, was very
       great. For more than three centuries the bond which he devised
       held together the Iroquois nations in perfect amity. It
       proved, moreover, as he intended, elastic. The territory of
       the Iroquois, constantly extending as their united strength
       made itself felt, became the 'Great Asylum' of the Indian
       tribes. … Among the interminable stories with which the
       common people [of the Five Nations] beguile their winter
       nights, the traditions of Atotarho and Hiawatha became
       intermingled with the legends of their mythology. An
       accidental similarity, in the Onondaga dialect, between the
       name of Hiawatha and that of one of their ancient divinities,
       led to a confusion between the two, which has misled some
       investigators. This deity bears, in the sonorous Canienga
       tongue, the name of Taronhiawagon, meaning 'the Holder of the
       Heavens.' The Jesuit missionaries style him 'the great god of
       the Iroquois.' Among the Onondagas of the present day, the
       name is abridged to Taonhiawagi, or Tahiawagi. The confusion
       between this name and that of Hiawatha (which, in another
       form, is pronounced Tahionwatha) seems to have begun more than
       a century ago. … Mr. J. V. H. Clark, in his interesting
       History of Onondaga, makes the name to have been originally
       Ta-own-ya-wat-ha, and describes the bearer as 'the deity who
       presides over fisheries and hunting-grounds.' He came down
       from heaven in a white canoe, and after sundry adventures,
       which remind one of the labors of Hercules, assumed the name
       of Hiawatha (signifying, we are told, 'a very wise man'), and
       dwelt for a time as an ordinary mortal among men, occupied in
       works of benevolence. Finally, after founding the confederacy
       and bestowing many prudent counsels upon the people, he
       returned to the skies by the same conveyance in which he had
       descended. This legend, or, rather, congeries of intermingled
       legends, was communicated by Clark to Schoolcraft, when the
       latter was compiling his 'Notes on the Iroquois.' Mr.
       Schoolcraft, pleased with the poetical cast of the story, and
       the euphonious name, made confusion worse confounded by
       transferring the hero to a distant region and identifying him
       with Manabozho, a fantastic divinity of the Ojibways.
       Schoolcraft's volume, which he chose to entitle 'The Hiawatha
       Legends,' has not in it a single fact or fiction relating
       either to Hiawatha himself or to the Iroquois deity
       Taronhiawagon. Wild Ojibway stories concerning Manabozho and
       his comrades form the staple of its contents. But it is to
       this collection that we owe the charming poem of Longfellow;
       and thus, by an extraordinary fortune, a grave Iroquois
       lawgiver of the fifteenth century has become, in modern
       literature, an Ojibway demigod, son of the West Wind, and
       companion of the tricksy Paupukkeewis, the boastful Iagoo, and
       the strong Kwasind. If a Chinese traveler, during the middle
       ages, inquiring into the history and religion of the western
       nations, had confounded King Alfred with King Arthur, and both
       with Odin, he would not have made a more preposterous
       confusion of names and characters than that which has hitherto
       disguised the genuine personality of the great Onondaga
       reformer."

          H. Hale, editor,
          The Iroquois Book of Rites
          (Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature,
          number 2, pages 21-36).

    {1803}

    IRREDENTISTS.

       "This is the name given to a political organisation formed in
       1878, with the avowed object of freeing all Italians from
       foreign rule, and of reuniting to the Italian kingdom all
       those portions of the Italy of old which have passed under
       foreign dominion. The operations of the 'Italia Irredenta'
       party are chiefly carried on against Austria, in consequence
       of the retention by that Empire of Trieste and the Southern
       Tyrol. Until these territories have been relinquished, Italy,
       or at least a certain part of it, will remain unsatisfied."

          J. S. Jeans,
          Italy (National Life and Thought, chapter 8).

    ISAAC II. (Comnenus),
       Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1057-1059.

       Isaac II. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
       Greek), 1185-1195.

    ISABELLA,
       Queen of Castile
       (wife of Ferdinand II., King of Aragon), A. D. 1474-1504.

       Isabella I., Queen of Spain, 1833-1868.

    ISABELLA.
       The city founded by Columbus on the island of Hispaniola, or
       Hayti.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

    ISANDLANA, The English disaster at (1879).

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

    ISASZEG, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    ISAURIAN DYNASTY, The.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.

    ISAURIANS, The.

       The Isaurians were a fierce and savage race of mountaineers,
       who occupied anciently a district in Asia Minor, between
       Cilicia and Pamphylia on the south and Phrygia on the north.
       They were persistently a nation of robbers, living upon the
       spoils taken from their neighbors, who were never able to
       punish them justly in their mountain fastnesses. Even the iron
       hand of the Romans failed to reduce the Isaurians to order,
       although P. Servilius, in 78 B. C., destroyed most of their
       strongholds, and Pompey, eleven years later, in his great
       campaign against the pirates, put an end to the lawless
       depredations on sea and land of the Cilicians, who had become
       confederated with the Isaurians. Five centuries afterwards, in
       the days of the Eastern Empire, the Isaurians were the best
       soldiers of its army, and even gave an emperor to the throne
       at Constantinople in the person of Zeno or Zenon.

          E. W. Brooks,
          The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
          (English Historical Review, April, 1893).

    ISCA.

       The name of two towns in Roman Britain, one of which is
       identified with modern Exeter and the other with
       Caerleon-on-Usk. The latter was the station of the 2d legion.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 5.

          See EXETER, ORIGIN OF;
          also, CAERLEON.

    ISHMAELIANS, The.
       See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
       also, ASSASSINS;
       and CARMATHIANS.

    ISIDORE, The False Decretals of.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

    ISINÆ.

          See CAUSENNÆ.

    ISLAM.

       "The religion founded by Mahomet is called Islam, a word
       meaning 'the entire surrender of the will to God'; its
       professors are called Mussulmans—'those who have surrendered
       themselves,' or 'Believers,' as opposed to the 'Rejectors' of
       the Divine messengers, who are named 'Kafirs,' or 'Mushrikin,'
       that is, 'those who associate, are [not?] companions or
       sharers with the Deity.' Islam is sometimes divided under the
       two heads of Faith and Practical Religion.

       I. Faith (Iman) includes a belief in one God, omnipotent,
       omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good; and in
       Mahomet as his prophet, expressed in the formula 'There is no
       God but God, and Mahomet is the Prophet of God.' It includes,
       also, a belief in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran,
       in angels, genii, and the devil, in the immortality of the
       soul, the resurrection, the day of judgment and in God's
       absolute decree for good and evil.

       II. Practical religion (Din) consists of five observances:
       (1) Recital of the formula of Belief,
       (2) Prayer with Ablution,
       (3) Fasting,
       (4) Almsgiving,
       (5) the Pilgrimage.

       … The standard of Moslem orthodoxy is essentially the Koran
       and to it primary reference is made; but … some more
       extended and discriminating code became necessary. The
       deficiency was supplied by the compilation of the 'Sunnah,' or
       Traditional Law, which is built upon the sayings and practices
       of Mahomet, and, in the opinion of the orthodox, is invested
       with the force of law, and with some of the authority of
       inspiration. … In cases where both the Koran and the Sunnah
       afford no exact precept, the 'Rule of Faith' in their dogmatic
       belief, as well as the decisions of their secular courts, is
       based upon the teaching of one of the four great Imams, or
       founders of the orthodox sects, according as one or another of
       these prevails in any particular country. … The great Sunni
       sect is divided among the orthodox schools mentioned above,
       and is so called from its reception of the 'Sunnah,' as having
       authority concurrent with and supplementary to the Koran. In
       this respect it differs essentially from the Shias, or
       partisans of the house of Ali [the nephew of Mahomet and
       husband of his daughter Fatima] who, adhering to their own
       traditions, reject the authority of the 'Sunnah.' These two
       sects, moreover, have certain observances and matters of
       belief peculiar to themselves, the chief of which is the Shia
       doctrine, that the sovereign Imamat, or temporal and spiritual
       lordship over the faithful, was by divine right vested in Ali
       and in his descendants, through Hasan and Hosein, the children
       of Fatima, the daughter of the prophet. And thus the Persian
       Shias add to the formula of belief the confession, 'Ali is the
       Caliph of God.' In Persia the Shia doctrines prevail, and
       formerly so intense was sectarian hatred that the Sunni
       Mahometans paid a higher capitation tax there than the
       infidels. In Turkey the great majority are Sunni. In India the
       Shias number about one in twenty. The Shias, who reject this
       name, and call themselves Adliyah, or the 'Society of the
       Just,' are subdivided into a great variety of minor sects; but
       these … are united in asserting that the first three
       Caliphs, Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othman were usurpers, who had
       possessed themselves of the rightful and inalienable
       inheritance of Ali."

          J. W. H. Stobart,
          Islam and its Founder,
          chapter 10.

       "The twelve Imams, or pontiffs, of the Persian creed, are Ali,
       Hassan, Hosein, and the lineal descendants of Hosein to the ninth
       generation. Without arms, or treasures, or subjects, they
       successively enjoyed the veneration of the people and provoked
       the jealousy of the reigning caliphs. … The twelfth and last
       of the Imams, conspicuous by the title of Mahadi, or the
       Guide, surpassed the solitude and sanctity of his
       predecessors. He concealed himself in a cavern near Bagdad:
       the time and place of his death are unknown; and his votaries
       pretend that he still lives and will appear before the day of
       judgment."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 50.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Sell,
          The Faith of Islam.

          S. Lane-Poole,
          Studies in a Mosque,
          chapters 3 and 7.

          R. D. Osborn,
          Islam under the Arabs,
          part 2, chapter 1.

          W. C. Taylor,
          History of Mohammedanism,
          chapters 5-13.

          R. Bosworth Smith,
          Mohammed and Mohammedanism

          T. Nöldeke,
          Sketches from Eastern History,
          chapter 3.

          See, also,
          MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

    {1804}

    ISLAM, Dar-ul-, and Dar-ul-harb.

          See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

    ISLAND NUMBER TEN, The capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    ISLE OF FRANCE.

       The old French province containing Paris. Also the French name
       of Mauritius island, taken by England in 1810.

    ISLE ROYALE.

          See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

    ISLES, Lords of the.

          See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504,
          and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

    ISLES OF THE BLESSED.

          See CANARY ISLANDS.

    ISLY, Battle of (1843).

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

    ISMAIL, Khedive of Egypt, The reign and the fall of.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869; 1870-1883;
          and 1875-1882.

       Ismail I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1502-1523.

       Ismail II., Shah of Persia, 1576-1577.

    ISMAIL, Siege and capture of (1790).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    ISMAILEANS, OR ISHMAELIANS.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
          also, ASSASSINS;
          and CARMATHIANS.

    ISONOMY.
    ISOTIMY.
    ISAGORIA.

       "The principle underlying democracy is the struggle for a
       legalised equality which was usually described [by the ancient
       Greeks] by the expressions Isonomy, or equality of law for
       all,—Isotimy, or proportionate regard paid to all,
       —Isagoria, or equal freedom of speech, with special reference
       to courts of justice and popular assemblies."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 2, chapter 12.

    ISONZO, Battle of the (A. D. 489).

          See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

    ISOPOLITY.

       "Under Sp. Cassius [B. C. 493], Rome concluded a treaty with
       the Latins, in which the right of isopolity or the 'jus
       municipi' was conceded to them. The idea of isopolity changed
       in the course of time, but its essential features in early
       times were these: between the Romans and Latins and between
       the Romans and Caerites there existed this arrangement, that
       any citizen of the one state who wished to settle in the
       other, might forthwith be able to exercise there the rights of
       a citizen."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lecture 13 (volume 1).

    ISRAEL.

          See JEWS.

    ISRAEL, Lost Ten Tribes of.

          See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

    ISSUS, Battle of (B. C. 333).

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

    ISTÆVONES, The.

          See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

    ISTAKR, OR STAKR.

       The native name under the later, or Sassanian, Persian empire,
       of the ancient capital, Persepolis.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 3, footnote.

    ISTER, The.

       The ancient Greek name of the Danube, below the junction of
       the Theiss and the Save.

    ISTHMIAN GAMES.

          See NEMEAN.

       ----------ISTRIA: Start--------

    ISTRIA:
       Slavonic Occupation of.

          See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES.

    ISTRIA: A. D. 1797.
       Acquisition by Austria.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

       ----------ISTRIA: End--------

    ISTRIANS, The.

          See ILLYRIANS.

    ISURIUM.

       A Roman town in Britain, which had previously been the chief
       town of the British tribe of the Brigantes. It is identified
       with Aldborough, Yorkshire, "where the excavator meets
       continually with the tessellated floors of the Roman houses."

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    ITALI, The.

          See ŒNOTRIANS.

    ITALIAN WAR, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

    ITALIOTES.

          See SICELIOTEB.

       ----------ITALY: Start--------

    ITALY:
       Ancient.
       Early Italians.

       "It was not till the close of the Republic, or rather the
       beginning of the Empire, that the name of Italy was employed,
       as we now employ it, to designate the whole Peninsula, from
       the Alps to the Straits of Messina.

          See ROME: B. C. 275.

       The term Italia, borrowed from the name of a primæval tribe
       who occupied the southern portion of the land, was gradually
       adopted as a generic title in the same obscure manner in which
       most of the countries of Europe, or (we may say) the
       Continents of the world, have received their appellations. In
       the remotest times the name only included Lower Calabria: from
       these narrow limits it gradually spread upwards, till about
       the time of the Punic Wars, its northern boundary ascended the
       little river Rubicon (between Umbria and Cisalpine Gaul), then
       followed the ridge of the Appennines westward to the source of
       the Macra, and was carried down the bed of that small stream
       to the Gulf of Genoa. When we speak of Italy, therefore, in
       the Roman sense of the word, we must dismiss from our thoughts
       all that fertile country which was at Rome entitled the
       provincial district of Gallia Cisalpina, and Liguria."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          introduction, section. 2.

       "Philological research teaches us to distinguish three
       primitive Italian stocks, the Iapygian, the Etruscan, and that
       which we shall call the Italian. The last is divided into two
       main branches,—the Latin branch, and that to which the
       dialects of the Umbri, Marsi, Volsci and Samnites belong. As
       to the Iapygian stock, we have but little information.
    {1805}
       At the southeastern extremity of Italy, in the Messapian or
       Calabrian peninsula, inscriptions in a peculiar extinct
       language have been found in considerable numbers; undoubtedly
       remains of the dialect of the Iapygians, who are very
       distinctly pronounced by tradition also to have been different
       from the Latin and Samnite stocks. … With the recognition of
       … a general family relationship or peculiar affinity between
       the Iapygians and Hellenes (a recognition, however, which by
       no means goes so far as to warrant our taking the Iapygian
       language to be a rude dialect of Greek), investigation must
       rest content. … The middle of the peninsula was inhabited,
       as far back as reliable tradition reaches, by two peoples or
       rather two branches of the same people, whose position in the
       Indo-Germanic family admits of being determined with greater
       precision than that of the Iapygian nation. We may with
       propriety call this people the Italian, since upon it rests
       the historical significance of the peninsula. It is divided
       into the two branch-stocks of the Latins and the Umbrians; the
       latter including their southern off-shoots, the Marsians and
       Samnites, and the colonies sent forth by the Samnites in
       historical times. … These examples [philological examples,
       given in the work, but omitted from this quotation], selected
       from a great abundance of analogous phenomena, suffice to
       establish the individuality of the Italian stock as
       distinguished from the other members of the Indo-Germanic
       family, and at the same time show it to be linguistically the
       nearest relative, as it is geographically the next neighbour,
       of the Greek. The Greek and the Italian are brothers; the
       Celt, the German and the Slavonian are their cousins. …
       Among the languages of the Italian stock, again, the Latin
       stands in marked contrast with the Umbro-Samnite dialects. It
       is true that of these only two, the Umbrian and the Samnite or
       Oscan, are in some degree known to us. … A conjoint view,
       however, of the facts of language and of history leaves no
       doubt that all these dialects belonged to the Umbro-Samnite
       branch of the great Italian stock. … It may … be regarded
       as certain that the Italians, like the Indians, migrated into
       their peninsula from the north. The advance of the
       Umbro-Sabellian stock along the central mountain-ridge of
       Italy, in a direction from north to south, can still be
       clearly traced; indeed its last phases belong to purely
       historical times. Less is known regarding the route which the
       Latin migration followed. Probably it proceeded in a similar
       direction along the west coast, long, in all likelihood,
       before the first Sabellian stocks began to move."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapters 2-3.

          See, also,
          ETRUSCANS; LATIUM; SABINES; SAMNITES;
          UMBRIANS; MAGNA GRÆCIA;
          also, ROME: B. C. 343-290, and 339-338.

       "In the February number of the 'Civiltà Cattolica,' Padre de
       Cara pleads for a national effort on the part of Italian
       archaeologists to solve the question of the origin of their
       country's civilisation by the systematic exploration and
       excavation of Pelasgic Italy. … In a series of articles,
       extending over several years, the learned father has contended
       for the identity of the Hittites and Proto-Pelasgians on
       archaeological, etymological, and historical grounds; and he
       here repeats that, if 'Italic' means Aryan, then it is among
       the peoples speaking Oscan, Umbrian, Latin, and other dialects
       of the Indo-European family that the parentage of Italian
       civilisation must be sought; but that 'Italy' meant in the
       first place the country of the Hittites (Hethei), and hence of
       the Pelasgians, and that name and civilisation are alike
       Pelasgic. Those who hold it to have been Aryan have not only
       the testimony of Greek and Roman writers against them, but
       also the facts that there were Pelasgians in Italy whose stone
       constructions are standing to this day, and that the Etruscan
       language and culture had no Aryan affinities. The writer
       further points out that the walls of Pelasgic cities, whether
       in Italy, Greece, or Asia Minor, all resemble each other, and
       that the origin of Greek civilisation was also Pelasgian. In
       Greece, as in Italy, the Aryans followed centuries after the
       Hittite-Pelasgians, and Aryan Greece carried the arts of
       Pelasgic Greece to perfection. He believes that, of two
       migratory bands of Hittites, one invaded Greece and the other
       Italy, about the same time. He also draws attention to the
       coincidence that it is not very long since Greece, like Italy
       at the present time, could date its civilisation no further
       back than 700 or 800 B. C. Schliemann recovered centuries for
       Greece, but 'Italy still remains imprisoned in the iron circle
       of the seventh century.' To break it, she must follow
       Schliemann's plan; and as he had steady faith in the
       excavation of the Pelasgic cities and cemeteries of Greece, so
       will like faith and conduct on the part of Italian
       archaeologists let in light upon this once dark problem."

          Academy,
          March 31, 1894, page 273.

    ITALY:
       Under the dominion of Rome.

          See ROME.

    ITALY:
       Invasions Repelled by Rome.

          See ROME: B. C. 390-347, 282-275; PUNIC WARS;
          CIMBRI AND TEUTONES; ALEMANNI; and RADAGAISUS.

    ITALY: A. D. 400-410.
       Alaric's invasions.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403;
          and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

    ITALY: A. D. 452.
       Attila's invasion.
       The origin of Venice.

          See HUNS: A. D. 452; and VENICE: A. D. 452.

    ITALY: A. D. 476-553.
       The fall of the Western Roman Empire.
       The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric, and its fall.
       Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

          See ROME: A. D. 455-476, to 535-553.

    ITALY: A. D. 539-553.
       Frank invasions.

             See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.

    ITALY: A. D. 554-800.
       Rule of the Exarchs of Ravenna.

          See ROME: A. D. 554-800;
          and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

    ITALY: A. D. 568-800.
       Lombard conquests and kingdom.
       Rise of the Papal power at Rome.
       Alliance of the Papacy with the sovereigns of the Franks.
       Revival of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne.

       "Since the invasion of Alboin, Italy had groaned under a
       complication of evils. The Lombards who had entered along with
       that chief in A. D. 568 [see LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573, and
       after] had settled in considerable numbers in the valley of
       the Po, and founded the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento,
       leaving the rest of the country to be governed by the exarch
       of Ravenna as viceroy of the Eastern crown. This subjection
       was, however, little better than nominal. Although too few to
       occupy the whole peninsula, the invaders were yet strong
       enough to harass every part of it by inroads which met with no
       resistance from a population unused to arms, and without the
       spirit to use them in self-defence. … Tormented by their
       repeated attacks, Rome sought help in vain from Byzantium,
       whose forces, scarce able to repel from their walls the Avars
       and Saracens, could give no support to the distant exarch of
       Ravenna.
    {1806}
       The Popes were the Emperor's subjects; they it waited his
       confirmation, like other bishops; they had more than once been
       the victims of his anger. But as the city became more
       accustomed in independence, and the Pope rose to a
       predominance, real if not yet legal [see ROME: A. D. 590-640,
       and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774], his tone grew bolder than that of
       the Eastern patriarchs. In the controversies that had raged in
       the Church, he had had the wisdom or good fortune to espouse
       (though not always from the first) the orthodox side: it was
       now by another quarrel of religion that his deliverance from
       an unwelcome yoke was accomplished. The Emperor Leo, born
       among the Isaurian mountains, where a purer faith may yet have
       lingered, and stung by the Mohammedan taunt of idolatry,
       determined to abolish the worship of images, which seemed fast
       obscuring the more spiritual part of Christianity. An attempt
       sufficient to cause tumults among the submissive Greeks,
       excited in Italy a fiercer commotion. The populace rose with
       one heart in defence of what had become to them more than a
       symbol: the exarch was slain: the Pope, though unwilling to
       sever himself from the lawful head and protector of the
       Church, must yet excommunicate the prince whom he could not
       reclaim from so hateful a heresy.

          See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

       Liudprand, king of the Lombards, improved his opportunity:
       falling on the exarchate as the champion of images, on Rome as
       the minister of the Greek Emperor, he overran the one, and all
       but succeeded in capturing the other. The Pope escaped for the
       moment, but saw his peril: placed between a heretic and a
       robber, he turned his gaze beyond the Alps, to a Catholic
       chief who had just achieved a signal deliverance for
       Christendom on the field of Poitiers. Gregory II. had already
       opened communications with Charles Martel, mayor of the
       palace, and virtual ruler of the Frankish realm. As the crisis
       becomes more pressing, Gregory III. finds in the same quarter
       his only hope, and appeals to him in urgent letters, to haste
       to the succour of Holy Church. … Charles died before he
       could obey the call; but his son Pipin (surnamed the Short)
       made good use of the new friendship with Rome. He was the
       third of his family who had ruled the Franks with a monarch's
       full power [see FRANKS: A. D. 511-752]: it seemed time to
       abolish the pageant of Merovingian royalty; yet a departure
       from the ancient line might shock the feelings of the people.
       A course was taken whose dangers no one then foresaw: the Holy
       See, now for the first time invoked as an international power,
       pronounced the deposition of Childric, and gave to the royal
       office of his successor Pipin a sanctity hitherto unknown. …
       The compact between the chair of Peter and the Teutonic throne
       was hardly sealed, when the latter was summoned to discharge
       its share of the duties. Twice did Aistulf the Lombard assail
       Rome, twice did Pipin descend to the rescue: the second time
       at the bidding of a letter written in the name of St. Peter
       himself. Aistulf could make no resistance; and the Frank
       bestowed on the Papal chair all that belonged to the exarchate
       in North Italy, receiving as the meed of his services the
       title of Patrician [754]. … When on Pipin's death the
       restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the
       possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne
       swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope
       Hadrian, seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed
       himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy
       thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire [see
       GERMANY: A. D. 68-800]. … For the next twenty-four years
       Italy remained quiet. The government of Rome was carried on in
       the name of the Patrician Charles, although it does not appear
       that he sent thither any official representative; while at the
       same time both the city and the exarchate continued to admit
       the nominal supremacy of the Eastern Emperor, employing the
       years of his reign to date documents."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 4.

       "Thus, by German hands, the internal ascendancy of the German
       race in Italy, which had lasted, first under the Goths, and
       then under the Lombards, for 281 years, was finally broken. A
       German was still king over Italy, as for ages Germans were
       still to be. But Roman and native influence reconquered its
       supremacy in Italy, under the management and leadership of the
       bishops of Rome. The Lombards, already becoming Italianized,
       melted into provincial Italians. The Teutonic language
       disappeared, leaving a number of words to Italian dialects,
       and a number of names to Italian families. The last king of
       the Lombards bore an Italian name, Desiderius. The latest of
       Italian national heroes bears the Bavarian and Lombard name of
       Garibaldi. But the overthrow of the Lombards, and the gift of
       provinces and cities to St. Peter had even more eventful
       results. The alliance between the king of the Franks and the
       bishop of Rome had become one of the closest kind. … The
       German king and the Italian pope found themselves together at
       the head of the modern world of the West. But the fascination
       of the name of Rome still, as it had done for centuries, held
       sway over the Teutonic mind. … It was not unnatural that the
       idea should recommend itself, both to the king and the pope,
       of reviving in the West, in close connexion with the Roman
       primacy, that great name which still filled the imagination of
       the world, and which in Roman judgments, Greek Byzantium had
       wrongfully stolen away—the name of Cæsar Augustus, the claim
       to govern the world. There was a longing in the West for the
       restoration of the name and authority, 'lest,' as the
       contemporary writers express it, 'the heathen should mock at
       the Christian if the name of Emperor had ceased among them.'
       And at this moment, the government at Constantinople was in
       the hands of a woman, the Empress Irene. Charles's services to
       the pope were recompensed, and his victorious career of more
       than thirty years crowned, by the restoration at Rome, in his
       person, of the Roman empire and the imperial dignity. The same
       authority which had made him 'patrician,' and consecrated him
       king, now created him Emperor of the Romans. On Christmas day,
       800, when Charles came to pay his devotions before the altar
       of St. Peter's, Pope Leo III.—without Charles's knowledge or
       wish, so Charles declared to his biographer, Einhard, and, it
       may be, prematurely, as regards Charles's own feeling—placed
       a golden crown on his head, while all the people shouted, 'to
       Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned of God, the great
       and peace-giving Emperor of the Romans, life and victory.' …
    {1807}
       Thus a new power arose in Europe, new in reality and in its
       relations to society, though old in name. It was formally but
       the carrying on the line of the successors of Augustus and
       Constantine. But substantially it was something very
       different. Its authors could little foresee its destinies; but
       it was to last, in some sort the political centre of the world
       which was to be, for 1,000 years. And the Roman Church, which
       had done such great things, which had consecrated the new and
       mighty kings of the Franks, and had created for the mightiest
       of them the imperial claim to universal dominion, rose with
       them to a new attitude in the world. … The coronation of
       Charles at Rome, in the face of an imperial line at
       Constantinople, finally determined, though it did not at once
       accomplish, the separation of East and West, of Greek and
       Latin Christianity. This separation had long been impending,
       perhaps, becoming inevitable. … One Roman empire was still
       the only received theory. But one Roman empire, with its seat
       in the West, or one Roman empire, governed in partnership by
       two emperors of East and West, had become impossible in fact.
       The theory of its unity continued for ages; but whether the
       true successor of Augustus and Theodosius sat at
       Constantinople, or somewhere in the West, remained in dispute,
       till the dispute was ended by the extinction of the Eastern
       empire by the Turks on May 29, 1453."

          R. W. Church,
          The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 7.

          See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

    ITALY: A. D. 685-1014.
       The founding of the duchy of Tuscany.

          See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

    ITALY: A. D. 781.
       Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

       In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
       two separate kingdoms, placing his infant sons Pipin and
       Ludwig on the thrones.

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 16.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 800-1016.
       Conflict of Greeks, Saracens and Franks.

       "The southern provinces [of Italy], which now compose the
       kingdom of Naples, were subject, for the most part [in the 8th
       and 9th centuries], to the Lombard dukes and princes of
       Beneventum—so powerful in war that they checked for a moment
       the genius of Charlemagne—so liberal in peace that they
       maintained in their capital an academy of thirty-two
       philosophers and grammarians. The division of this flourishing
       state produced the rival principalities of Benevento, Salerno,
       and Capua; and the thoughtless ambition or revenge of the
       competitors invited the Saracens to the ruin of their common
       inheritance. During a calamitous period of two hundred years,
       Italy was exposed to a repetition of wounds which the invaders
       were not capable of healing by the union and tranquillity of a
       perfect conquest. Their frequent and almost annual squadrons
       issued from the port of Palermo and were entertained with too
       much indulgence by the Christians of Naples: the more
       formidable fleets were prepared on the African coasts. … A
       colony of Saracens had been planted at Bari, which commands
       the entrance of the Adriatic Gulf; and their impartial
       depredations provoked the resentment and conciliated the union
       of the two emperors. An offensive alliance was concluded
       between Basil the Macedonian [of the Byzantine Empire], the
       first of his race, and Lewis, the great grandson of
       Charlemagne; and each party Supplied the deficiencies of his
       associate. … The fortress of Bari was invested by the
       infantry of the Franks and by the cavalry and galleys of the
       Greeks; and, after a defence of four years, the Arabian emir
       submitted [A. D. 871] to the clemency of Lewis, who commanded
       in person the operations of the siege. This important conquest
       had been achieved by the concord of the East and West; but
       their recent amity was soon embittered by the mutual
       complaints of jealousy and pride. … Whoever might deserve
       the honour, the Greek emperors, Basil and his son Leo, secured
       the advantage of the reduction of Bari. The Italians of Apulia
       and Calabria were persuaded or compelled to acknowledge their
       supremacy, and an ideal line from Mount Garganus to the Bay of
       Salerno leaves the far greater part of the [modern] kingdom of
       Naples under the dominion of the Eastern empire. Beyond that
       line the dukes or republics of Amalfi and Naples, who had
       never forfeited their voluntary allegiance, rejoiced in the
       neighbourhood of their lawful sovereign; and Amalfi was
       enriched by supplying Europe with the produce and manufactures
       of Asia. But the Lombard princes of Benevento, Salerno, and
       Capua, were reluctantly torn from the communion of the Latin
       world, and too often violated their oaths of servitude and
       tribute. The city of Bari rose to dignity and wealth as the
       metropolis of the new theme or province of Lombardy; the title
       of Patrician, and afterwards the singular name of Catapan, was
       assigned to the supreme governor. … As long as the sceptre
       was disputed by the princes of Italy, their efforts were
       feeble and adverse; and the Greeks resisted or eluded the
       forces of Germany which descended from the Alps under the
       imperial standard of the Othos. The first and greatest of
       those Saxon princes was compelled to relinquish the siege of
       Bari: the second, after the loss of his stoutest bishops and
       barons, escaped with honour from the bloody field of Crotona
       (A. D. 983). On that day the scale of war was turned against
       the Franks by the valour of the Saracens. … The Caliph of
       Egypt had transported 40,000 Moslems to the aid of his
       Christian ally. The successors of Basil amused themselves with
       the belief that the conquest of Lombardy had been achieved,
       and was still preserved, by the justice of their laws, the
       virtues of their ministers, and the gratitude of a people whom
       they had rescued from anarchy and oppression. A series of
       rebellions might dart a ray of truth into the palace of
       Constantinople; and the illusions of flattery were dispelled
       by the easy and rapid success of the Norman adventurers."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 56.

    ITALY: A. D. 803-810.
       Charlemagne's boundary treaties with the Byzantine Emperor.
       Attempts of Pipin against the Venetians.
       The founding of Modern Venice.

          See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

    ITALY: A. D. 810-961.
       Spread of Venetian commerce and naval prowess.

          See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.

    {1808}

    ITALY: A. D. 843-951.
       In the breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire.
       The founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

       In the partition of Charlemagne's Empire among his three
       grandsons, by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, Italy, together
       with the new kingdom called Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was
       assigned to the elder, Lothar, who bore the title of Emperor.
       Lothar, who died in 855, redivided his dominions among three
       sons, and Lorraine, separated from Italy, was soon dismembered
       and shared between Germany and France. The Italian kingdom
       fell to Louis or Ludwig II., who was crowned Emperor, and on
       his death without issue, A. D. 875, it was seized, together
       with the imperial title, by the French Carlovingian king,
       Charles the Bald. Two years afterwards he died, and Italy,
       together with the imperial crown, was acquired by the last
       legitimate survivor of the German Carlovingian line, Charles
       the Fat, who died in 888. "At that memorable era (A. D. 888)
       the four kingdoms which this prince [Charles the Fat] had
       united fell asunder: West France, where Odo or Eudes [Duke of
       Paris, ancestor of the royal line of Capet] then began to
       reign, was never again united to Germany; East France
       (Germany) chose Arnulf; Burgundy split up into two
       principalities, in one of which (Transjurane) Rudolf
       proclaimed himself king, while the other (Cisjurune with
       Provence) submitted to Boso; while Italy was divided between
       the parties of Berengar of Friuli and Guido of Spoleto. The
       former was chosen king by the estates of Lombardy; the latter,
       and on his speedy death his son Lambert, was crowned Emperor
       by the Pope. Arnulf's [the German king's] descent chased them
       away and vindicated the claims of the Franks, but on his
       flight Italy and the anti-German faction at Rome became again
       free. Berengar was made king of Italy, and afterwards Emperor.
       Lewis of Burgundy, son of Boso, renounced his fealty to
       Arnulf, and procured the imperial dignity, whose vain title he
       retained through years of misery and exile, till A. D. 928.
       None of these Emperors were strong enough to rule well even in
       Italy; beyond it they were not so much as recognized. … In
       A. D. 924 died Berengar, the last of these phantom Emperors.
       After him Hugh of Burgundy and Lothar his son reigned as kings
       of Italy, if puppets in the hands of a riotous aristocracy can
       be so called. Rome was meanwhile ruled by the consul or
       senator Alberic [called variously senator, consul, patrician,
       and prince of the Romans], who had renewed her never quite
       extinct republican institutions, and in the degradation of the
       papacy was almost absolute in the city." Affairs in Italy were
       at this stage when Otto or Otho, the vigorous and chivalrous
       German king of the new line, came in 951 to re-establish and
       reconstitute the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and to make it a
       lasting entity in European politics—the "Holy Roman Empire"
       of modern history.

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 6.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          lecture 24.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 49.

          See, also,
          ROME: A. D. 903-964;
          and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

    ITALY: A. D. 900-924.
       Ravaged by the Hungarians.

       "The vicinity of Italy had tempted their early inroads; but
       from their camp on the Brenta they beheld with some terror the
       apparent strength and populousness of the new-discovered
       country. They requested leave to retire; their request was
       proudly rejected by the Italian king; and the lives of 20,000
       Christians paid the forfeit of his obstinacy and rashness.
       Among the cities of the West the royal Pavia was conspicuous
       in fame and splendour; and the pre-eminence of Rome itself was
       only derived from the relies of the apostles. The Hungarians
       appeared; Pavia was in flames; forty-three churches were
       consumed; and, after the massacre of the people, they spared
       about 200 wretches who had gathered some bushels of gold and
       silver (a vague exaggeration) from the smoking ruins of their
       country. In these annual excursions from the Alps to the
       neighbourhood of Rome and Capua, the churches that yet escaped
       resounded with a fearful litany: 'Oh! save and deliver us from
       the arrows of the Hungarians!' But the saints were deaf or
       inexorable; and the torrent rolled forward, till it was
       stopped by the extreme land of Calabria."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 55.

    ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.
       Subjection to Germany.

       "Otho I., his son Otho II., and his grandson Otho III., were
       successively acknowledged emperors and kings of Italy, from
       961 to 1002. When this branch of the house of Saxony became
       extinct, Henry II. of Bavaria, and Conrad the Salic of
       Franconia, filled the throne from 1004 to 1039. During this
       period of nearly eighty years, the German emperors twelve
       times entered Italy at the head of their armies, which they
       always drew up in the plains of Roncaglia near Placentia;
       there they held the states of Lombardy, received homage from
       their Italian feudatories, caused the rents due to be paid,
       and promulgated laws for the government of Italy. A foreign
       sovereign, however, almost always absent, known only by his
       incursions at the head of a barbarous army, could not
       efficaciously govern a country which he hardly knew, and where
       his yoke was detested. … The emperors were too happy to
       acknowledge the local authorities, whatever they were,
       whenever they could obtain from them their pecuniary dues:
       sometimes they were dukes or marquises, whose dignities had
       survived the disasters of various invasions and of civil wars;
       sometimes the archbishops and bishops of great cities, whom
       Charlemagne and his successors had frequently invested with
       duchies and counties escheated to the crown, reckoning that
       lords elected for life would remain more dependent than
       hereditary lords; sometimes, finally, they were the
       magistrates themselves, who, although elected by the people,
       received from the monarch the title of imperial vicars, and
       took part with the nobles and prelates in the Plaids
       (placita), or diets of Roncaglia. After a stay of some months,
       the emperor returned with his army into Germany; the nobles
       retired to their castles, the prelates and magistrates to
       their cities: neither of these last acknowledged a superior
       authority to their own, nor reckoned on any other force than
       what they could themselves employ to assert what they called
       their rights. Opposite interests could not fail to produce
       collision, and the war was universal."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 1.

    {1809}

       During the reign of Henry II. (A. D. 1002-1024), against whom
       a rival king of Italy was set up by the Italians, "there was
       hardly any recognised government, and the Lombards became more
       and more accustomed, through necessity, to protect themselves,
       and to provide for their own internal police. Meanwhile the
       German nation had become odious to the Italians. The rude
       soldiery, insolent and addicted to intoxication, were engaged
       in frequent disputes with the citizens, wherein the latter, as
       is usual in similar cases, were exposed first to the summary
       vengeance of the troops, and afterwards to penal chastisement
       for sedition. In one of these tumults, at the entry of Henry
       II. in 1004, the city of Pavia was burned to the ground, which
       inspired its inhabitants with a constant animosity against
       that emperor. Upon his death, in 1024, the Italians were
       disposed to break once more their connexion with Germany,
       which had elected as sovereign Conrad duke of Franconia. They
       offered their crown to Robert king of France and to William
       duke of Guienne." But neither of these princes would accept
       the troublesome diadem; and, in the end, the archbishop of
       Milan and other Lombard lords "repaired to Constance and
       tendered the crown to Conrad, which he was already disposed to
       claim as a sort of dependency upon Germany. It does not appear
       that either Conrad or his successors were ever regularly
       elected to reign over Italy; but whether this ceremony took
       place or not, we may certainly date from that time the
       subjection of Italy to the Germanic body. It became an
       unquestionable maxim, that the votes of a few German princes
       conferred a right to the sovereignty of a country which had
       never been conquered, and which had never formally recognised
       this superiority."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

       "The Italian Kingdom of the Karlings, the kingdom which was
       reunited to Germany under Otto the Great, was … a
       continuation of the old Lombard kingdom. It consisted of that
       kingdom, enlarged by the Italian lands which fell off from the
       Eastern Empire in the eighth century; that is by the Exarchate
       and the adjoining Pentapolis, and the immediate territory of
       Rome itself."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 3.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090.
       Conquests and settlement of the Normans.

       "A pilgrimage first took the Normans to Southern Italy, where
       they were to found a kingdom. Here there were, if I may so
       speak, three wrecks, three ruins of nations—Lombards in the
       mountains, Greeks in the ports, Sicilian and African Saracens
       rambling over the coasts. About the year 1000, some Norman
       pilgrims assist the inhabitants of Salerno to drive out a
       party of Arabs, who were holding them to ransom. Being well
       paid for the service, these Normans attract others of their
       countrymen hither. A Greek of Bari, named Melo or Meles, takes
       them into pay to free his city from the Greeks of Byzantium.
       Next they are settled by the Greek republic of Naples at the
       fort of Aversa, which lay between that city and her enemies,
       the Lombards of Capua (A. D. 1026). Finally, the sons of a
       poor gentleman of the Cotentin, Tancred of Hauteville, seek
       their fortune here. Tancred had twelve children; seven by the
       same mother. It was during William's [the Conqueror's]
       minority, when numbers of the barons endeavoured to withdraw
       themselves from the Bastard's yoke, that these sons of
       Tancred's directed their steps towards Italy, where it was
       said that a simple Norman knight had become count of Aversa.
       They set off penniless, and defrayed the expenses of their
       journey by the sword (A. D. 1037?). The Byzantine governor, or
       Katapan, engaged their services, and led them against the
       Arabs. But their countrymen beginning to flock to them, they
       no sooner saw themselves strong enough than they turned
       against their paymasters, seized Apulia [A. D. 1042], and
       divided it into twelve countships. This republic of
       Condottieri held its assemblies at Melphi. The Greeks
       endeavoured to defend themselves, but fruitlessly. They
       collected an army of 60,000 Italians; to be routed by the
       Normans, who amounted to several hundreds of well-armed men.
       The Byzantines then summoned their enemies, the Germans, to
       their aid; and the two empires, of the East and West,
       confederated against the sons of the gentleman of Coutances.
       The all-powerful emperor, Henry the Black (Henry III.),
       charged Leo IX., who had been nominated pope by him, and who
       was a German and kin to the imperial family, to exterminate
       these brigands. The pope led some Germans and a swarm of
       Italians against them [1053]; but the latter took to flight at
       the very beginning of the battle, and left the warlike pontiff
       in the hands of the enemy. Too wary to ill-treat him, the
       Normans piously cast themselves at their prisoner's feet, and
       compelled him to grant them, as a fief of the Church, all that
       they had taken or might take possession of in Apulia,
       Calabria, and on the other side of the strait; so that, in
       spite of himself, the pope became the suzerain of the kingdom
       of the Two Sicilies (A. D. 1052-1053)."

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapter 2.

       The two elder of the sons of Tancred were now dead, and the
       third son, Humphrey, died not long after. A fourth brother,
       Robert, surnamed Guiscard, who had lately arrived from
       Normandy with reinforcements, then established himself (A. D.
       1057) with some difficulty in the leadership and succession.
       "He accomplished the reduction of almost all the country which
       composes the present kingdom of Naples, and, extinguishing the
       long dominion of the Beneventine Lombards and of the eastern
       empire in Italy [see BENEVENTUM, and AMALFI], finally received
       from Pope Nicholas II. the confirmation of the titles which he
       had assumed, of duke of Calabria and Apulia [A. D. 1080]. …
       While Robert Guiscard was perfecting his dominion on the
       continent, his younger brother Roger engaged in the
       astonishing design of conquering the large and beautiful
       island of Sicily from the Saracens with a few Norman
       volunteers. An air of romantic extravagance breathes over all
       the enterprises of the Normans in Italy; and, even if we
       discard the incredible tales which the legends and chronicles
       of the times have preserved of the valour and corporeal
       strength of these northern warriors, enough will remain in the
       authentic results of their expeditions to stagger the reason
       and warm the imagination with attractive visions of chivalrous
       achievement. … We are assured that 300 Christian knights
       were the greatest number which Roger could for many years
       bring into the field; and that 136 routed a prodigious host of
       Saracens at the battle of Ceramio. … But the Saracens were
       embroiled in internal discord, and their island was broken up
       into numerous petty states; we may, therefore, attribute to
       their dissensions a great part of the success which the
       chroniclers of the Normans have assigned to their good swords
       alone. Roger had, however, embarked in an arduous and
       laborious undertaking, which it required the unbending
       perseverance and patient valour of thirty years [A. D.
       1060-1090] to accomplish. … At length, all Sicily bowed to
       his sway; Norman barons were infeuded over its surface; and
       Roger, with the title of great count, held the island as a
       fief of his brother's duchy."

          G. Proctor,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 2, part 2.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 56.

          J. W. Barlow,
          Short History of the Normans in South Europe,
          chapters 1-7.

    {1810}

    ITALY: A. D. 1056-1122.
       Beginning of the conflict of the Popes with the Emperors.
       Hildebrand and Henry IV.
       The War of Investitures.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

    ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
       The rise of the republican cities.

       "The war of investitures, which lasted more than sixty years,
       accomplished the dissolution of every tie between the
       different members of the kingdom of Italy. Civil wars have at
       least this advantage,—that they force the rulers of the
       people to consult the wishes of their subjects, oblige them to
       gain affections which constitute their strength, and to
       compensate, by the granting of new privileges, the services
       which they require. The prelates, nobles, and cities of Italy
       obeyed, some the emperor, others the pope; not from a blind
       fear, but from choice, from affection, from conscience,
       according as the political or religious sentiment was
       predominant in each. The war was general, but everywhere waged
       with the national forces. Every city armed its militia, which,
       headed by the magistrates, attacked the neighbouring nobles or
       towns of a contrary party. While each city imagined it was
       fighting either for the pope or the emperor, it was habitually
       impelled exclusively by its own sentiments: every town
       considered itself as a whole, as an independent state, which
       had its own allies and enemies; each citizen felt an ardent
       patriotism, not for the kingdom of Italy, or for the empire,
       but for his own city. At the period when either kings or
       emperors had granted to towns the right of raising
       fortifications, that of assembling the citizens at the sound
       of a great bell, to concert together the means of their common
       defence, had been also conceded. This meeting of all the men
       of the state capable of bearing arms was called a parliament.
       It assembled in the great square, and elected annually two
       consuls, charged with the administration of justice at home,
       and the command of the army abroad. … The parliament, which
       named the consuls, appointed also a secret council, called a
       Consilio di Credenza, to assist the government, composed of a
       few members taken from each division; besides a grand council
       of the people, who prepared the decisions to be submitted to
       the parliament. … As industry had rapidly increased, and had
       preceded luxury,—as domestic life was sober, and the produce
       of labour considerable,—wealth had greatly augmented. The
       citizens allowed themselves no other use of their riches than
       that of defending or embellishing their country. It was from
       the year 900 to the year 1200 that the most prodigious works
       were undertaken and accomplished by the towns of Italy. …
       These three regenerating centuries gave an impulse to
       architecture, which soon awakened the other fine arts. The
       republican spirit which now fermented in every city, and gave
       to each of them constitutions so wise, magistrates so zealous,
       and citizens so patriotic, and so capable of great
       achievements, had found in Italy itself the models which had
       contributed to its formation. The war of investitures had
       given wing to this universal spirit of liberty and patriotism
       in all the municipalities of Lombardy, in Piedmont, Venetia,
       Romagna, and Tuscany. But there existed already in Italy other
       free cities. … Venice, … Ravenna, … Genoa, … Pisa, …
       Rome, Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, Bari, were either never conquered
       by the Lombards, or in subjection too short a time to have
       lost their ancient walls, and the habit of guarding them.
       These cities served as the refuge of Roman civilization. …
       Those cities which had accumulated the most wealth, whose
       walls inclosed the greatest population, attempted, from the
       first half of the twelfth century, to secure by force of arms
       the obedience of such of the neighbouring towns as did not
       appear sufficiently strong to resist them, … to force them
       in to a perpetual alliance, so as to share their good or evil
       fortune, and always place their armed force under the standard
       of the dominant city. … Two great towns in the plains of
       Lombardy surpassed every other in power and wealth: Milan,
       which habitually directed the party of the church; and Pavia,
       which directed that of the empire. Both towns, however, seem
       to have changed parties during the reigns of Lothario III. and
       Conrad II., who, from the year 1125 to 1152 placed in
       opposition the two houses of Guelphs and Ghibelines in
       Germany. … Among the towns of Piedmont, Turin took the lead,
       and disputed the authority of the counts of Savoy, who called
       themselves imperial vicars in that country. … The family of
       the Veronese marquises, … who from the time of the Lombard
       kings had to defend the frontier against the Germans, were
       extinct; and the great cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza,
       Treviso, and Mantua, nearly equal in power, maintained their
       independence. Bologna held the first rank among the towns
       south of the Po. … Tuscany, which had also had its powerful
       marquises, saw their family become extinct with the countess
       Matilda, the contemporary and friend of Gregory VII. Florence
       had since risen in power, destroyed Fiesole, and … was
       considered the head of the Tuscan league; and the more so that
       Pisa at this period thought only of her maritime expeditions.
       … Such was the state of Italy, when the Germanic diet,
       assembled at Frankfort in 1152, conferred the crown on
       Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia, and of the house of
       Hohenstaufen."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapters 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 3.

          W. K. Williams,
          The Communes of Lombardy
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, 5-6).

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

          Europe during the Middle Ages
          (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclop.,
          volume 1, chapter 1).

          See, also,
          FLORENCE: 12TH CENTURY.

    ITALY: A. D. 1063.
       Birth of Pisan architecture.

          See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

    ITALY: A. D. 1077-1102.
       Countess Matilda's donation to the Holy See.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

    {1811}

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1081-1194.
       Robert Guiscard's invasions of the Eastern Empire.
       Union of Sicily with Apulia, and creation of the Kingdom of
       the Two Sicilies, or Naples.

       "The success of his brother [Roger, in Sicily—see above:
       A. D. 1000-1090] furnished another spur to the ambition of
       Robert Guiscard. Taking advantage of a dynastic revolution at
       Constantinople, he and his son Bohemund commenced a series of
       invasions of the Eastern Empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.
       1081-1085] which only ended with his death. These, though
       unsuccessful in their ultimate result, were influential causes
       of the first crusade, and deeply affected the relations of East
       and West for years to come. Meanwhile in Sicily Roger had been
       succeeded by his son [Roger II.], and, in 1127, this heir of
       the destinies of his race added the dukedom of Apulia to that
       of Sicily, obtained from Pope Anacletus the title of king, and
       finally established the Norman kingdom of Naples [also called
       the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies]. His character is thus
       described by a contemporary chronicler: 'He was a lover of
       justice and most severe avenger of crime. He abhorred lying;
       did everything by rule, and never promised what he did not
       mean to perform. He never persecuted his private enemies; and
       in war endeavoured on all occasions to gain his point without
       shedding of blood. Justice and peace were universally observed
       throughout his dominions.' During his reign the intercourse
       between England and Sicily was close. The government was
       organized on principles very similar to that of England. …
       Under his wise rule and that of his immediate successors, the
       south of Italy and Sicily enjoyed a transient gleam of
       prosperity and happiness. Their equal and tolerant government,
       far surpassing anything at that day in Europe, enabled the
       Saracen, the Greek, and the Italian to live together in
       harmony elsewhere unknown. Trade and industry flourished, the
       manufacture of silk enriched the inhabitants, and the kingdom
       of Naples was at peace until she was crushed under the iron
       heel of a Teutonic conqueror."

          A. H. Johnson,
          The Normans in Europe,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          The Normans at Palermo
          (Historical Essays, 3d series).

          J. W. Barlow,
          Short History of the Normans in South Europe,
          chapters 8-11.

    ITALY: A. D. 1096-1102.
       The First Crusades.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1101-1102.

    ITALY: A. D. 1138.
       The accession of the Hohenstaufens to the Imperial throne, and
       the origin, in Germany, of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

    ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
       The first and second expeditions of Frederick Barbarossa.

       Frederick I., the second of the emperors of the Hohenstaufen
       line, called by the Italians Frederick Barbarossa (Red beard),
       was elected king at Frankfort in March, 1152. In October,
       1154, he crossed the Alps and entered Italy with a strong
       German army, having two purposes in view:

       1. To receive the imperial crown, from the hands of the Pope,
       and to place on his own head, at Pavia, the iron crown of
       Lombardy or Italy.

       2. To reduce to order and submission the rising city-republics
       of Lombardy and Tuscany, which had been growing rapidly in
       independence and power during the last four troubled imperial
       reigns.

       At Roncaglia, he held the diet of the kingdom, and listened to
       many complaints, especially against Milan, which had undoubtedly
       oppressed the weaker towns of its neighbourhood and abused its
       strength. Then he moved through the country, making a personal
       inspection of affairs, and giving a taste of his temper by
       burning the villages which failed to supply provisions to his
       troops with satisfactory promptitude. At Tortona he ordered
       the inhabitants to renounce their alliance with the Milanese.
       They refused, and endured in the upper portion of the city a
       siege of two months. Forced by want of water to surrender, at
       last, they were permitted to go free, but their town was
       sacked and burned. Asti, Chieri, Rosate, and other places of
       more or less importance, were destroyed. Frederick did not
       venture yet to attack Milan, but proceeded to Rome, demanding
       the imperial crown. The pope (Adrian IV.) and the Romans were
       alike distrustful of him, and he was not permitted to bring
       his army into the city. After no little wrangling over
       ceremonious details, and after being compelled to lead the
       horse and to hold the stirrup of the haughty pontiff,
       Barbarossa was finally crowned at St. Peter's, in the Vatican
       suburb. The Romans attempted to interrupt the coronation, and
       a terrible tumult occurred in which a thousand of the citizens
       were slain. But the Germans made no attempt to take possession
       of the city. On the contrary, they withdrew with haste, and
       the emperor led his army back to Germany, burning Spoleto on
       the way, because it failed in submissiveness, and marking a
       wide track of ruin and desolation through Italy as he went.
       This was in the summer of 1155. Three years passed, during
       which the Italian cities grew more determined in their
       independence, the emperor and his German subjects more bitter
       in hostility to them, and the pope and the emperor more
       antagonistic in their ambitions. In 1158 Frederick led a
       second expedition into Italy, especially determined to make an
       end of the contumacy of Milan. He began operations by creating
       a desert of blackened country around the offending city, being
       resolved to reduce it by famine. Mediators, however, appeared,
       who brought about a treaty of pacification, which interrupted
       hostilities for a few weeks. Then the Milanese found occasion
       to accuse the emperor of a treacherous violation of the terms
       of the treaty and again took up arms. The war was now to the
       death. But, before settling to the siege of Milan, Frederick
       gave himself the pleasure, first, of reducing the lesser city
       of Crema, which continued to be faithful among the allies of
       the Milanese. He held some children of the town in his hands,
       as hostages, and he bound them to the towers which he moved
       against the walls, compelling the wretched citizens to kill
       their own offspring in the act of their self-defense. By such
       atrocities as this, Crema was taken, at the end of seven
       months, and destroyed. Then Milan was assailed and
       beleaguered, harassed and blockaded, until, at the beginning
       of March, 1162, the starved inhabitants gave up their town.
       Frederick ordered the doomed city "to be completely evacuated,
       so that there should not be left in it a single living being.
       On the 25th of March, he summoned the militias of the rival
       and Ghibeline cities, and gave them orders to rase to the
       earth the houses as well as the walls of the town, so as not
       to leave one stone upon another. Those of the inhabitants of
       Milan whom their poverty, labour and industry attached to the
       soil, were divided into four open villages, built at a
       distance of at least two miles from the walls of their former
       city. Others sought hospitality in the neighbouring towns of
       Italy. …
    {1812}
       Their sufferings, the extent of their sacrifices, the
       recollection of their valour, and the example of their noble
       sentiments, made proselytes to the cause of liberty in every
       city into which they were received." Meantime Frederick
       Barbarossa returned to Germany, with his fame as a puissant
       monarch much augmented.

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          U. Balzani,
          The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
          chapters 3-5.

          G. B. Testa,
          History of the War of Frederick I.
          against the Communes of Lombardy,
          books 1-6.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Frederick the First, King of Italy
          (Historical Essays, 1st series).

    ITALY: A. D. 1163-1164.
       Third visitation of Frederick Barbarossa.
       The rival Popes.

       Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the third time in 1163,
       without an army, but imposingly escorted by his German nobles.
       He imagined that the country had been terrorized sufficiently
       by the savage measures of his previous visitation to need no
       more military repression. But he found the Lombard cities
       undismayed in the assertion of their rights, and drawing
       together in unions which had never been possible among them
       before. The hostility of his relations with the Papacy and
       with the greater part of the Church gave encouragement to
       political revolt. His quarrel with Pope Hadrian had been ended
       by the death of the latter, in 1159, but only to give rise to
       new and more disturbing contentions. It had grown so bitter
       before Hadrian died that the Pope had allied himself by treaty
       with Milan, Crema, and other cities resisting Frederick, and
       had promised to excommunicate the emperor within forty days.
       Sudden death frustrated the combination. At the election of
       Hadrian's successor there was a struggle of factions, each
       determined to put its representative in the papal chair, and
       each claiming success. Two rival popes were proclaimed and
       consecrated, one under the name of Alexander III., the other
       as Victor IV. Frederick recognized the latter, who made
       himself the emperor's creature. The greater part of
       Christendom soon gave its recognition to the former, although
       he had been driven to take refuge in France. Pope Alexander
       excommunicated Frederick and Frederick's pope, and Pope Victor
       retorted like anathemas. Whether the curses of Alexander were
       more effectual, or for other reasons, the authority of Victor
       dwindled, and he himself presently died (April 1164), while
       Frederick was making his third inspection of affairs in Italy.
       The emperor found it impossible to execute his unbending will
       without an army. Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso held a
       congress and openly associated themselves for common defense.
       Frederick attempted to make use of the militia forces of
       Pavia, Cremona, and other Ghibelline towns against them; but
       he found even these citizen-soldiers so mutinous with
       disaffection that he dared not pursue the undertaking. He
       returned to Germany for an army more in sympathy with his
       obstinate designs against Italian liberty.

          U. Balzani,
          The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
          chapters 4-5.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 8, chapters 7-8.

          G. B. Testa,
          History of the War of Frederick I. against
          the Communes of Lombardy,
          book 7.

    ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.
       The fourth expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
       The League of Lombardy.

       "When Frederick, in the month of October, 1166, descended the
       mountains of the Grisons to enter Italy [for the fourth time]
       by the territory of Brescia, he marched his army directly to
       Lodi, without permitting any act of hostility on the way. At
       Lodi, he assembled, towards the end of November, a diet of the
       kingdom of Italy, at which he promised the Lombards to redress
       the grievances occasioned by the abuses of power by his
       podestas, and to respect their just liberties; he was desirous
       of separating their cause from that of the pope and the king
       of Sicily; and to give greater weight to his negotiation, he
       marched his army into central Italy. … The towns of the
       Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without
       daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new
       diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,
       between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,
       of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there and joined those
       of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for
       the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The
       deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the
       destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages
       in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city
       of Milan. This confederation was called the League of
       Lombardy. The consuls took the oath, and their constituents
       afterwards repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for
       the recovery of the common liberty; that the league for this
       purpose should last twenty years; and, finally, that they
       should aid each other in repairing in common any damage
       experienced in this sacred cause, by anyone member of the
       confederation: extending even to the past this contract for
       reciprocal security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. The
       militias of Bergamo, Brescia, Cremona, Mantua, Verona, and
       Treviso, arrived the 27th of April, 1167, on the ground
       covered by the ruins of this great city. They apportioned
       among themselves the labour of restoring the inclosing walls;
       all the Milanese of the four villages, as well as those who
       had taken refuge in the more distant towns, came in crowds to
       take part in this pious work; and in a few weeks the new-grown
       city was in a state to repel the insults of its enemies. Lodi
       was soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the
       oath to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia,
       Parma, Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the
       association."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 2.

       Meantime Frederick Barbarossa had made himself master of the
       city of Rome. The Roman citizens had boldly ventured out to
       meet his German army and its allies on the Tusculan hills and
       had suffered a frightful defeat. Then some part of the walls
       of the Leonine City were carried by assault and the
       castellated church of St. Peter's was entered with ax and
       sword. Two German archbishops were among the leaders of the
       force which took the altars of the temple by storm and which
       polluted its floors with blood. Frederick's new 'anti-pope,
       Paschal III., successor to Victor IV., was now enthroned, and
       the empress was formally crowned in the apostolic basilica.
       Pope Alexander, who had been in possession of the city,
       withdrew, and the victorious emperor appeared to have the
       great objects of his burning ambition within his grasp.
       "Destiny willed otherwise. It was now August; the sun was
       burning the arid Campagna and oppressing the weary German
       troops. A slight rain came to refresh them, but the following
       day sudden destruction fell upon the camp.
    {1813}
       Deadly fever attacked the army with terrible violence and
       reduced it daily. The men fell in heaps, and when struck down
       in the morning were dead by night. The disease took stronger
       hold owing to the superstitious fears of the army and the idea
       of divine vengeance, for the soldiers remembered in terror the
       profanation of St. Peter's, and they felt the keen edge of the
       destroying angel's sword. Decimated, dismayed, demoralised,
       the imperial army was hopelessly defeated, and Frederick was
       compelled to strike his tents and fly before the in visible
       destroyer. … The flower of his troops lay unburied in the
       furrows, and with difficulty could he manage to carry back to
       their native land the bodies of his noblest and trustiest
       knights. Never perhaps before had Frederick given proofs of
       such unshaken strength of mind. … He returned to Germany
       alone and almost a fugitive, his bravest knights dead, his
       army destroyed, and leaving behind him a whole nation of proud
       and watchful enemies. He returned alone, but his spirit was
       undaunted and dreamt of future victory and of final revenge."

          U. Balzani,
          The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Miley,
          History of the Papal States,
          book 6, chapter 2.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 8, chapter 10.

          G. B. Testa,
          History of the War of Frederick I.,
          books 8-9.

    ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
       The last expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
       The Battle of Legnano, and the Peace of Constance.

       It was not until 1174—seven years after his flight from the
       Roman pestilence—that Barbarossa was able to return to Italy
       and resume his struggle with Pope Alexander and the Lombard
       cities. He had been detained by troubles in Germany—the
       growing quarrel with his most powerful vassal, Henry the Lion,
       of Saxony, more particularly. Meantime, the League of the
       Lombard cities had spread and gained strength, and Pope
       Alexander III. was in active co-operation with it. To better
       fortify the frontiers of Lombardy, the League had built a
       strong new city, at the junction of the Tanaro and Bormida,
       had given it an immediate population of 15,000 people and had
       named it Alessandria, after the Pope. "The Emperor, whose
       arrival in Italy was urgently implored, was retained in
       Germany by his mistrust of Henry the Lion, who, in order to
       furnish himself with a pretext for refusing his assistance in
       the intended campaign without coming to an open breach,
       undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, A. D. 1171; whence, after
       performing his devotions at the holy sepulchre, without
       unsheathing his sword in its defence, he returned to his
       native country. … At length, in 1174, Frederick Barbarossa
       persuaded the sullen duke to perform his duty in the field,
       and for the fourth time [with an army] crossed the Alps. A
       terrible revenge was taken upon Susa, which was burnt to the
       ground. Alexandria [Alessandria] withstood the siege. The
       military science of the age, every 'ruse de guerre,' was
       exhausted by both the besiegers and the besieged, and the
       whole of the winter was fruitlessly expended without any
       signal success on either side. The Lombard league meanwhile
       assembled an immense army in order to oppose Frederick in the
       open field, whilst treason threatened him on another side. …
       Henry also at length acted with open disloyalty, and declared
       to the emperor, who lay sick at Chiavenna, on the lake of
       Como, his intention of abandoning him; and, unshaken by
       Frederick's exhortation in the name of duty and honour to
       renounce his perfidious plans, offered to provide him with
       money on condition of receiving considerable additions to his
       power in Germany, and the free imperial town of Goslar in
       gift. … Frederick, reduced to the alternative of either
       following his insolent vassal, or of exposing himself and his
       weakened forces to total destruction by remaining in his
       present position, courageously resolved to abide the hazard,
       and to await the arrival of fresh reinforcements from Germany;
       the Lombards, however, saw their advantage, and attacked him
       at Legnano, on the 29th of May, 1176. The Swabians (the
       southern Germans still remaining true to their allegiance)
       fought with all the courage of despair, but Berthold von
       Zähringen was taken prisoner, the emperor's horse fell in the
       thickest of the fight, his banner was won by the 'Legion of
       Death,' a chosen Lombard troop, and he was given up as dead.
       He escaped almost by a miracle, whilst his little army was
       entirely overwhelmed."

          W. Menzel,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 151.

       After the disastrous battle of Legnano, Frederic "was at
       length persuaded, through the mediation of the republic of
       Venice, to consent to a truce of six years, the provisional
       terms of which were all favourable to the league. … At the
       expiration of the truce Frederic's anxiety to secure the crown
       for his son overcame his pride, and the famous Peace of
       Constance [A. D. 1183] established the Lombard republics in
       real independence. By the treaty of Constance the cities were
       maintained in the enjoyment of all the regalian rights,
       whether within their walls or in their district, which they
       could claim by usage. Those of levying war, of erecting
       fortifications, and of administering civil and criminal
       justice, were specially mentioned. The nomination of their
       consuls, or other magistrates, was left absolutely to the
       citizens; but they were to receive the investiture of their
       office from an imperial legate. The customary tributes of
       provision during the emperor's residence in Italy were
       preserved; and he was authorized to appoint in every city a
       judge of appeal in civil causes. The Lombard league was
       confirmed, and the cities were permitted to renew it at their
       own discretion; but they were to take every ten years an oath
       of fidelity to the emperor. This just compact preserved, along
       with every security for the liberties and welfare of the
       cities, as much of the imperial prerogatives as could be
       exercised by a foreign sovereign consistently with the
       people's happiness. … The Peace of Constance presented a
       noble opportunity to the Lombards of establishing a permanent
       federal union of small republics. … But dark, long-cherished
       hatreds, and that implacable vindictiveness which, at least in
       former ages, distinguished the private manners of Italy,
       deformed her national character. … For revenge she threw
       away the pearl of great price, and sacrificed even the
       recollection of that liberty which had stalked like a majestic
       spirit among the ruins of Milan."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          U. Balzani,
          The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
          chapter 6.

          G. B. Testa,
          History of the War of Frederick I.,
          book 10.

          See, also,
          VENICE: A.D. 1177.

    {1814}

    A. D. 1183-1250.
       Frederick II. and the end of the Hohenstaufen struggles.

       After the settlement of the Peace of Constance, Frederick
       Barbarossa made no further attempt to destroy the now well
       established liberties of the north Italian cities. On the
       contrary, he devoted himself, with considerable success, to
       the regaining of their confidence and good-will, as against
       the papacy, with which his relations were not improved. In
       southern Italy, he acquired an important footing by the
       marriage of his son Henry (already crowned King of Rome, as
       Henry VI.), to Constance, the sole heiress of the Norman
       kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Soon after which he went
       crusading to the Holy Land, and perished in Asia Minor (A. D.
       1190). His son and successor, Henry VI., who survived him but
       seven years, was occupied so much in securing the Kingdom of
       the Two Sicilies, already fallen to his wife (1194) by the
       death of the last of the Norman kings, that he had little time
       to trouble the peace of Lombardy or Germany. He was one of the
       meanest of kings, faithless and cold-blooded,—brutal to the
       Normans of the Sicilies and contemptible in his treatment of
       the English King Richard, when his vassal of Austria made a
       chance captive of the lion-hearted prince. He died in 1197,
       leaving as his heir a son but four years old—the Frederick
       II. of later years. There was war at once. Two rival kings
       were elected in Germany, by the two factions, Guelf and
       Ghibelline. The next year, one of them, Philip I., the
       Ghibelline, a younger son of Frederick Barbarossa, was
       assassinated; the other, Otho IV., a son of Henry the Lion,
       was recognized by his opponents, and went to Rome to claim the
       imperial crown. He received it, but soon quarrelled, as all
       his predecessors had done, with the pope (the great pope
       Innocent III. being now on the throne), and, Guelf as he was,
       began to put himself in alliance with the Ghibellines of
       Italy. Meantime, the boy Frederick had become king of the Two
       Sicilies by the death of his mother, and Pope Innocent was his
       guardian. He was now brought forward by the latter as a
       claimant of the Germanic crown, against Otho, and was sent
       into Germany to maintain his claim. The civil war which
       followed was practically ended by the battle of Bouvines (July
       27, 1214—see BOUVINES) in which Otho's cause was lost. Four
       years after, the latter died, and Frederick reigned in
       Germany, Italy and the Two Sicilies, without a rival, holding
       the three separate crowns for five years before he received
       the imperial crown, in 1220. Meantime Innocent III. died, and
       Frederick became involved, even more bitterly than his father
       or his grandfather had been, in quarrels with the succeeding
       popes. He was a man far beyond his age in intellectual
       independence (see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268) and freedom from
       superstitious servility to the priesthood. His tastes were
       cultivated, his accomplishments were many. He welcomed the
       refinements which Europe at that time could borrow from the
       Saracens, and his court was one of gaiety and splendor. His
       papal enemies execrated him as a heretic, a blasphemer and an
       "apocalyptic beast." His greatest original offenses had grown
       out of two promises which he made in his youth:

       1. To lead a crusade for the recovery of Jerusalem,—which he
       was slow in fulfilling;

       2. To resign his Italian possessions to his son, retaining
       only the sovereignty of Germany for himself,—which promise he
       did not fulfil at all.

       The war of the Church against him was implacable, and he was
       under its ban when he died. The pope even pursued him with
       maledictions when he went, at last, upon his crusade, in 1228,
       and when he did, by negotiations, free Jerusalem for a time
       from the Moslems (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229). He was
       involved, moreover, in conflicts with the Lombard cities (see
       FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE) which the papacy
       encouraged and stimulated, and, in 1236, he won a great
       victory over the League, at Cortenuova, capturing the famous
       "Carroccio" of the Milanese and sending it as a gift to the
       Roman Senate. But, attempting to use his victory too
       inflexibly, he lost the fruits of it, and all his later years
       were years of trouble and disastrous war—disastrous to Italy
       and to himself. He died on the 13th of December 1250. "Out of
       the long array of the Germanic successors of Charles, he
       [Frederick II.] is, with Otto III., the only one who comes
       before us with a genius and a frame of character that are not
       those of a Northern or a Teuton. There dwelt in him, it is
       true, all the energy and knightly valour of his father Henry
       and his grandfather Barbarossa. But along with these, and
       changing their direction, were other gifts, inherited perhaps
       from his Italian mother and fostered by his education among
       the orange-groves of Palermo—a love of luxury and beauty, an
       intellect refined, subtle, philosophical. Through the mist of
       calumny and fable it is but dimly that the truth of the man
       can be discerned, and the outlines that appear serve to
       quicken rather than appease the curiosity with which we regard
       one of the most extraordinary personages in history. A
       sensualist, yet also a warrior and a politician; a profound
       lawgiver and an impassioned poet; in his youth fired by
       crusading fervour, in later life persecuting heretics while
       himself accused of blasphemy and unbelief; of winning manners
       and ardently beloved by his followers, but with the stain of
       more than one cruel deed upon his name, he was the marvel of
       his own generation, and succeeding ages looked back with awe,
       not unmingled with pity, upon the inscrutable figure of the
       last Emperor who had braved all the terrors of the Church and
       died beneath her ban, the last who had ruled from the sands of
       the ocean to the shores of the Sicilian sea. But while they
       pitied they condemned. The undying hatred of the Papacy threw
       round his memory a lurid light; him and him alone of all the
       imperial line, Dante, the worshipper of the Empire, must
       perforce deliver to the flames of hell."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 13.

       "The Emperor Frederick was a poet who could not only celebrate
       the charms of his sovereign lady, 'the flower of all flowers,
       the rose of May,' but could also exhibit his appreciation for
       the beauties of nature. … Frederick also delighted in
       sculpture, painting, and architecture. … Under his fostering
       influence every branch of learning was starting into life
       after the slumber of ages. Frederick's age can only be
       compared to that glorious era of the Renaissance, when the sun
       of learning, no longer shorn of his beams, poured a flood of
       light over the dark places of Europe. Frederick was not only
       distinguished for his love of polite literature, but also for
       his ardour in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. He was
       himself an author on medical subjects.
    {1815}
       He was a great patron of natural history. He used his friendly
       relations with eastern kings to form a collection of animals
       not often seen in Europe—the elephant, camel, giraffe, and
       camelopard. He also wrote a treatise on Hawking, which is
       still cited with respect. He classifies birds, and treats
       generally of their habits. … But poetry and science were
       very far from occupying all the thoughts of this distinguished
       monarch. His great concern was the internal regulation of the
       kingdom committed to his charge. His code in Sicily and Naples
       was framed with the special view of securing equal rights to
       all classes of his subjects, and of delivering them from the
       yoke of the feudal oppressor. He stripped the nobles and
       prelates of their jurisdiction in criminal cases. He also
       decreed that any count or baron, carrying on war on his own
       account, should lose his head and his goods. These were
       amazing strides in the right direction, but the former was
       quite unprecedented in feudal kingdoms. Many justiciaries were
       appointed throughout the kingdom. No one might hold this
       office without the authorisation of the crown. He strove to
       make his officials as righteous as he was himself. He himself
       came before his courts. So great was his love of justice, that
       he would rather lose his cause than win it if he were in the
       wrong. No advocates were allowed to practise without an
       examination by the judicial bench. They were obliged to take
       an oath that they would allege nothing against their
       conscience. The court furnished widows, orphans, and the poor
       with champions free of expense. The law, by which it was
       guided, endeavoured to secure an even-handed administration of
       justice."

          A. B. Pennington,
          The Emperor Frederick II.
          (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series,
          volume 1).

       Although arbitrary and despotic in temper, the political
       intelligence of Frederick led him to practical ideas of
       government which were extraordinarily liberal for his age. In
       his Sicilian kingdom "the towns were shorn to a great extent
       of their local privileges, but were taught to unite their
       strength for the common good. Twice, at least, in the course
       of his reign, in 1232 and in 1240, Frederick summoned their
       deputies to a conference or Parliament, 'for the weal of the
       Kingdom and the general advantage of the State.' Forty-seven
       cities, all belonging to the Imperial domain, sent two
       deputies each to the Assembly convoked, which must not be
       confounded with the Solemn Courts held by the Sovereign and
       his Barons for the purpose Of revising charters, enacting
       Constitutions, and regulating the government. We should be
       mistaken in supposing that the Sicilian Parliament enjoyed
       much of the power implied by the name. There is no trace of
       any clamour against grievances, of any complaints against
       officials, or of any refusal to grant supplies. The only
       function of the deputies summoned seems to have been the
       assessing of the public burdens. The Emperor demanded a
       certain sum of money, and the deputies, meekly complying,
       regulated the ways and means of raising it. 'Send your
       messengers,' thus runs the writ, 'to see the Serenity of our
       face on your behalf, and to bring you back our will.' Later in
       the century, the Assembly acquired greater authority. It is
       just possible that Simon de Montfort, who is known to have
       visited the Imperial Court, may have borrowed his famous
       improvement on the old English constitution from an Apulian
       source; the gathering of the Commons at Foggia certainly
       preceded their first meeting at Westminster by thirty years.
       Other countries besides our own were indebted to Frederick for
       a better mode of legislation. Shortly after his death, many of
       his innovations were borrowed by his cousin Alonzo the Wise,
       and were inserted in Las Siete Partidas, the new Code of
       Castile. The ideas of the Suabian Emperor were evidently the
       model followed by St. Louis and his successors; in France, as
       well as in Southern Italy, the lawyer was feeling his way
       towards the enjoyment of the power wielded of old by the
       knight and the churchman; Philip the Fair was able to carry
       out the projects which Frederick had merely been able to
       sketch. The world made rapid strides between 1230 and 1300.
       The Northern half of Italy, distracted by endless struggles,
       was not insensible to the improvements introduced into the
       South by her mighty son. But in the North two fatal obstacles
       existed, the Papal power and the municipal spirit of the
       various States, which marred all Frederick's efforts in behalf
       of Italian unity." Frederick's court was the most brilliant
       and refined in Europe. Mr. Kington, his historian, introduces
       us to one of the Emperor's banquets, in the following
       description: "A great variety of strangers meet at the
       banqueting hour. Ambassadors from the Greek Monarch arrive
       with a present of falcons. Some clerical visitors from Germany
       are astounded to find themselves seated close to the turbaned
       men of the East, and shudder on hearing that these are envoys
       from the Sultan of Cairo and the Old Man of the Mountain. The
       honest Germans whisper among themselves some remarks on the
       late end of the Duke of Bavaria, who was stabbed at Kelheim by
       a man, suspected to be an assassin, employed by the mysterious
       Old Man on Frederick's behalf. The Emperor himself eats and
       drinks very little. He is the very model of a host. … The
       Emperor, it must be allowed, is rather loose in his talk.
       Speaking of his late Crusade, he remarks: 'If the God of the
       Jews had seen my Kingdom, the Terra di Lavoro, Calabria,
       Sicily, and Apulia, he would not have so often praised that
       land which he promised to the Jews and bestowed upon them.'
       The Bishops treasure up this unlucky speech, which will one
       day be noised abroad all over Italy. When the meal is over,
       the company are amused by the feats of some of the Almehs,
       brought from the East. Two young Arab girls of rare beauty
       place themselves each upon two balls in the middle of the flat
       pavement. On these they move backwards and forwards, singing
       and beating time with cymbals and castanets, while throwing
       themselves into intricate postures. Games and musical
       instruments, procured for the Empress, form part of the
       entertainment. We hear moreover of a Saracen dancer from
       Aquitaine. Such sports are relished by the guests quite as
       much as the Greek wine and the viands prepared by Berard the
       Court cook, who is famous for his scapece; this dish,
       consisting of fish boiled in salt water and sprinkled with
       saffron, popular to this day in the province of Lecce, has
       been derived from Apicius. … The Emperor now shows his
       guests the wild beasts, which he has brought from Africa and
       the East. There is the huge elephant, soon to be sent to
       Cremona, the bearer of the Imperial banner, guarded by a troop
       of Saracens.
    {1816}
       There is the female camelopard, called Seraph by the Arabs and
       Italians. Next come the camels and dromedaries which carry the
       Emperor's treasures when he is on the march. Lions, leopards,
       panthers, and rare birds form part of the collection, and are
       tended by Saracen keepers. Frederick perhaps wishes to show
       his friends some sport in the Apulian plains; he has hawks of
       all breeds, each of which has its name; but what most
       astonishes strangers is his method of bringing down the deer.
       The cheetahs, or hunting leopards of the East, are mounted on
       horseback behind their keepers; these animals, as the Emperor
       says, 'know how to ride.' He is a strict preserver of game; he
       gives orders that the wolves and foxes, which prey upon the
       small animals in his warren at Melazzo, be destroyed by means
       of a poison called wolf's powder. He has many parks and
       fishponds, to which he contrives to attend, even in the midst
       of Lombard wars. He directs the plantation of woods, and when
       a storm blows down his trees, the timber is to be sold at
       Naples. … The treasures, with which Frederick dazzles the
       eyes of his visitors, rival those of Solomon. The Sultan of
       Egypt has given his Christian brother a tent of wonderful
       workmanship, displaying the movements of the sun and moon, and
       telling the hours of the day and night. This prodigy, valued
       at 20,000 marks, is kept at Venosa. There is also a throne of
       gold, decked with pearls and precious stones, doomed to become
       the prey of Charles of Anjou and Pope Clement. There are
       purple robes embroidered with gold, silks from Tripoli, and
       the choicest works of the Eastern loom. Frederick charms the
       ears of his guests with melodies played on silver trumpets by
       black slaves, whom he has had trained. He himself knows how to
       sing. Travellers, jesters, poets, philosophers, knights,
       lawyers, all find a hearty welcome at the Apulian Court; if
       they are natives of the Kingdom they address its Lord in the
       customary second person singular, 'Tu, Messer.' He can well
       appreciate the pretensions of each guest, since he is able to
       converse with all his many subjects, each in his own tongue.
       The Arab from Palestine, the Greek from Calabria, the Italian
       from Tuscany, the Frenchman from Lorraine, the German from
       Thuringia, find that Cæsar understands them all. With Latin,
       of course, he is familiar. Very different is Frederick from
       his Northern grandsire, who could speak nothing but German and
       very bad Latin. Troubadour, Crusader, Lawgiver; German by
       blood, Italian by birth, Arab by training; the pupil, the
       tyrant, the victim of Rome; accused by the world of being by
       turns a Catholic persecutor, a Mohammedan convert, an Infidel
       freethinker; such is Frederick the Second. His character has
       been sketched for us by two men of opposite politics,
       Salimbene the Guelf and Jamsilla the Ghibelline, both of whom
       knew him well. Each does justice to the wonderful genius of
       the Emperor, and to the rapid development of the arts and
       commerce under his fostering care. But all is not fair,
       whatever appearances may be. Every generation of the
       Hohenstaufen Kaisers seemed to add a vice to the shame of
       their house. Cruelty is the one dark stain in the character of
       Barbarossa; cruelty and treachery mar the soaring genius of
       Henry the Sixth; cruelty, treachery, and lewdness are the
       three blots that can never be wiped away from the memory of
       Frederick the Second. He has painted his likeness with his own
       hand. His Registers with their varied entries throw more light
       upon his nature than any panegyrics or diatribes can do. One
       example will be enough. If he wishes to get an impregnable
       castle into his hands, he thus writes to his
       general:—'Pretend some business, and warily call the
       Castellan to you; seize on him if you can, and keep him till
       he cause the castle to be surrendered to you.' … Frederick's
       cruelty is indisputable. His leaden copes, which weighed down
       the victims of his wrath until death came to the rescue, were
       long the talk of Italy and are mentioned by Dante."

          T. L. Kington,
          History of Frederick the Second, Emperor of the Romans,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

       "After the death of Frederick II., an interval of twenty-three
       years passed without the appointment of a king of the Romans
       [the Great Interregnum—see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], and an
       interval of sixty years without the recognition of an emperor
       in Italy." Frederick's son Conrad, whom he had caused to be
       crowned, was driven out of Germany and died in 1254. Another
       son, Manfred, acquired the crown of Sicily and reigned for a
       time; but the unrelenting pope persuaded Charles of Anjou to
       make a conquest of the kingdom, and Manfred was slain in
       battle (A. D. 1266). Conrad's young son, Conradin, then
       attempted to recover the Sicilian throne, but was defeated,
       taken prisoner, and perished on the scaffold (1268). He was
       the last of the Hohenstaufen.

          O. Browning,
          Guelfs and Ghibellines,
          chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapters 11-13.

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Emperor Frederick the Second
          (Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10).

          Mrs. W. Busk,
          Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
          book 4 (volumes 3-4).

    ITALY: A. D. 1198-1216.
       The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the
       States of the Church.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

    ITALY: 13th Century.
       Political conditions which prepared the way for the despots.

       "The struggle between the Popes and the Hohenstaufen left
       Italy in a political condition which differed essentially from
       that of the other countries of the West. While in France,
       Spain, and England the feudal system was so organised that, at
       the close of its existence, it was naturally transformed into
       a unified monarchy, and while in Germany it helped to
       maintain, at least outwardly, the unity of the empire, Italy
       had shaken it off almost entirely. The Emperors of the
       fourteenth century, even in the most favourable case, were no
       longer received and respected as feudal lords, but as possible
       leaders and supporters of powers already in existence; while
       the Papacy, with its creatures and allies, was strong enough
       to hinder national unity in the future, not strong enough
       itself to bring about that unity. Between the two lay a
       multitude of political units—republics and despots—in part
       of long standing, in part of recent origin, whose existence
       was founded simply on their power to maintain it. In them for
       the first time we detect the modern political spirit of
       Europe, surrendered freely to its own instincts, often
       displaying the worst features of an unbridled egoism,
       outraging every right, and killing every germ of a healthier
       culture.
    {1817}
       But, wherever this vicious tendency is overcome or in any way
       compensated, a new fact appears in history—the state as the
       outcome of reflection and calculation, the state as a work of
       art. This new life displays itself in a hundred forms, both in
       the republican and in the despotic states, and determines
       their inward constitution, no less than their foreign policy.
       … The internal condition of the despotically governed states
       had a memorable counterpart in the Norman Empire of Lower
       Italy and Sicily, after its transformation by the Emperor
       Frederick II. Bred amid treason and peril in the neighbourhood
       of the Saracens, Frederick, the first ruler of the modern type
       who sat upon a throne, had early accustomed himself, both in
       criticism and action, to a thoroughly objective treatment of
       affairs. His acquaintance with the internal condition and
       administration of the Saracenic states was close and intimate;
       and the mortal struggle in which he was engaged with the
       Papacy compelled him, no less than his adversaries, to bring
       into the field all the resources at his command. Frederick's
       measures (especially after the year 1231) are aimed at the
       complete destruction of the feudal state, at the
       transformation of the people into a multitude destitute of
       will and of the means of resistance, but profitable in the
       utmost degree to the exchequer. He centralised, in a manner
       hitherto unknown in the West, the whole judicial and political
       administration by establishing the right of appeal from the
       feudal courts, which he did not, however, abolish, to the
       imperial judges. No office was henceforth to be filled by
       popular election, under penalty of the devastation of the
       offending district and of the enslavement of its inhabitants.
       Excise duties were introduced; the taxes, based on a
       comprehensive assessment, and distributed in accordance with
       Mohammedan usages, were collected by those cruel and vexatious
       methods without which, it is true, it is impossible to obtain
       any money from Orientals. Here, in short, we find, not a
       people, but simply a disciplined multitude of subjects. …
       The internal police, and the kernel of the army for foreign
       service, was composed of Saracens who had been brought over
       from Sicily to Nocera and Luceria—men who were deaf to the
       cry of misery and careless of the ban of the Church. At a
       later period the subjects, by whom the use of weapons had long
       been forgotten, were passive witnesses of the fall of Manfred
       and of the seizure of the government by Charles of Anjou; the
       latter continued to use the system which he found already at
       work. At the side of the centralising Emperor appeared an
       usurper of the most peculiar kind: his vicar and son-in-law,
       Ezzelino da Romano. … The conquests and usurpations which
       had hitherto taken place in the Middle Ages rested on real or
       pretended inheritance and other such claims, or else were
       effected against unbelievers and excommunicated persons. Here
       for the first time the attempt was openly made to found a
       throne by wholesale murder and endless barbarities, by the
       adoption, in short, of any means with a view to nothing but
       the end pursued. None of his successors, not even Cæsar
       Borgia, rivalled the colossal guilt of Ezzelino; but the
       example once set was not forgotten. … Immediately after the
       fall of Frederick and Ezzelino, a crowd of tyrants appeared
       upon the scene. The struggle between Guelph and Ghibelline was
       their opportunity. They came forward in general as Ghibelline
       leaders, but at times and under conditions so various, that it
       is impossible not to recognise in the fact a law of supreme
       and universal necessity."

          J. Burckhardt,
          The Renaissance in Italy,
          part 1, chapter 1, (volume 1).

    ITALY: A. D. 1215.
       The beginning, at Florence, the causes and the meaning of the
       strife of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

       "In the year 1215 it chanced that a quarrel occurred at a
       festival between some young nobles of Florence. It was an
       event of as frivolous, and apparently unimportant, a character
       as thousands of other such broils; but this obscure quarrel
       has been treated by the whole body of Florentine historians as
       the origin and starting point of that series of civil wars
       which shaped the entire future fortunes of the community, and
       shook to its centre the whole fabric of society throughout
       central Italy. The story of it has become memorable therefore
       in Florentine annals, and has been rendered famous not only by
       the writers of history, but by many generations of poets,
       painters, novelists, and sculptors." Briefly sketched, the
       story is this: A handsome youth of the Buondelmonti family,
       mixing in a quarrel at the festival alluded to, struck one
       Oddo Arringhi dei Fifanti with his poniard. Common friends of
       the two brought about a reconciliation, by means of an
       arrangement of marriage between Buondelmonte and a niece of
       the injured man. But the lady was plain, and Buondelmonte,
       falling madly in love with another, more charming, whom evil
       chance and a scheming mother threw temptingly in his way, did
       not scruple to break his engagement, and to do it with insult.
       He wedded his new love, who was of the Donati family, on
       Easter Day, and on that same day he was slain by the Amidei,
       whose house he had so grossly affronted. "The assassins
       retired to their fortress houses, and left the bridal party to
       form itself as it might into a funeral procession. 'Great was
       the uproar in the city. He was placed on a bier; and his wife
       took her station on the bier also, and held his head in her
       lap, violently weeping; and in that manner they carried him
       through the whole of the city; and on that day began the ruin
       of Florence.' The last phrase of the above citation marks the
       significance which the Tuscan historians have attributed to
       this incident, and the important place that has always been
       assigned to it in Florentine history. We are told by all the
       earliest historians, especially by Malispini, in whose
       childhood these events must have happened, and whom Villani
       copies almost word for word, that from this quarrel began the
       great, fatal, and world-famous division of Florence into the
       parties of Guelph and Ghibelline. Dante goes so far as to
       consider the conduct of Buondelmonte in this affair so
       entirely the cause of the evils that arose from the Guelph and
       Ghibelline wars, that, had that cause not existed, no such
       misfortunes would have arisen. … Yet the historians admit
       that the party names of Guelph and Ghibelline were known in
       Florence long before; but they say that not till then did the
       city divide itself into two hostile camps under those rallying
       cries. It is curiously clear, from the accounts of Malispini
       and Villani, that, as usual in such matters, the Florentines
       had but a very hazy notion as to the meaning and origin of the
       two names [see GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and GERMANY: A. D.
       1138-1268], for the sake of which they were prepared to cut
       each other's throats.
    {1818}
       Any name or watchword is good enough for a party rallying cry,
       when once passions have been connected with it; but the
       Florentines understood that Ghibelline meant attachment to the
       Empire in opposition to the Church, and Guelph attachment to
       the Church in opposition to the Empire. … But the quarrel of
       Guelph with Ghibelline in Florence was the expression of a
       still wider spread and more perennial conflict. … The
       Ghibellines were the old Imperial nobles, who, whether more
       anciently or more recently incorporated into the body of
       Florentine citizens, formed the aristocracy of the social
       body, and were naturally Imperialist in their sympathies.
       These Ghibellines were the high Tories of the Florentine
       community. The body of the people were Guelphs, naming
       themselves after the party professing attachment to the Church
       only because the Papacy was in opposition to the Empire. The
       Guelphs were the Whigs of Florence. The Radicals appeared on
       the scene in due time and normal sequence." From Florence, as
       its center, the strife of the two factions spread throughout
       Italy. "Ghibellinism was nearly universal in the north of
       Italy, divided among a number of more or less well known great
       families, of whom the principal were the Visconti at Milan,
       and the Della Scala at Verona. Naples and the States of the
       Church were Guelph; the former, as need hardly be suggested,
       from political circumstances, from opposition to the Empire,
       and from connection, rather than from principle. Tuscany and
       the whole of Central Italy were divided between the two,
       although the real strength and stronghold of genuine Guelphism
       was there. Without Florence, there would have been no Guelph
       party. Had those stout sandalled and leather-jerkined
       Florentine burghers of the 13th century not undertaken and
       persevered in that crusade against the feudal nobles and the
       Ghibelline principle, which … was the leading occupation and
       idea of the Commonwealth during all that century, Ghibellinism
       and Imperialism would have long since possessed and ruled
       Italy from the Alps to the toe of the boot."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 1, chapter 3,
          and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "One party called themselves the Emperor's liegemen, and their
       watchword was authority and law; the other side were the
       liegemen of Holy Church, and their cry was liberty; and the
       distinction as a broad one is true. But a democracy would
       become Ghibelline, without scruple, if its neighbour town was
       Guelf; and among the Guelf liegemen of the Church and liberty,
       the pride of blood and love of power were not a whit inferior
       to that of their opponents. Yet … it is not impossible to
       trace in the two factions differences of temper, of moral and
       political inclinations, which, though visible only on a large
       scale and in the mass, were quite sufficient to give meaning
       and reality to their mutual opposition. … The Ghibellines as
       a body reflected the worldliness, the license, the irreligion,
       the reckless selfishness, the daring insolence, and at the
       same time the gaiety and pomp, the princely magnificence and
       generosity and largeness of mind of the House of Swabia [the
       Hohenstaufen]; they were the men of the court and camp. …
       The Guelfs, on the other hand, were the party of the middle
       classes; they rose out of and held to the people; they were
       strong by their compactness, their organisation in cities,
       their commercial relations and interests, their command of
       money. Further, they were professedly the party of strictness
       and religion. … The genuine Guelf spirit was austere,
       frugal, independent, earnest, religious; fond of its home and
       Church, and of those celebrations which bound together Church
       and home; … in its higher form intolerant of evil, but
       intolerant always of whatever displeased it. Yet there was a
       grave and noble manliness about it which long kept it alive in
       Florence."

          R. W. Church,
          Dante and other Essays,
          pages 15-18.

          See, also,
          FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.

    ITALY: A. D. 1236-1259.
       The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the Veronese or Trevisan
       Marches, and the crusade against him.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

    ITALY: A. D. 1248-1278.
       The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines in
       Tuscany.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1250-1268.
       Invasion and conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies by
       Charles of Anjou, on the invitation of the Pope.

       "The death of the Emperor Frederic II., in 1250, had been
       followed in less than four years by that of his son and
       successor Conrad IV., from whose son Conradin, at that time an
       infant, the Crown of the Two Sicilies was usurped by his uncle
       Manfred, a natural child of the deceased Frederic. The hatred
       of the See of Rome, notwithstanding the frequent changes which
       had occurred in the Papal Chair, still pursued the Line of
       Hohenstauffen, even in this illegitimate branch, and it was
       transmitted as an hereditary possession from Innocent IV.
       through Alexander IV. and Urban IV., to Clement IV.
       Interference in Germany itself was forbidden by the
       independence of the Electoral Princes: and when it was found
       impossible to obtain the nomination of an Emperor decidedly in
       the Guelph interest, Alexander contented himself by
       endeavouring to separate the Throne of the Two Sicilies from
       that of Germany, and to establish upon the former a Feudatory,
       and therefore a Champion, of the Church. Various alliances for
       this purpose were projected by Alexander, and by his
       successors who adopted a similar policy; and the Crown, which
       was in truth to be conquered from Manfred, was offered as an
       investiture which Rome had a full right to bestow." After long
       negotiations with Henry III. of England, who coveted the
       Sicilian prize for his second son, Edmund, and who paid large
       sums to the papal treasury by way of earnest money, but who
       showed little ability to oust the possessor, Pope Urban, at
       length, closed a bargain with that ambitious speculator in
       royal claims and titles, Charles of Anjou, brother of St.
       Louis, king of France. The honesty of Louis was somewhat
       troubled by the unscrupulous transaction; but his conscience
       submitted itself to the instructions of the Holy Father, and
       he permitted his brother to embark in the evil enterprise.
       "Charles, accordingly, having first accepted the Senator-ship
       of Rome, with which high magistracy he was invested by her
       citizens, negotiated with the Holy See, most ably and much to
       his advantage, for the loftier dignity of Kingship. In little
       more than a month after he had received his Crown from the
       hands of Clement IV., who had become Pope, he totally defeated
       and killed his opponent Manfred, in the battle of Grandella
       [near Benevento, February, 1266].
    {1819}
       Conradin, who had now arrived at years of discretion, was
       still his rival; but the capture of the young Prince at
       Tagliacozzo [1268], and his speedy committal to the
       executioner, confirmed Charles of Anjou in his Kingdom, at the
       everlasting ex-pense of his good name. Few incidents in
       History are more calculated to awaken just indignation than
       the untimely end of the brave, wronged, and gallant Conradin.
       Charles of Anjou thus founded the first dynasty of his House
       which reigned over the Sicilies. The pretensions which Aragon
       afterwards advanced to the Crown of that Kingdom rested on a
       marriage between Pedro, the eldest son of King James, and
       Constance, a daughter of Manfred."

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapter 8.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 11, chapter 3 (volume 5).

          Mrs. W. Busk,
          Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
          book 5 (volume 4).

    ITALY: A. D. 1250-1293.
       Development of the popular Constitution of the Florentine
       Commonwealth.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

    ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
       The Age of the Despots.
       The rise of Principalities.

       "From the death of Frederick the Second [A. D. 1250] … all
       practical power of an imperial kingdom in Italy may be said to
       have passed away. Presently begins the gradual change of the
       commonwealths into tyrannies, and the grouping together of
       many of them into larger states. We also see the beginning of
       more definite claims of temporal dominion on behalf of the
       Popes. In the course of the 300 years between Frederick the
       Second and Charles the Fifth, these processes gradually
       changed the face of the Italian kingdom. It became in the end
       a collection of principalities, broken only by the survival of
       a few oligarchic commonwealths and by the anomalous dominion
       of Venice on the mainland. Between Frederick the Second and
       Charles the Fifth, we may look on the Empire as practically in
       abeyance in Italy. The coming of an Emperor always caused a
       great stir for the time, but it was only for the time. After
       the grant of Rudolf of Habsburg to the Popes, a distinction
       was drawn between Imperial and papal territory in Italy. While
       certain princes and commonwealths still acknowledged at least
       the nominal superiority of the Emperor, others were now held
       to stand in the same relation of vassalage to the Pope."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 3.

       "During the 14th and 15th centuries we find, roughly speaking,
       six sorts of despots in Italian cities. Of these the First
       class, which is a very small one, had a dynastic or hereditary
       right accruing from long seignorial possession, of their
       several districts. The most eminent are the houses of
       Montferrat and Savoy, the Marquises of Ferrara, the Princes of
       Urbino. … The Second class comprise those nobles who
       obtained the title of Vicars of the Empire, and built an
       illegal power upon the basis of imperial right in Lombardy. Of
       these, the Della Scala and Visconti families are illustrious
       instances. … The Third class is important. Nobles charged
       with military or judicial power, as Capitani or Podestas, by
       the free burghs, used their authority to enslave the cities
       they were chosen to administer. It was thus that almost all
       the numerous tyrants of Lombardy, Carraresi at Padua, Gonzaghi
       at Mantua, Rossi and Correggi at Parma, Torrensi and Visconti
       at Milan, Scotti at Piacenza, and so forth, erected their
       despotic dynasties. … In the Fourth class we find the
       principle of force still more openly at work. To it may be
       assigned those Condottieri who made a prey of cities at their
       pleasure. The illustrious Uguccione della Faggiuola, who
       neglected to follow up his victory over the Guelfs at Monte
       Catini, in order that he might cement his power in Lucca and
       Pisa, is an early instance of this kind of tyrant. His
       successor, Castruccio Castracane, the hero of Machiavelli's
       romance, is another. But it was not until the first half of
       the 15th century that professional Condottieri became powerful
       enough to found such kingdoms as that, for example, of
       Francesco Sforza at Milan. The Fifth class includes the
       nephews or sons of Popes. The Riario principality of Forli,
       the Della Rovere of Urbino, the Borgia of Romagna, the Farnese
       of Parma, form a distinct species of despotisms; but all these
       are of a comparatively late origin. Until the papacy of Sixtus
       IV. and Innocent VIII. the Popes had not bethought them of
       providing in this way for their relatives. … There remains
       the Sixth and last class of despots to be mentioned. This
       again is large and of the first importance. Citizens of
       eminence, like the Medici at Florence, the Bentivogli at
       Bologna, the Baglioni of Perugia, the Gambacorti of Pisa, like
       Pandolfo Petrucci in Siena (1502), Romeo Pepoli, the usurer of
       Bologna (1323), the plebeian Alticlinio and Agolanti of Padua
       (1313), acquired more than their due weight in the conduct of
       affairs, and gradually tended to tyranny. In most of these
       cases great wealth was the original source of despotic
       ascendancy. It was not uncommon to buy cities together with
       their Signory. … But personal qualities and nobility of
       blood might also produce despots of the Sixth class."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
          chapter 2.

    ITALY: A. D. 1261-1264.
       The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at
       Constantinople and in the Black Sea.
       War between the Republics.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

    ITALY: A. D. 1273-1291.
       Indifference of Rodolph of Hapsburg to his Italian dominions.
       His neglect to claim the imperial crown.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    ITALY: A. D. 1277-1447.
       Tyranny of the Visconti at Milan.
       Their domination in Lombardy and their fall.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    ITALY: A. D. 1282-1293.
       War between Genoa and Pisa.
       Battle of Meloria.
       War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

          See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1282-1300.
       The Sicilian Vespers.
       Severance of the Two Sicilies.
       End of the House of Anjou in the insular kingdom.

       "Peter, King of Aragon, had married Constance, the daughter of
       Manfred, and laid claim to the kingdom of Sicily in her right.
       He sent for help to Michael Palaiologos, the restorer of the
       Eastern Empire. The Emperor agreed to his proposals, for his
       Empire was threatened by Charles of Anjou. These negotiations
       were, it is said, carried on through Giovanni di Procida, a
       Sicilian exile, who, as the story goes, had suffered cruel
       wrongs from the French. Charles knew something of the plans of
       the allies, and both parties were preparing for war, but
       affairs were brought to a crisis by a chance occurrence.
    {1820}
       On March 30, 1282, a brutal insult was offered by a French
       soldier to a bride in the presence of her friends and
       neighbours outside the walls of Palermo, and the smothered
       hatred of the people broke out into open violence. The cry
       'Death to the French' was raised, and all who belonged to that
       nation in Palermo were slain without mercy. This massacre,
       which is called 'The Sicilian Vespers,' spread through the
       whole island; the yoke of the oppressor was broken and the
       land was delivered. Charles laid siege to Messina, but he was
       forced to retire by Peter of Aragon, who landed and was
       received as King. Pope Martin in vain excommunicated the
       rebels and their allies, and, in 1284, Charles received a
       great blow, for his son was defeated and taken prisoner by
       Roger of Loria, the Admiral of the Catalan fleet. Charles of
       Anjou died in 1286, and two years later his son, also called
       Charles, ransomed himself from prison."

          W. Hunt,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 4.

       Charles of Anjou "died of grief, leaving his son, the prince
       of Salerno, a prisoner, and Martin followed him, before he
       could proclaim a general crusade against the invader of the
       apostolic fief. Pedro, having enjoyed his two crowns to the
       day of his death, left them to his sons, Alphonso and James
       respectively, and both were excommunicated by Honorius IV. for
       their accession. The prince of Salerno, obtaining his release
       by the mediation of Edward of England, was absolved by
       Nicholas IV. from the conditions to which he had sworn, and
       crowned at Rome king of Apulia (i. e., Naples) and Sicily, A.
       D. 1289. His hopes of regaining the island were constantly
       disappointed. James, having succeeded to the crown of Arragon
       by the death of Alphonso, was persuaded to resign Sicily to
       Charles on condition of receiving his daughter in marriage,
       with an ample dowry. Boniface VIII. also graciously gave him
       leave to conquer the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, from the
       republics of Pisa and Genoa. The Sicilians, however, declining
       to be so bartered, bestowed their crown on James's brother
       Frederic [1295]; and though James contributed his fleet to
       reduce him, he retained the island throne [1300], while
       Charles and the pope were obliged to rest content with the
       continental kingdom. Their only satisfaction was to persist in
       calling Naples by the name of Sicily, and to stigmatise their
       rival as king of 'Trinacria.'"

          G. Trevor,
          Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
          page 240.

          ALSO IN:
          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 3, section 2, chapter 4.

    ITALY: A. D. 1294-1299.
       War between Venice and Genoa.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

    ITALY: A. D. 1297-1319.
       The perfected aristocratic Constitution of Venice.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

    ITALY: A. D. 1300-1313.
       New factions of Florence and Tuscany.
       Bianchi and Neri.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

    ITALY: 14th Century.
       The Renaissance in its beginning.

       "It was not the revival of antiquity alone, but its union with
       the genius of the Italian people, which achieved the conquest
       of the Western world. … The civilisation of Greece and Rome,
       which, ever since the fourteenth century, obtained so powerful
       a hold on Italian life, as the source and basis of culture, as
       the object and ideal of existence, partly also as an avowed
       reaction against preceding tendencies—this civilisation had
       long been exerting a partial influence on mediæval Europe,
       even beyond the boundaries of Italy. The culture of which
       Charles the Great was a representative was, in face of the
       barbarism of the seventh and eighth centuries, essentially a
       Renaissance, and could appear under no other form. … But the
       resuscitation of antiquity took a different form in Italy from
       that which it assumed in the North. The wave of barbarism had
       scarcely gone by before the people, in whom the former life
       was but half effaced, showed a consciousness of its past and a
       wish to reproduce it. Elsewhere in Europe men deliberately and
       with reflection borrowed this or the other element of
       classical civilisation; in Italy the sympathies both of the
       learned and of the people were naturally engaged on the side
       of antiquity as a whole, which stood to them as a symbol of
       past greatness. The Latin language, too, was easy to an
       Italian, and the numerous monuments and documents in which the
       country abounded facilitated a return to the past. With this
       tendency other elements—the popular character which time had
       now greatly modified, the political institutions imported by
       the Lombards from Germany, chivalry and other northern forms
       of civilisation, and the influence of religion and the
       Church—combined to produce the modern Italian spirit, which
       was destined to serve as a model and ideal for the whole
       western world. How antiquity began to work in plastic art, as
       soon as the flood of barbarism had subsided, is clearly shown
       in the Tuscan buildings of the twelfth and in the sculptures
       of the thirteenth centuries. … But the great and general
       enthusiasm of the Italians for classical antiquity did not
       display itself before the fourteenth century. For this a
       development of civic life was required, which took place only
       in Italy, and there not till then. It was needful that noble
       and burgher should first learn to dwell together on equal
       terms, and that a social world should arise which felt the
       want of culture, and had the leisure and the means to obtain
       it. But culture, as soon as it freed itself from the fantastic
       bonds of the Middle Ages, could not at once and without help
       find its way to the understanding of the physical and
       intellectual world. It needed a guide, and found one in the
       ancient civilisation, with its wealth of truth and knowledge
       in every spiritual interest. Both the form and the substance
       of this civilisation were adopted with admiring gratitude; it
       became the chief part of the culture of the age."

          J. Burckhardt,
          The Renaissance in Italy,
          part 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
          chapter 1.

          See RENAISSANCE.

    ITALY: A. D. 1305-1309.
       Removal of the Papal Court to Lyons and then to Avignon.
       The "Babylonish Captivity."

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

    ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
       Visitation of the Emperor Henry VII.
       Hostility of Florence and siege of the city.
       Repulse from Rome.
       The Emperor's death.

       "No Emperor had come into Italy since the death of Frederic
       II. [1250]. Neither Rudolf nor his two successors [see
       GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308] had been crowned Emperor, but on the
       death of Albert of Austria, the King of the Romans, in 1308,
       the electors chose Henry, Count of Luxemburg [Henry VII.]. In
       1310 he entered Italy with a small German army. Unlike most of
       these Imperial expeditions, this was approved of by the Pope.
    {1821}
       The French King Philip IV. was really master of Pope Clement
       V., who did not live in Italy, but sometimes within the French
       kingdom, or in the English territory of Bordeaux, or in
       Avignon, a city of the Empire. But Clement did not like
       bearing the French yoke, and was fearful lest some one of
       greater talents than Charles of Valois should make an attempt
       on Italy, and make it impossible for the Pope to get free from
       the power of the French. He therefore favoured the expedition
       of King Henry, and hoped that it would revive the Ghibelin
       party and counteract the influence of the Guelfs, who were on
       the side of France. Dante tells us the feelings which were
       roused by the coming of the King. He seemed to come as God's
       vicegerent, to change the fortunes of men and bring the exiled
       home; by the majesty of his presence to bring the peace for
       which the banished poet longed, and to administer to all men
       justice; judgment and equity. Henry was worthy of these high
       hopes; for he was wise, just, and gracious, courageous in
       fight and honourable in council: but the task was too hard for
       him. At first all seemed to go well with him. The Ghibelins
       were ready to receive him as their natural lord; the Guelfs
       were inclined towards him by the Pope. In Milan the chief
       power was in the hands of Guido della Torre, the descendant of
       Pagano della Torre, who had done good service to the city
       after the battle of Corte Nuova. He was a strong Guelf, and
       was at the head of a large number of troops; for he was very
       rich. His great enemy was the Ghibelin Matteo Visconti, who
       continually struggled with Guido for the mastery. The king was
       willingly received by the Milanese, and Guido was not
       behindhand in bidding him welcome. While he was at Milan, on
       Christmas Day, 1310, he was crowned with the iron crown of the
       Italian kingdom, which was made of steel in the shape of
       laurel leaves, and studded with gems. He made both parties
       enter into an outward reconciliation, and the chiefs of both
       vied with one another in making him large presents. The King's
       need of money soon tired out the Milanese, and an insurrection
       was made in which both Matteo and Guido joined; but Matteo
       betrayed his rival, and Guido and all the Guelfs were driven
       out of Milan, which henceforth remained in the power of the
       Ghibelin Visconti [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. The King's
       demands for money made him unpopular, and each city, as he
       left it, rose against him. Pisa, and the other Tuscan enemies
       of Florence, received him with joy. But the great Guelfic city
       shut her gates against him, and made alliance with Robert, the
       Angevin King of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, and
       afterwards gave him [Robert] the signoria. Rome received a
       garrison from Naples, and the Imperial coronation had to be
       performed in the Church of St. John Lateran,"—Henry being
       repulsed in an attempt to force his entrance to the quarter of
       the Vatican.

          W. Hunt,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 4.

       "The city [of Rome] was divided in feeling, and the emperor's
       position so precarious that he retired to Tivoli at the end of
       August, and moved towards Tuscany, ravaging the Perugian
       territory on his way, being determined to bring Florence and
       all her allies to submission." By rapid movements he reached
       Florence and invested the city before his intentions were
       understood. "A sudden assault would probably have carried the
       city, for the inhabitants were taken by surprise, were in a
       state of consternation, and could scarcely believe that the
       emperor was there in person: their natural energy soon
       returned, the Gonfaloniers assembled their companies, the
       whole population armed themselves, even to the bishop and
       clergy; a camp was formed within the walls, the outer ditch
       palisaded, the gates closed, and thus for two days they
       remained hourly expecting an assault. At last their cavalry
       [which had been cut off by the emperor's movement] were seen
       returning by various ways and in small detachments; succours
       also poured in from Lucca, Prato, Pistoia, Volterra, Colle,
       and San Gimignano; and even Bologna, Rimini, Ravenna, Faenza,
       Cesina, Agobbio, Città di Castello with several other places
       rendered their assistance: indeed so great and extensive was
       Florentine influence and so rapid the communication, that
       within eight days after the investment 4,000 men at arms and
       innumerable infantry were assembled at Florence! As this was
       about double the imperial cavalry and four times its infantry,
       the city gates were thrown open and business proceeded as
       usual, except through that entrance immediately opposite to
       the enemy. For two and forty days did the emperor remain
       within a mile of Florence, ravaging all the country, but
       making no impression on the town; after which he raised the
       siege and moved to San Casciano, eight miles south." Later,
       the Imperialist army was withdrawn to Poggibonzi, and in
       March, 1313, it was moved to Pisa, to prepare for a new
       campaign. "The Florentines had thus from the first, without
       much military skill or enterprise, proved themselves the
       boldest and bitterest enemies of Henry; their opposition had
       never ceased; by letters, promises, and money, they corrupted
       all Lombardy. … Yet party quarrels did not cease. … The
       emperor now turned all his energies to the conquest of Naples,
       as the first step towards that of Italy itself. For this he
       formed a league with Sicily and Genoa; assembled troops from
       Germany and Lombardy; filled his treasury in various ways, and
       soon found himself at the head of 2,500 German cavalry and
       1,500 Italian men-at-arms, besides a Genoese fleet of 70
       galleys under Lamba Doria and 50 more supplied by the King of
       Sicily, who with 1,000 men-at-arms had already invaded
       Calabria by capturing Reggio and other places." On the 5th of
       August, the emperor left Pisa upon his expedition against
       Naples; on the 24th of the same month he died at Buonconvento
       —not without suspicions of poison, although his illness began
       before his departure from Pisa. "The intelligence of this
       event spread joy and consternation amongst his friends and
       enemies; the army soon separated, and his own immediate
       followers with the Pisan auxiliaries carried his body back to
       Pisa where it was magnificently interred."

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 1, chapter 15 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

    ITALY: A. D. 1312-1338.
       The rising power and the reverses of the Scaligeri of Verona.
       Mastino's war with Florence and Venice.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338:

    {1822}

    ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
       Guelf leadership of King Robert of Naples.
       Wars of Pisa and Florence.
       The rise and threatening power of Castruccio Castracani.
       Siege of Genoa.
       Visit of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.
       Subjection and deliverance of Pisa.

       "While the unexpected death of Henry VII. deprived the
       Ghibelin party of its leader, and long wars between rival
       candidates for the succession to the German throne placed the
       imperial authority over Italy in abeyance [see GERMANY: A. D.
       1314-1347], Robert, king of Naples, the chief of the Guelf
       party, the possessor of Provence, and the favourite of the
       church, began to aspire to the general sovereignty of Italy.
       He had succeeded to the crowns of Naples and Provence on the
       death of his father, Charles II., in opposition to the
       recognized laws of inheritance (A. D. 1309). His elder
       brother, Charles Martel, by his marriage with the heiress of
       Hungary, had been called to the throne of that kingdom, and
       had died before his father. His son, Carobert, the reigning
       king of Hungary, on the death of his grandfather, Charles II.,
       asserted his just rights to all the dominions of that monarch;
       but Robert, hastening to Avignon, whither Clement V. had now
       removed his court, obtained from the pope, as feudal superior
       of the royal fief of Naples, a sentence which set aside the
       claims of his nephew in his own favour. The king of Hungary
       did not seriously attempt to oppose this decision, and Robert,
       a prince of wisdom and address, though devoid of military
       talents, soon extended his ambitious views beyond the kingdom
       over which he reigned undisturbed." The death of Henry VII.
       "left him every opportunity both to attempt the subjugation of
       the Ghibelin states, and to convert his alliance with the
       Guelfs into the relation of sovereign and subject. … It was
       in Tuscany that the storm first broke over the Ghibelins after
       the loss of their imperial chief, and that the first ray of
       success unexpectedly beamed on their cause. Florence and the
       other Guelf cities of the province were no sooner delivered
       from the fear of Henry VII. than they prepared to wreak their
       vengeance against Pisa for the succours which she had
       furnished to the emperor. But that republic, in consternation
       at her danger, had taken into pay 1,000 German cavalry, the
       only part of the imperial army which could be prevailed upon
       to remain in Italy, and had chosen for her general Uguccione
       della Faggiuola, a celebrated Ghibelin captain. The ability of
       this commander, and the confidence with which he inspired the
       Pisans, turned the tide of fortune. … The vigour of his arms
       reduced the Guelf people of Lucca to sue for peace; they were
       compelled to restore their Ghibelin exiles; and then
       Uguccione, fomenting the dissensions which were thus created
       within the walls, easily subjected one of the most wealthy and
       flourishing cities of Tuscany to his sword (A. D. 1314). The
       loss of so valuable an ally as Lucca alarmed the Florentines,
       and the whole Guelf party. … King Robert sent two of his
       brothers into Tuscany with a body of gens-d'armerie; the
       Florentines and all the Tuscan Guelfs uniting their forces to
       this succour formed a large army; and the confederates
       advanced to relieve the castle of Montecatini which Uguccione
       was besieging." The Ghibelin commander had a much smaller
       force to resist them with; but he gained, notwithstanding, "a
       memorable victory, near Montecatini, in which both a brother
       and a nephew of the king of Naples were numbered with the
       slain (A. D. 1315). This triumph rendered Uguccione more
       formidable than ever; but his tyranny became insupportable
       both to the Pisans and Lucchese, and a conspiracy was formed
       in concert in both cities. … Excluded from both places and
       deserted by his troops, he retired to the court of the Scala
       at Verona (A. D. 1316). So Pisa recovered her liberty, but
       Lucca was less fortunate or wise, for her citizens only
       transferred the power which Uguccione had usurped to the chief
       of the Ghibelins. Castruccio Castracani degl' Interminelli,
       one of the most celebrated names in Italian history. This
       extraordinary man … had early in life shared the common fate
       of exile with the White Guelfs or Ghibelins of Lucca. Passing
       ten years of banishment in England, France, and the Ghibelin
       cities of Lombardy, he had served a long apprenticeship to
       arms under the best generals of the age. … He had no sooner
       returned to Lucca with the Ghibelin exiles, who were restored
       by the terms of the peace with Pisa, than he became the first
       citizen of the state. His skill and courage mainly contributed
       to the subsequent victory of Montecatini, and endeared him to
       the Lucchese; his influence and intrigues excited the
       jealousy of Uguccione, and caused his imprisonment; and the
       insurrection which delivered Lucca from that chief, liberated
       Castruccio from chains and impending death to sovereign
       command. Chosen annual captain of the people at three
       successive, elections, he at length demanded and obtained the
       suffrages of the senate and citizens for his elevation to the
       dignity of signor (A. D. 1320): … Under his government Lucca
       enjoyed repose for some years. … During these transactions
       in Tuscany, the Lombard plains were still desolated by
       incessant and unsparing warfare. The efforts of the Neapolitan
       king were mainly directed to crush Matteo Visconti [see MILAN:
       A. D. 1277-1447] and the Ghibelins in this part of Italy;" but
       the power of the latter was continually spreading. "In this
       prosperous state of the Ghibelin interests the domestic feuds
       of Genoa attracted the tide of war to her gates. The ambitious
       rivalry of her four great families, of the Grimaldi, the
       Fieschi, the Spinola, and the Doria, had long agitated the
       bosom of the republic; and at the period before us the two
       former, who headed the Guelf party, had, after various
       convulsions, gained possession of the government. The Spinola
       and Doria, retiring from the city, fortified themselves in the
       smaller towns of the Genoese territory, and immediately
       invited the Ghibelin chiefs of Lombardy to their aid. The
       lords of Milan and Verona promptly complied with the demand,
       … and laid siege to the capital. The rulers of Genoa could
       then resort in their terror to no other protection than that
       of the Neapolitan king. Robert, conscious of the importance of
       preserving the republic from subjection to his enemies,
       hastened by sea to its defence, and obtained the absolute
       cession of the Genoese liberties into his hands for ten years
       as the price of his services. … After the possession of the
       suburbs and outworks of Genoa had been obstinately contested
       during ten months, the Ghibelins were compelled to raise the
       siege. But Robert had scarcely quitted the city to pass into
       Provence, when the exiles with aid from Lombardy again
       approached Genoa, and during four years continued a war of
       posts in its vicinity.
    {1823}
       But neither the Lombard signors nor Robert engaged in this
       fruitless contest, and Lombardy again became the great theatre
       of warfare." But the power which Matteo Visconti was steadily
       building at Milan, for his family, could not be shaken, even
       though an invasion from France (1320), and a second from
       Germany (1322), was brought about through papal influence. At
       the same time Castruccio Castracani, having consolidated his
       despotism at Lucca, was making war upon the Florentines. When,
       in 1325, he succeeded in gaining possession of the Guelf city
       of Pistoia, "this acquisition, which was highly dangerous to
       Florence, produced such alarm in that republic that she called
       out her whole native force for the more vigorous prosecution
       of the war." Castruccio was heavily outnumbered in the
       campaign, but he gained, nevertheless, a great victory over
       the Florentines near the castle of Altopascio (November 23,
       1325). "The whole Florentine territory was ravaged and
       plundered, and the conqueror carried his insults to the gates
       of the capital. … In the ruin which threatened the Guelf
       party in Tuscany, the Florentines had recourse to King Robert
       of Naples, with entreaties for aid," which he brought to them
       in 1326, but only on the condition "that his absolute command
       over the republic, which had expired in 1321, should be
       renewed for ten years in favour of his son Charles, duke of
       Calabria." But now a new danger to the Guelf interests
       appeared, in the approach of the emperor, Louis IV. of
       Bavaria. "After a long contest for the crown of Henry VII.,
       Louis of Bavaria had triumphed over his rival, Frederic of
       Austria, and taken him prisoner at the sanguinary battle of
       Muhldorf, in 1322. Having since passed five years in
       confirming his authority in Germany, Louis was now tempted by
       ambition and cupidity to undertake an expedition into Italy
       (A. D. 1327)." Halting for some time at Milan, where he
       received the iron crown of Lombardy, and where he deposed and
       imprisoned Galeazzo Visconti, he proceeded into Tuscany "on
       his march to Rome, where he intended to receive the imperial
       crown. He was welcomed with joy by the signor of Lucca, and
       the superior genius of Castruccio at once acquired the entire
       ascendant over the weaker mind of Louis. Against the united
       forces of the emperor and of Castruccio, the duke of Calabria
       and his Guelf army cautiously maintained themselves on the
       defensive; but the passage of Louis through Tuscany was
       attended with disastrous consequences to the most famous
       Ghibelin city of that province." Pisa, notwithstanding the
       long fidelity of that republic to the Ghibelin cause, was
       sacrificed by the emperor to the covetous ambition of
       Castruccio. The forces of the two were joined in a siege to
       which the unfortunate city submitted after a month. "She thus
       fell in reality into the hands of Castruccio, who shortly
       established his absolute authority over her capital and
       territory. After extorting a heavy contribution from the
       Pisans, and rewarding the services of Castruccio by erecting
       the state of Lucca into an imperial duchy in his favour, the
       rapacious emperor pursued his march to Rome. There he consumed
       in the frivolous ceremony of his coronation [January 17,
       1328], and in the vain endeavour to establish an antipope, the
       time which he might have employed, with the forces at his
       command, and in conjunction with Frederic, king of Sicily, in
       crushing for ever the power of Robert of Naples and of all the
       Guelfs of Italy who depended on that monarch." In August of
       the same year Castruccio, who "had now attained an elevation
       which seemed to threaten … the total subjugation of all
       Italy," died suddenly of a fever. "Florence breathed again
       from impending oppression, Pisa recovered her freedom, and
       Lucca sank from ephemeral splendour into lasting obscurity. By
       the death of Castruccio the emperor had lost his best
       counsellor and firmest support, and he soon ceased to be
       formidable to the Guelfs. … Hastily returning into Tuscany,
       he plundered the infant orphans of Castruccio of their
       inheritance to sell Lucca to a new signor, and to impose
       ruinous contributions upon the Pisans, before his return into
       Lombardy delivered them from tyranny. … The first proceeding
       of Louis in Lombardy had been to ruin the Visconti, and to
       drain their states of money: almost his last act in the
       province was to make the restoration of this family to power a
       new source of profit." In 1330 the emperor returned to
       Germany, recalled by troubles in that part of his dominions.

          G. Procter,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 4, part 2.

          ALSO IN:
          N. Machiavelli,
          The Florentine Histories,
          book 2.

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 1, chapters 15-18 (volume 1).

    ITALY: A. D. 1314-1327.
       The election and contest of rival emperors, Louis of Bavaria
       and Frederick of Austria.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

    ITALY: A. D. 1341-1343.
       Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans, before Lucca.
       Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1343-1389.
       Troubled reign of Joanna I. in Naples.
       Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
       Political effects of the great Schism in the Church.
       The war of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
       Violent course of Pope Urban VI.

       "In Naples itself the house of Anjou fell into disunion.
       Charles II. of Naples gained by marriage the dowry of Hungary
       [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1342], which passed to his eldest son
       Charles Martel, while his second son, Robert, ruled in Naples.
       But Robert survived his only son, and left as heiress of the
       kingdom [1343] his grand-daughter Giovanna [better known as
       Joan, or Joanna]. The attempt to give stability to the rule of
       a female by marriage with her cousin, Andrew of Hungary, only
       aroused the jealousy of the Neapolitan nobles and raised up a
       strong party in opposition to Hungarian influence. Charles II.
       of Naples, Giovanna's great-grand-father, had left many sons
       and daughters, whose descendants of the great houses of
       Durazzo and Tarento, like those of the sons of Edward III. in
       England, hoped to exercise the royal power. When, in 1845,
       Pope Clement VI. was on the point of recognising Andrew as
       King of Naples, a conspiracy was formed against him, and he
       was murdered, with the connivance, as it was currently
       believed, of the Queen. Hereon the feuds in the kingdom blazed
       forth more violently than before; the party of Durazzo ranged
       itself against that of Tarento, and demanded punishment of the
       murderers; Giovanna I., to protect herself, married Lewis of
       Tarento in 1347. King Lewis of Hungary, aided by the party of
       Durazzo, entered Naples to avenge his brother's death, and for
       a while all was confusion. On the death of Lewis of Tarento
       (1362), Giovanna I. married James, King of Majorca, and on his
       death (1374), Otto, Duke of Brunswick.
    {1824}
       Giovanna I. was childless, and the slight lull which in the
       last years had come over the war of factions in Naples was
       only owing to the fact that all were preparing for the
       inevitable conflict which her death would bring." Neapolitan
       affairs were at this stage when the great schism occurred (see
       PAPACY; A. D. 1377-1417), which enthroned two rival popes, one
       (Urban VI.) at Rome, and one (Clement VII.) at Avignon. Queen
       Giovanna had inclined first to Urban, but was repelled, and
       gave her adhesion to Clement. Thereupon, Urban, on the 21st of
       April, 1380, "declared her deposed from her throne as a
       heretic, schismatic, and traitor to the Pope. He looked for
       help in carrying out his decree to King Lewis of Hungary, who
       had for a time laid aside his desire for vengeance against
       Giovanna, but was ready to resume his plans of aggrandisement
       when a favourable opportunity offered. … Lewis was not
       himself disposed to leave his kingdom; but he had at his court
       the son of his relative, Lewis of Durazzo, whom he had put to
       death in his Neapolitan campaign for complicity in Andrew's
       murder. Yet he felt compassion for his young son Charles,
       brought him to Hungary, and educated him at his court. As
       Giovanna was childless, Charles of Durazzo, or Carlo della
       Pace, as he was called in Italy, had a strong claim to the
       Neapolitan throne at her death." Charles of Durazzo was
       accordingly furnished with Hungarian troops for an expedition
       against Naples, and reached Rome in November, 1380. "Clement
       VII. on his side bestirred himself in behalf of his ally
       Giovanna, and for this purpose could count on the help of
       France. Failing the house of Durazzo, the house of Valois
       could put forward a claim to the Neapolitan throne, as being
       descended from the daughter of Charles II. The helpless
       Giovanna I. in her need adopted as her heir and successor
       Louis, Duke of Anjou, brother of the French king, and called
       him to her aid. Clement VII. hastened to confer on Louis
       everything that he could; he even formed the States of the
       Church into a kingdom of Adria, and bestowed them on Louis;
       only Rome itself, and the adjacent lands in Tuscany, Campania
       Maritima, and Sabina were reserved for the Pope. The
       Avignonese pretender was resolved to show how little he cared
       for Italy or for the old traditions of the Italian greatness
       of his office. Charles of Durazzo was first in the field, for
       Louis of Anjou was detained in France by the death of Charles
       V. in September, 1380. The accession of Charles VI. at the age
       of twelve threw the government of the kingdom upon the Council
       of Regency, of which Louis of Anjou was the chief member. He
       used his position to gratify his chief failing, avarice, and
       gathered large sums of money for his Neapolitan campaign.
       Meanwhile Charles of Durazzo was in Rome, where Urban VI.
       equipped him for his undertaking." In June, 1381, Charles
       marched against Naples, defeated Otto, the husband of
       Giovanna, at San Germano, and had the gates of Naples opened
       to him by a rising within the city on the 16th of July.
       Giovanna took refuge in the Castel Nuovo, but surrendered it
       on the 26th of August. After nine months of captivity, the
       unfortunate queen was "strangled in her prison on May 12,
       1382, and her corpse was exposed for six days before burial
       that the certainty of her death might be known to all.
       Thenceforth the question between Charles III. and Louis was
       not complicated by any considerations of Giovanna's rights. It
       was a struggle of two dynasties for the Neapolitan crown, a
       struggle which was to continue for the next century. Crowned
       King of Naples by Clement VII., Louis of Anjou quitted Avignon
       at the end of May, accompanied by a brilliant array of French
       barons and knights. He hastened through North Italy, and
       disappointed the hopes of the fervent partisans of Clement
       VII. by pursuing his course over Aquila, through the Abruzzi,
       and refusing to turn aside to Rome, which, they said, he might
       have occupied, seized Urban VI., and so ended the Schism. When
       he entered the territory of Naples he soon received large
       accessions to his forces from discontented barons, while 22
       galleys from Provence occupied Ischia and threatened Naples."
       Charles, having inferior forces, could not meet his adversary
       in the field, but showed great tactical skill, acting on the
       defensive, "cutting off supplies, and harassing his enemy by
       unexpected sallies. The French troops perished miserably from
       the effects of the climate; … Louis saw his splendid army
       rapidly dwindling away." But quarrels now arose between
       Charles and Pope Urban; the latter went to Naples to interfere
       in affairs; the King made him practically a prisoner and
       extorted from him agreements which were not to his liking. But
       Urban, on the 1st of January, 1384, "proclaimed a crusade
       against Louis as a heretic and schismatic, and Charles
       unfurled the banner of the Cross." In May the Pope withdrew
       from Naples to Nocera, and there began a series of
       interferences which convinced Charles "that Urban was a more
       serious adversary than Louis." With the summer came attacks of
       the plague upon both armies; but that of Louis suffered most,
       and Louis himself died, in September, bequeathing his claims
       on Naples to his eldest son. "On the death of Louis the
       remnant of his army dispersed, and Charles was free from one
       antagonist. … War was now declared between the Pope and the
       King. … Charles found adherents amongst Urban's Cardinals."
       Urban discovered the plots of the latter and threw six of them
       into a dungeon, where he tortured them with brutality. Charles
       attacked Nocera and took the town, but the castle in which the
       Pope had fortified himself resisted a long siege. "Three or
       four times a day the dauntless Pope appeared at a window, and
       with bell and torch cursed and excommunicated the besieging
       army." In August, 1385, Urban was rescued by some of his
       partisans, who broke through the camp of the besiegers and
       carried him off, still clinging to his captive cardinals, all
       but one of whom he subsequently put to death. He made his way
       to Trani and was there met by Genoese galleys which conveyed
       him and his party to Genoa. He resided in Genoa rather more
       than a year, very much to the discomfort and expense of the
       Genoese, and then, after much difficulty, found shelter at
       Lucca until September, 1387. Meantime Charles III. had left
       Naples, returning to Hungary to head a revolt against the
       widowed queen and young daughter of Lewis, who died in 1382.
       There he was assassinated in February, 1386. "The death of
       Charles III. again plunged the kingdom of Naples into
       confusion. The Angevin party, which had been powerless against
       Charles, raised against his son Ladislas, a boy of twelve
       years old, the claims of Louis II. of Anjou.
    {1825}
       The exactions of the Queen Regent Margaret awoke
       dissatisfaction, and led to the appointment in Naples of a new
       civic magistracy, called the Otto di Buono Stato, who were at
       variance with Margaret. The Angevins rallied under Tommaso of
       Sanseverino, and were reinforced by the arrival of Otto of
       Brunswick. The cause of Louis was still identified with that
       of Clement VII., who, in May 1385, had solemnly invested him
       with the kingdom of Naples. Urban VI., however, refused to
       recognise the claims of the son of Charles, though Margaret
       tried to propitiate him … and though Florence warmly
       supported her prayers for help." The Pope continued obstinate
       in this refusal until his death. He declared that the kingdom
       of Naples had lapsed to the Holy See, and he tried to gather
       money and troops for an expedition to secure it. As a means to
       that end, he ordered that the year 1390 should be a year of
       jubilee—a decade before the end of the century. It was his
       last desperate measure to obtain money. On the 15th of October
       1389 he died and one of the most disastrous pontificates in
       the history of the Papacy came to an end.

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Historical Life of Joanna of Sicily.

          Mrs. Jameson,
          Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          St. C. Baddeley,
          Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI.

    ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
       The "Free Companies."
       Their depredations and the wars employing them.
       The Great Company.
       The Company of Sir John Hawkwood.

       "The practice of hiring troops to fight the battles of the
       Commonwealth [of Florence—but in other Italian states no
       less] had for some time past been continually on the increase.
       … The demand for these mercenary troops,—a demand which …
       preferred strangers from beyond the Alps,—had filled Italy
       with bands of free lances, ready to take service with any
       tyrant, or any free city that was willing to pay them. They
       passed from one service to another, and from one side of a
       quarrel to the other, with the utmost indifference and
       impartiality. But from this manner of life to setting up for
       themselves and warring for their own behoof there was but one
       step. And no prudent man could have doubted that this step
       would ere long be taken. Every circumstance of the age and
       country combined to invite and facilitate it. … Already,
       immediately after the fall of the Duke of Athens [at Florence,
       1343], a German adventurer, one Werner, known in Italian
       history as the Duke Guarnieri, had induced a large number of
       the hired troops, who were then 'unattached' in Italy, mainly
       those dismissed at that time from the service of Pisa, to form
       themselves into an independent company and recognize him as
       their leader. With equal effrontery and accuracy this ruffian
       styled himself 'The enemy of God, of Pity, and of Mercy.' …
       This gang of bandits numbered more than 2,000 horsemen. Their
       first exploit was to threaten the city of Siena. Advancing
       through the Sienese territory towards the city, plundering,
       killing, and burning indiscriminately as they went, they
       inspired so sudden and universal a terror that the city was
       glad to buy them off with a sum of 12,000 florins. From the
       Sienese territory they passed to that of Arezzo, and thence to
       the district around Perugia; and then turning towards the
       Adriatic, overran Romagna, and the Rimini country, then
       governed by the Malatesat family. It is difficult adequately
       to describe, or even to conceive the sufferings, the
       destruction, the panic, the horror, which marked the track of
       such a body of miscreants." Finally, by the skilful management
       of the Lord of Bologna, the company was bought up and sent
       across the Alps, out of Italy, in detachments. "The relief was
       obtained in a manner which was sure to operate as an
       encouragement to the formation of other similar bands. And
       now, after the proclamation of the peace between Florence and
       the Visconti, on the 1st of April, 1353, … the experiment
       which had answered so well in the hands of the German 'Enemy
       to God and to Mercy,' was repeated on a larger scale by a
       French Knight Hospitaller of the name of Montreal, known in
       Italian history as Frà Moriale. … Being out of place, it
       occurred to him to collect all the fighting men in Italy who
       were similarly circumstanced, and form an independent company
       after the example of Guarnieri, with the avowed purpose of
       living by plunder and brigandage. He was so successful that he
       collected in a very short time 1,500 men-at-arms and 2,000
       foot soldiers; who were subsequently increased to 5,000
       cavaliers and 7,000 infantry; and this band was known as 'the
       Great Company.'" There was an attempt made, at first, to
       combine Florence, Siena and Perugia, with the Romagna, in
       resistance to the marauders; but it failed. "The result was
       that the Florentines were obliged to buy off the terrible Frà
       Moriale with a bribe of 28,000 florins, and Pisa with one of
       16,000. … The chief … after Frà Moriale himself, was one
       Conrad, Count of Lando; and under him the Company marched
       towards Lombardy in search of fresh booty, while Moriale
       himself, remaining temporarily behind, went to Rome to confer
       privately, as it was believed, with the Colonna chiefs,
       respecting a project of employing his band against Rienzi, the
       tribune. But whether such was the object of his journey to
       Rome or not, it was fatal to the brigand chief. For Rienzi no
       sooner knew that the notorious Frà Moriale was within his
       jurisdiction than he arrested him, and summarily ordered him
       to execution as a common malefactor. The death of the chief,
       however, did not put an end to 'the Great Company'; for Conrad
       of Lando remained, and succeeded to the command of it." From
       1356 to 1359, Italy in different parts was preyed upon by 'the
       Great Company,' sometimes in the service of the league of the
       lesser Lombard princes against the Visconti of Milan, and once
       in the employ of Siena against Perugia; but generally
       marauding on their own account, independently. Florence,
       alone, stood out in resistance to their exactions, and finally
       sent into the field against them 2,000 men-at-arms, all tried
       troops, 500 Hungarians: and 2,500 cross-bowmen, besides the
       native troops of the city. Subsequently the Florentine forces
       were joined by others from Milan, Padua, and elsewhere. The
       bandits marched all around the Florentine frontier, with much
       bluster, making great threats, but constantly evading an
       engagement. At length, on the 20th of July, 1359, the two
       armies were in such a position that "it was thought in the
       Florentine camp that a decisive battle would be fought on the
       morrow. But when that July morning dawned, Lando and his
       bandit host were already in full march northwards towards
       Genoa, with a precipitation that had all the appearance of
       flight. … 'The Great Company never again dared to show its
       face in Tuscany.'"

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).

    {1826}

       "Another company, consisting principally of Englishmen [lately
       turned loose in France by the Peace of Bretigny, 1360, which
       terminated the invasion of Edward III.], was brought into
       Italy at a somewhat later period by the Marquis of Montferrat.
       … About the same time another, composed principally of
       Germans, and commanded by Amichino Baumgarten, was raised by
       Galeazzo Visconti, and afterwards employed by the Pisans.
       Another, entitled that of St. George, was formed by Ambrose,
       the natural son of Bernabos Visconti, and let loose by him on
       the territories of Perugia and Sienna. Thus, at the end of the
       14th century, Italy was devastated at one and the same time by
       these four companies of adventurers, or, as they might more
       justly be called, professional robbers. … Of all these
       companies, the military reputation of the English was
       undoubtedly the greatest—a circumstance which may be
       ascribed, in some degree, to the physical superiority of the
       men, but still more to the talents of Sir John Hawkwood, by
       whom they were commanded."

          W. P. Urquhart,
          Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       One of the marauding companies left in France after the Peace
       of Bretigny, and which afflicted that wretched country so
       sorely (see FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380), was called the White
       Company, and Sir John Hawkwood was one of its commanders. "The
       White Company crossed into Lombardy, under the command of one
       Albaret, and took service under the Marquis of Montferrat,
       then at war with the Duke of Milan. Hawkwood [called Giovanni
       Aguto by the Italians] entered the Pisan service, and next
       year, when the marquis, being unable to maintain his English
       troops, disbanded them, the Pisans engaged them, and gave
       Hawkwood the command." Hawkwood and his company served Pisa,
       in war with Florence, until 1364, when they experienced a
       great defeat, which led to peace and their discharge. During
       the next three years they lived as independent freebooters,
       the territories of Siena suffering most from their
       depredations. Then they took service with Bernabo Visconti,
       Lord of Milan, making war for him on Florence and its allies;
       but very soon their arms were turned against Milan, and they
       were fighting in the pay of Florence and the Pope. "Within the
       next five years he changed sides twice. He served Galeazzo
       Visconti against the Papal States; and then, brought back to
       fight for Holy Church, defeated his late employer in two
       pitched battles." After this, when the league against an
       aggressive and ambitious pontiff extended, and Florence,
       Bologna and other cities joined Milan, Hawkwood took money
       from both at the same time, and cheated both, preliminarily to
       fighting each in turn. While serving the Pope his ruffians
       wantonly destroyed the captured town of Casena, massacring
       between 4,000 and 5,000 people, women and children included.
       In 1378, when Gregory XI. died, peace followed, and Hawkwood's
       company resumed its old freebooting. In 1381 he was engaged in
       the Neapolitan civil war. In 1387 he seems to have become
       permanently engaged in the service of Florence against the
       Duke of Milan. "In 1391, Florence concluded a general peace
       with all her enemies. Her foreign auxiliaries were dismissed,
       with the exception or Sir John Hawkwood and 1,000 men.
       Hawkwood henceforth remained in her service till his death,
       which took place on the 6th of March, 1393. He was buried at
       the public expense, as a valiant servant of the State."

          Sir John Hawkwood
          (Bentley's Miscellany,
          volume 54, pages 284-291).

          ALSO IN:
          O. Browning,
          Guelphs and Ghibellines,
          chapter 12.

    ITALY: A. D. 1347-1354.
       Rienzi's Revolution at Rome.

          See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

    ITALY: A. D. 1348-1355.
       War of Genoa against Venice, the Greeks and Aragonese.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

    ITALY: A. D. 1352-1378.
       Subjugation and revolt of the States of the Church.
       War of the Pope with Florence.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

    ITALY: A. D. 1378-1427.
       The democratizing of Florence.
       Tumult of the Ciompi.
       First appearance of the Medici.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

    ITALY: A. D. 1379-1381.
       Final triumph of Venice over Genoa in the War of Chioggia.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1386-1414.
       Renewed Civil War in Naples.
       Defeat of the Angevins and triumph of Ladislas.
       His ambitious career.
       His capture and recapture of Rome.

       "The death of Charles III. involved the kingdom of Naples in
       the most ruinous anarchy; and delivered it for many years a
       prey to all the disorders of a long minority and a disputed
       throne. Charles had left two children, Ladislaus, a boy of ten
       years old, and a daughter, Joanna; and his widow Margaret
       acted as regent for her son. On the other hand, the
       Sanseverini and other baronial families, rallying the Angevin
       party, proclaimed the young son of the late duke of Anjou
       king,—also under the guardianship of his mother, Maria,—by
       the title of Louis II. Thus Naples was disturbed by the rival
       pretensions of two boys, placed beneath the guidance of
       ambitious and intriguing mothers, and severally protected by
       two popes, who excommunicated each other, and laboured to
       crush the minors whom they respectively opposed, only that
       they might establish their own authority over the party which
       they supported. … For several years the Angevin party seemed
       to maintain the ascendancy. Louis II. was withheld in Provence
       from the scene of danger by his mother; but the barons who had
       raised his standard, forcing Margaret of Durazzo and the
       adherents of her son to retire to Greta, possessed themselves
       of the capital and great part of the kingdom. When Louis II.,
       therefore, was at length suffered by his mother to appear at
       Naples, attended by a powerful fleet and a numerous train of
       the warlike nobles of France (A. D. 1390), he disembarked at
       the capital amidst the acclamations of his people, and would
       probably have overpowered the party of Durazzo with ease, if,
       as he advanced towards manhood, he had displayed any energy of
       character. But he proved very unequal, by his indolence and
       love of pleasure, to contend with the son of Charles III.
       Educated in the midst of alarms and danger, and surrounded
       from his infancy by civil wars and conspiracies, Ladislaus had
       early been exercised in courageous enterprise, and trained to
       intrigue and dissimulation.
    {1827}
       At the age of 16, his mother Margaret committed him to the
       barons of her party to make his first essay in arms; and from
       this period he was ever at the head of his troops. … A
       fortunate marriage, which his mother had effected for him with
       Constance di Clermont, the heiress of the most opulent noble
       of Sicily, increased his resources by an immense dowry; and
       while he made an able use of these riches [meanly and
       heartlessly divorcing the wife who brought them to him, when
       they had been spent], the new Italian pope, Boniface IX., the
       successor of Urban VI., recognized him for the legitimate son
       and vassal of the church, because Louis was supported by the
       Avignon pontiff. This decision gained him many partizans; …
       his talents and valour hourly advanced his success; and at
       last the Sanseverini and all the barons of the Angevin party,
       following the tide of fortune, went over to his standards, and
       opened to him the gates of Naples (A. D. 1399). Louis …
       retired by sea to his Provençal dominions, and finally
       abandoned the kingdom of Naples. Ladislaus, having thus
       triumphed over his sluggish antagonist, had leisure to
       consolidate his stern authority over the licentious and
       turbulent feudal aristocracy of his kingdom. … He …
       crushed the Sanseverini and other great families, whose power
       might make them dangerous; and having rooted out the seeds of
       all resistance to his sway in his own dominions, he prepared
       to direct his vigorous ambition to schemes of foreign
       conquest."

          G. Procter,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 5, part 3.

       Until the death of Pope Boniface IX., Ladislas supported that
       pontiff through the hard struggle in which he crushed the
       rebellious Colonna and made himself master of the city of
       Rome. But when Boniface died, in 1404, the Neapolitan king
       began to scheme for bringing the ancient capital and the
       possessions of the Church under his own control. "His plan was
       to set the Pope [the newly elected Innocent, VII.] and the
       Roman people against one another, and by helping now one and
       now the other to get them both into his power. … He trusted
       that the rebellious Romans would drive the Pope from the city,
       and would then be compelled to submit to himself." He had
       entered Rome, four days after the papal election, ostensibly
       as a mediator between the rival factions, and between the Pope
       and the Roman people; and he was easily able to bring about an
       arrangement which gave him every opportunity for interference
       and for turning circumstances to his own advantage. Events
       soon followed as he had expected them, and as he helped,
       through his agents, to guide them. The turbulence of the
       people increased, until, in 1405, the Pope was driven to
       flight. "No sooner had the Pope left Rome than Giovanni
       Colonna, at the head of his troops, burst into the Vatican,
       where he took up his quarters. … The Vatican was sacked;
       even the Papal archives were pillaged, and Bulls, letters and
       registers were scattered about the streets. Many of these were
       afterwards restored, but the loss of historic documents must
       have been great." Ladislas now thought his time for seizing
       Rome was come; but when he sent 5,000 horse to join the
       Colonna, the Romans took alarm, repelled the Neapolitan
       troops, and called back the Pope, who returned in January,
       1406, but who died in the following November. Under the next
       Pope, Gregory XII., there were negotiations with Avignon for
       the ending of the great schism; and all the craft of Ladislas
       was exerted to defeat that purpose; because a reunion of
       western Christendom would not be favorable to his designs. At
       last, a conference of the rival popes was arranged, to take
       place at Savona, near Genoa, and in August, 1407, Gregory XII.
       left Rome, moving slowly northwards, but finding reasons,
       equally with his competitor, for never presenting himself at
       the appointed meeting-place. In his absence the disorders of
       Rome increased, and when Ladislas, in April, 1408; appeared
       before the city with an army of 12,000 horse and as many foot,
       it was surrendered to him without resistance. "The craft of
       Ladislas had gained its end, and the temporal power of the
       Papacy had passed into his hands. … So utterly had the
       prestige of Rome, the memories of her glories, passed away
       from men's minds, that her sister republic of Florence could
       send and congratulate Ladislas on the triumphal victory which
       God and his own manhood had given him in the city of Rome."
       When, in 1408, the disgusted cardinals of both papal courts
       joined in calling a general Council of the Church, to meet at
       Pisa the following year, Ladislas threatened to prevent it. By
       this time "Gregory had sank to the lowest pitch of
       degradation: he sold to Ladislas for the small sum of 25,000
       florins the entire States of the Church, and even Rome itself.
       After this bargain Ladislas set out for Rome, intending to
       proceed into Tuscany and break up the Council." Early in
       April, 1409, he marched northwards and threatened Siena. But
       Florence had now undertaken the defense of the Council, and
       resisted him so effectually that the meeting at Pisa was
       undisturbed. The immediate result of the Council was the
       election of a third claimant of the Papacy, Alexander V. (see
       PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417). Around the new Pope a league was now
       formed which embraced Florence, Siena, and Louis of Anjou,
       whose claim upon Naples was revived. The league made an
       attempt on Rome in the autumn of 1409, and failed; but the
       following January the Neapolitans were expelled and the city
       was occupied by the papal forces. In May, 1410, Alexander V.
       died, and was succeeded by Baldassare Cossa, who took the name
       of John XXIII. The new Pope hastened to identify his cause
       with Louis of Anjou, and succeeded, by his energy, in putting
       into the field an army which comprised the four chief
       "condottieri" in Italy, with their veteran followers. Ladislas
       was attacked and routed completely at Rocca Secca, on the 19th
       of May, 1411. But the worthlessness of Louis and the mercenary
       character of his generals made the victory of no effect.
       Ladislas bought over the best of the troops and their leaders,
       and before the end of summer Louis was back in Provence, again
       abandoning his Neapolitan claims. Ladislas made peace, first,
       with Florence, by selling Cortona to that city, and then with
       the Pope, who recognized him as king, not only of Naples, but
       of Sicily as well. But Ladislas was only gaining time by these
       treaties. In June, 1413, he drove the Pope from Rome, and his
       troops again occupied the city. He seemed to be now well
       prepared for realizing his ambition to found an extended
       Italian kingdom; but his career was cut short by a mortal
       disease, which ended his life on the 6th of August, 1414.

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          book 1, chapters 3-8 (volume 1).

    {1828}

    ITALY: A. D. 1390-1402.
       Resistance of Florence to the spreading tyranny of the Duke of
       Milan.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

    ITALY: A. D. 1391-1451.
       Extension of the Italian dominions of the House of Savoy.

          See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

    ITALY: A. D. 1396-1409.
       The sovereignty of Genoa yielded to the King of France.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

    ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.
       The crumbling of the Visconti dominion.
       Aggrandizement of Venice.
       Florentine purchase and conquest of Pisa.
       Decline of that city.

       "The little states of Romagna, which had for the most part
       been conquered by Gian-Galeazzo [Visconti, Duke of Milan],
       were at his death [1402] overrun by the Count of Barbiano, who
       with his famous company entered the service of Pope Boniface
       IX. … The Count of Savoy, the Marquess of Montferrat, and
       the lords of Padua, Ferrara, and Mantua, were the only
       independent Sovereigns in North Italy in 1402. Of these
       Francesco, lord of Padua, was soon to fall. On the death of
       Gian-Galeazzo he seized on Verona. Venice would not allow her
       old enemy to gain this advantage, and made alliance with
       Francesco di Gonzaga, lord of Mantua, and with his help took
       Verona, and closely besieged Padua. After a gallant resistance
       Francesco da Carrara was forced to yield, and he and his two
       sons were taken prisoners to Venice, and were there strangled
       by order of the Council of Ten. This war gave the Venetians
       great power on the mainland. They reconquered Treviso, and
       gained Feltro, Verona [1405], Vicenza, and Padua [1405], and
       from this time Venice became an Italian power. In Tuscany, the
       death of her great enemy delivered Florence from her distress,
       and Siena, which now regained her liberty, placed herself
       under her protection. Pisa [which had been betrayed to
       Gian-Galeazzo in 1399] had been left to Gabriello Visconti, a
       bastard son of the late Duke. He put himself under the
       protection of Jean Boucicault, who governed Genoa for Charles
       VI., King of France, and with his consent he sold Pisa to the
       Florentines. The Pisans resisted this sacrifice of their
       freedom, and the war lasted a year, but in 1406 the city was
       forced to surrender. Many of the people left their homes; for,
       though Florence acted fairly towards her old enemy and new
       subject, yet the Pisans could not bear the yoke, and the
       greatness of the city, its trade and its wealth, vanished
       away."

          W. Hunt,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 6.

       "From that day to this it [Pisa] has never recovered,—not its
       former greatness, wealth, and energy,—but even sufficient
       vitality to arrest it on the downward course. … Of the two
       great political tendencies which were then disputing the world
       between them it made itself the champion and the symbol of the
       losing one. Pisa went down in the world together with the
       feudalism and Ghibellinism with which it was identified."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 4, chapter 6 (volume 2).

          The City in the Sea,
          chapter 16.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Hazlitt,
          History of the Venetian Republic,
          chapter 21 (volume 3).

          A. M. F. Robinson,
          The End of the Middle Ages,
          pages 340-367.

    ITALY: A. D. 1409.
       The Council of Pisa.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

    ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
       Renewed civil war in Naples.
       Defeat of the Angevins by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.
       Reconquest of Lombardy by Filippo Maria Visconti, and his
       wars with Florence, Venice and Naples.

       On the death of Ladislaus, king of Naples (1414), "his sister,
       Joan II., widow of the son of the duke of Austria, succeeded
       him. She was 40 years of age; and, like her brother, abandoned
       to the most unrestrained libertinism. She left the government
       of her kingdom to her lovers, who disputed power by arms: they
       called into her service, or into that of her second husband,
       or of the rival princes whom she in turn adopted, the two
       armies of Sforza and Braccio [the two great mercenary captains
       of that time]. The consequence was the ruin of the kingdom of
       Naples, which ceased to menace the rest of Italy. The moment
       Ladislaus disappeared, a new enemy arose to disturb the
       Florentines—Filippo Maria Visconti [duke of Milan, second son
       of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, and successor to his elder brother
       Gian Maria, on the assassination of the latter, in 1412]. …
       Filippo … married the widow of Facino Cane, the powerful
       condottiere who had retained Gian Maria in 'his dependence,
       and who died the same day that Gian Maria was assassinated. By
       this sudden marriage he secured the army of Facino Cane,—
       which was, in fact, master of the greater part of the
       Milanese: with its aid he undertook, without delay, to recover
       the rest of his states from the hands of those tyrants who had
       divided amongst them the dominions of his father. … During
       the first year of his reign, which was to decide his existence
       as prince or subject, he fought with determined courage; but
       from that time, though he continually made war, he never
       showed himself to his armies. … In the battle of Monza, by
       which he acquired his brother's inheritance, and the only
       battle in which he was ever present, he remarked the brilliant
       courage of Francesco Carmagnola, a Piedmontese soldier of
       fortune, and immediately gave him a command. Carmagnola soon
       justified the duke's choice by the most distinguished talents
       for war, the most brilliant victories, and the most noble
       character. Francesco Carmagnola was, after a few years, placed
       at the head of the duke's armies; and, from the year 1412 to
       that of 1422, successively attacked all the tyrants who had
       divided the heritage of Gian Galeazzo, and brought those small
       states again under the dominion of the duke of Milan. Even the
       republic of Genoa submitted to him, in 1421, on the same
       conditions as those on which it had before submitted to the
       king of France,—reserving all its liberties; and granting the
       duke's lieutenant, who was Carmagnola himself, only those
       prerogatives which the constitution yielded to the doge. As
       soon as Filippo Maria had accomplished the conquest of
       Lombardy, he resumed the projects of his father against
       Romagna and Tuscany. He … renewed his intrigues against the
       republic of Florence, and combined them with those which he at
       the same time carried on in the kingdom of Naples. Joan, who
       had sent back to France her second husband, Jaques, count de
       la Marche, and who had no children, was persuaded, in 1420, by
       one of her lovers, to adopt Alphonso the Magnanimous, king of
       Aragon and Sicily, to whom she intrusted some of the
       fortresses of Naples. She revoked this adoption in 1423; and
       substituted in his place Louis III. of Anjou, son of Louis II.
       The former put himself at the head of the ancient party of
       Durazzo; the latter, of that of Anjou.
    {1829}
       The consequence was a civil war, in which the two great
       captains, Sforza and Braccio, were opposed to each other, and
       acquired new titles to glory. The duke of Milan made alliance
       with Joan II. and Louis III. of Anjou: Sforza, named great
       constable of the kingdom, was their general. The Florentines
       remained constant to Braccio, whom Alphonso had made governor
       of the Abruzzi; and who had seized, at the same time, the
       signoria of Perugia, his native city. … But Sforza and
       Braccio both perished, as Italy awaited with anxiety the
       result of the struggle about to be commenced. Sforza was
       drowned at the passage of the Pescara, on the 4th of January,
       1424; Braccio was mortally wounded at the battle of Aquila, on
       the 2d of June of the same year. Francesco, son of the former,
       succeeded to his father's name and the command of his army,
       both of which he was destined to render still more
       illustrious. The son of Braccio, on the contrary, lost the
       sovereignty of Perugia, which resumed its freedom on the 29th
       of July of the same year; and the remnant of the army formed
       by this great captain elected for his chief his most able
       lieutenant, Nicolo Piccinino. This was the moment which
       Filippo Maria chose to push on his army to Romagna, and
       vigorously attack the Florentines. … The Florentines, having
       no tried general at the heart of their troops, experienced,
       from the 6th of September, 1423, to the 17th of October, 1425,
       no less than six successive defeats, either in Liguria or
       Romagna [at Forli, 1423, Zagonara, 1424, Lamone, Rapallo,
       Anghiari and Faggiola, 1425]. Undismayed by defeat, they
       reassembled their army for the seventh time: the patriotism of
       their rich merchants made up for the penury of their exhausted
       treasury. They, at the same time, sent their most
       distinguished statesmen as ambassadors to Venice, to represent
       to that republic that, if it did not join them while they
       still stood, the liberty of Italy was lost forever. … An
       illustrious fugitive, Francesco Carmagnola, who arrived about
       this time at Venice, accomplished what Florence had nearly
       failed in, by discovering to the Venetians the project of the
       duke of Milan to subjugate them." Carmagnola had been
       disgraced and discharged from employment by Filippo Maria,
       whose jealousy was alarmed by his great reputation, and he now
       took service against his late patron. "A league, formed
       between Florence and Venice, was successively joined by the
       marquis of Ferrara, the lord of Mantua, the Siennese, the duke
       Amadeus VIII. of Savoy, and the king Alphonso of Naples, who
       jointly declared war against Filippo Maria Visconti, on the
       27th of January, 1426. … The good fortune of Carmagnola in
       war still attended him in the campaign of 1426. He was as
       successful against the duke of Milan as he had been for him:
       he took from him the city and whole province of Brescia. The
       duke ceded this conquest to the Venetians by treaty on the
       30th of December; but he employed the winter in assembling his
       forces; and in the beginning of spring renewed the war." An
       indecisive engagement occurred at Casalsecco, July 12, 1427,
       and on the 11th of October following, in a marsh near Macalo,
       Carmagnola completely defeated the Milanese army commanded by
       Carlo Malatesta. A new peace was signed on the 18th of April,
       1428; but war recommenced in the latter part of 1430. Fortune
       now abandoned Carmagnola. He suffered a surprise and defeat at
       Soncino, May 17, 1431, and the suspicious senate of Venice
       caused him to be arrested, tortured and put to death. "During
       the remainder of the reign of Filippo Maria he was habitually
       at war with the two republics of Venice and Florence. He …
       almost always lost ground by his distrust of his own generals,
       his versatility, his taste for contradictory intrigues, his
       eagerness to sign peace every year, and to recommence
       hostilities a few weeks afterwards." In 1441, on making peace
       with the two republics, he granted his daughter Bianca in
       marriage to their general, Francesco Sforza, with two
       lordships for her dowry. But he was soon intriguing against
       his son-in-law, soon at war again with Florence and Venice,
       and Sforza was again in the service of the latter. But in 1447
       he made offers of reconciliation which were accepted, and
       Sforza was on his way to Milan when news came to him of the
       death of the duke, which occurred August 13. "The war of
       Lombardy was complicated by its connexion with another war
       which at the same time ravaged the kingdom of Naples. The
       queen, Joan II., had died there, on the 2d of February, 1435;
       three months after the death of her adopted son, Louis III. of
       Anjou: by her will she had substituted for that prince his
       brother René, duke of Lorraine. But Alphonso, king of Aragon
       and Sicily, whom she had primarily adopted, … claimed the
       succession, on the ground of this first adoption, as well as
       of the ancient rights of Manfred, to whom he had succeeded in
       the female line. The kingdom of Naples was divided between the
       parties of Aragon and Anjou. The Genoese, who had voluntarily
       ranged themselves under the protection of the duke of Milan,
       offered their assistance to the duke of Anjou. … On the 5th
       of August, 1435, their fleet met that of Alphonso, before the
       island of Ponza. They defeated it in a great battle, in which
       Alphonso had been made prisoner." Delivered to the duke of
       Milan, Alphonso soon convinced the latter that his alliance
       with the French interest at Naples was a mistake and a danger
       to him, and was set at liberty, with promises of aid. The
       Genoese were indignant at this and drove the Milanese garrison
       from their city, in December, 1435, recovering their freedom.
       "Alphonso, seconded by the duke of Milan, recommenced the war
       against René of Anjou with greater advantage. On the 2d of
       June, 1442, he took from him the city of Naples; from that
       time peace was re-established in that kingdom, and Alphonso
       … established himself amidst a people which he had
       conquered, but whose hearts he gained; and returned no more
       either to Sicily or Aragon. He died at Naples, on the 27th of
       June, 1458."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapters 9-10.

          ALSO IN:
          W. P. Urquhart,
          Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
          books 3-4 (volume 1).

          Mrs. Jameson,
          Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

          M. A. Hookham,
          Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
          volume 1, introduction and chapter 1.

    ITALY: A. D. 1433-1464.
       The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

    {1830}

    ITALY: A. D. 1447-1454.
       End of the Visconti in the duchy of Milan.
       Disputed succession.
       Francesco Sforza in possession.
       War of Venice, Naples and other states
       against Milan and Florence.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

    ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
       The Pontificate of Nicolas V.
       Regeneration of the Papacy.
       Revival of letters and art.
       Threatening advance of the Turks.
       Fresh troubles in Naples.
       Expulsion of the French from Genoa.

       "The failure of the Council of Basel [see PAPACY: A. D.
       1431-1448] restored the position of the Papacy, and set it
       free from control. The character and ability of Pope Nicolas
       [V., 1447-1455] made him respected, and the part which he took
       in politics made him rank amongst the great temporal powers in
       Italy. From this time onwards to the end of our history we
       shall see the Popes the undisputed Princes of Rome, and the
       lords of all that part of Italy which they claimed from the
       gift of Kings and Emperors, and not least from the will of the
       Countess Matilda. Pope Nicolas used this power better than any
       of those who came after him, for he used it in the cause of
       peace, and to forward learning and artistic taste. He applied
       himself to the general pacification of Italy, and brought
       about the Peace of Lodi in 1454, which was signed by Venice
       and Milan and by King Alfonso. Christendom had great need of
       peace, for, in 1453, Constantinople had been taken by the
       Infidels and Mahomet the Second was spreading his conquest
       over the East of Europe. Before the fall of the city a great
       many Greeks had come to Italy, on different missions, and
       especially to attend a Council at Florence, where terms of
       union were made between the Greek and Latin Churches. Their
       coming revived the taste for Greek learning, which had been so
       powerfully felt by Petrarca and Boccaccio. Pope Nicolas made
       Rome the centre of this literature, and others followed his
       example. Theodore of Gaza, George of Trebizond, and many more,
       found enlightened patrons in the Pope, the King of Naples,
       Cosmo de'Medici, and Federigo, Count of Urbino. The Pope was a
       lover and patron of art as well as of literature. He rebuilt
       the churches, palaces, and fortifications of Rome and the
       Roman States, and formed the scheme of raising a church worthy
       of the memory of St. Peter, and left behind him the Vatican
       Palace as a worthy residence for the Apostle's successors. The
       Papal Library had been scattered during the Captivity and the
       Schism, but Pope Nicolas made a large collection of
       manuscripts, and thus founded the Library of the Vatican. The
       introduction of printing into Italy about this time gave great
       strength to the revival of learning. In 1452 the Pope crowned
       Frederic the Third Emperor at Rome with great magnificence.
       But he was not without danger in his city, for the next year a
       wild plot was made against him. A large number of Romans were
       displeased at the great power of the Pope. They were headed by
       Stefano Porcaro, who declared that he would free the city
       which had once been mistress of the world from the yoke of
       priests. The rising was to be ushered in by the slaughter of
       the Papal Court and the plunder of its treasures. The plot was
       discovered, and was punished with great severity. This was the
       last and most unworthy of the various attempts of the Romans
       to set up self-government. The advance of the Ottoman Turks
       during the latter part of the 15th century [see TURKS: A. D.
       1451-1481] caused the greatest alarm in Italy. Venice, from
       her possessions and her trade in the Levant, was most exposed
       to the attacks of the Infidels, and she became the great
       champion against them. The learned Æneas Sylvius was chosen
       Pope, in 1458, and took the title of Pius the Second. He
       caused a crusade to be preached against the Turks, but he died
       in 1464, while the forces were gathering. The Venetians were
       constantly defeated in the Archipelago, and lost Eubœa,
       Lesbos, and other islands [see GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479]. In
       1477 a large Turkish army entered Italy by Friuli, defeated
       the Venetians, and crossed the Tagliamento. They laid waste
       the country as far as the Piave, and their destroying fires
       could be seen from the Campanile of St. Mark's. In 1480
       Mahomet's great general, Ahmed Keduk, took the strong city of
       Otranto, and massacred its inhabitants. This expedition was
       secretly favoured by the Venetians to spite the King of
       Naples. The danger to all Italy was very great, for the Sultan
       eagerly longed to conquer the older Rome, but the death of
       Mahomet the Second, and a disputed succession to his throne,
       fortunately checked the further advance of the invaders. When
       Alfonso, King of Aragon, Naples, and Sicily, died in 1458, he
       left Aragon and Sicily, which he had inherited, to his
       legitimate son John; but the crown of Naples, which he had won
       for himself, he left to Ferdinand, his illegitimate son.
       Ferdinand was a cruel and suspicious man, and the barons
       invited John of Calabria to come and help them against him.
       John of Calabria was the son of Réné, who had been adopted by
       Queen Joanna, and who called himself King. He was the French
       Governor of Genoa, and so already had a footing in Italy. He
       applied to Sforza to help him, but the Duke of Milan was
       firmly attached to the Peace of Lodi, and was too justly
       fearful of the French power to do so. Lewis the Eleventh, King
       of France, was too wise to meddle in Italian politics.
       Florence, which was usually on the French side, was now under
       the influence of Cosmo de' Medici, and Cosmo was under the
       influence of Francesco Sforza, so that the Duke of Calabria
       found no allies. The Archbishop of Genoa, Paola Fregoso,
       excited the people to drive out the French [see GENOA: A. D.
       1458-1464] and the Doge Prospero Adorno, who belonged to their
       party. He then defeated King Réné, and the Duke of Calabria
       was forced to give up his attempt on Naples [1464]. The new
       government of Genoa was so oppressive that the Genoese put
       themselves under the protection of Francesco; Lewis the
       Eleventh ceded all his rights to him, and the city thus became
       part of the Duchy of Milan. The hopes of the French party in
       Italy were thus for the present entirely crushed."

          W. Hunt,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy,
          book 4, chapters 3-4 (volume 2).

          W. P. Urquhart,
          Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
          book 7 (volume 2).

          L. Pastor,
          History of the Popes,
          volume 2.

    ITALY: A. D. 1466-1469.
       Florence under the five agents of Piero de' Medici.

          See FLORENCE: 1458-1469.

    ITALY: A. D. 1469-1492.
       The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent, at
       Florence.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

    ITALY: A. D. 1490-1498.
       Savonarola at Florence.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

    {1831}

    ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494.
       Charles VIII. of France invited across the Alps to possess
       Naples.
       The hostile disunion of the Italian states.

       With the death of Lorenzo de Medici, which occurred at
       Florence in the spring of 1492, "the power vanished which had
       hitherto kept Naples and Milan quiet, and which, with subtle
       diplomatic skill, had postponed the breach of the peace in
       Italy. We find the comparison used, that Florence with Lorenzo
       at her head stood like a rocky dam between two stormy seas.
       Italy was at that time a free land and independent of foreign
       policy. Venice, with her well-established nobles at her head;
       Naples under the Aragonese, a branch of the family ruling in
       Spain; Milan, with Genoa, under Sforza—all three able powers
       by land and sea—counterbalanced each other. Lorenzo ruled
       central Italy; the small lords of the Romagna were in his pay,
       and the pope was on the best terms of relationship with him.
       But in Milan the mischief lay hidden. Ludovico Sforza, the
       guardian of his nephew Gian Galeazzo, had completely usurped
       the power. He allowed his ward to pine away mentally and
       bodily; he was bringing the young prince slowly to death. But
       his consort, a Neapolitan princess, saw through the treachery,
       and urged her father to change by force their insufferable
       position. Sforza could not alone have resisted Naples. No
       dependence was to be placed on the friendship of Venice;
       Lorenzo mediated as long as he lived, but now, on his death,
       Naples was no longer to be restrained. The first thing that
       happened was [Piero de Medici's] alliance with this power, and
       at the same time Ludovico's appeal for help to France, where a
       young and ambitious king had ascended the throne. The death of
       Innocent VIII., and the election of Alexander Borgia to the
       papacy, completed the confusion which was impending. Long
       diplomatic campaigns took place before war actually broke out.
       The matter in question was not the interests of nations—of
       this there was no thought—nor even the caprices of princes
       alone. The nobles of Italy took a passionate concern in these
       disputes. The contests of corresponding intrigues were fought
       out at the French court. France had been robbed of Naples by
       the Aragonese. The exiled Neapolitan barons, French in their
       interests, whose possessions the Arngonese had given to their
       own adherents, ardently seized the idea of returning
       victoriously to their country; the cardinals, hostile to
       Borgia—foremost among these stood the Cardinal of San Piero
       in Vincula, a nephew of the old Sixtus, and the Cardinal
       Ascanio Sforza, Ludovico's brother—urged for war against
       Alexander VI.; the Florentine nobles, anticipating Piero's
       violent measures, hoped for deliverance through the French,
       and advocated the matter at Lyons, where the court was
       stationed, and a whole colony of Florentine families had in
       time settled. Sforza held out the bait of glory and his just
       claims to the old legitimate possession. The Aragonese, on the
       other hand, proposed an accommodation. Spain, who would not
       forsake her belongings, stood at their side; the pope and
       Piero dei Medici adhered to Naples, and the French nobility
       were not in favour of an expedition to Italy. Venice remained
       neutral; still she might gain by the war, and she did not
       dissuade from it; and this opinion, that something was to be
       gained, gradually took possession of all parties, even of
       those who had at first wished to preserve peace. Spain was a
       direct gainer from the first. France ceded to King Ferdinand a
       disputed province, on the condition that he would afford no
       support to his Neapolitan cousins. Sforza, as lord of Genoa,
       wished to have Lucca and Pisa again, with all that belonged to
       them; the Visconti had possessed them of old, and he raised
       their claims afresh. We have said what were the hopes of Piero
       dei Medici [that he should be able to make himself Duke of
       Florence]. Pisa hoped to become free. The pope hoped by his
       alliance with Naples to make the first step towards the
       attainment of the great plans which he cherished for himself
       and his sons; he thought one day of dividing Italy among them.
       The French hoped to conquer Naples, and then to drive away the
       Turks in a vast crusade. As if for a crusade, the king raised
       the loan in his own country, which he required for the
       campaign. The Venetians hoped to bring the coast cities of the
       Adriatic Sea as much as possible under their authority. In the
       autumn of 1494, Charles of France placed himself at the head
       of his knights and mercenary troops, and crossed the Alps;
       whilst his fleet and artillery, the most fearful weapon of the
       French, went by sea from Marseilles to Genoa."

          H. Grimm,
          Life of Michael Angelo,
          chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 8, chapter 5.

    ITALY: A. D. 1492-1503.
       The Papacy in the hands of the Borgias.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

    ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
       The invasion by Charles VIII.
       His triumphant march, his easy conquest of Naples,
       and the speedy retreat.
       Effects of the expedition on France and Europe.

       "On the 1st of March [1494] Charles VIII. made his state entry
       into Lyons, to assume the command of the expedition; an
       advanced guard under the Scotchman d'Aubigny was already
       pushing towards the Neapolitan frontier, and the Duke of
       Orleans was at Genoa. The Neapolitans on their side sent the
       Prince of Altamura with 30 galleys towards Genoa, while the
       Duke of Calabria, an inexperienced youth, entered the
       Pontifical States, under the guidance of tried generals. …
       The Pope seemed to have lost his head, and no longer knew what
       course to adopt. … Charles the VIII., having passed the
       Monginevra, entered Asti in the first days of September. He
       soon received intelligence that Don Federico and the
       Neapolitan fleet had been repulsed with heavy losses before
       Porto Venere, and that the Duke of Orleans and his Swiss had
       entered Rapallo, sacked the place, and put all the
       inhabitants, even the sick in the hospital, to the sword,
       thereby striking terror into the Italians, who were
       unaccustomed to carry on war in so sanguinary a fashion. On
       reaching Piacenza, the king learnt that Gio. Galeazzo, whom he
       had recently seen at Pavia, had just died there, poisoned, as
       all men said, by the Moor [Lodovico, the usurping uncle of
       Gio. Galeazzo the young Duke of Milan, was so called], who,
       after celebrating his obsequies at Milan, had entered St.
       Ambrogio, at the hour indicated by his astrologer, to
       consecrate the investiture already granted to him by
       Maximilian, King of the Romans. All this filled the minds of
       the French with suspicion, almost with terror; they were
       beginning to understand the nature of their closest ally's
       good faith.
    {1832}
       In fact, while Ludovico with one hand collected men and money
       for their cause, with the other he wove the threads of a
       league intended to drive them from Italy, when the moment
       should arrive. … Nevertheless the fortunes of the French
       prospered rapidly. The Duke of Calabria, having entered
       Romagna, withdrew across the Neapolitan frontier at the first
       glimpse of D'Aubigny's forces; and the bulk of the French
       army, commanded by the King in person, marched through the
       Lunigiana without encountering obstacles of any kind. After
       taking Fivizanno, sacking it, and putting to the sword the
       hundred soldiers who defended it, and part of the inhabitants,
       they pushed on towards Sarzana, through a barren district,
       between the mountains and the sea, where the slightest
       resistance might have proved fatal to them. But the small
       castles, intended for the defence of these valleys, yielded
       one after the other, without any attempt to resist the
       invaders; and hardly had the siege of Sarzana commenced than
       Piero dei Medici arrived, frightened out of his senses,
       surrendered at discretion, and even promised to pay 200,000
       ducats. But on Piero's return to Florence, on the 8th of
       November, he found that the city had risen in revolt, and sent
       ambassadors to the French King on its own account to offer him
       an honourable reception; but that at the same time it was
       making preparations for defence in case of need [see FLORENCE:
       A. D. 1490-1498]. So great was the public indignation that
       Piero took flight to Venice, where his own ambassador,
       Soderini, hardly deigned to look at him, having meanwhile
       declared for the republican government just proclaimed in
       Florence, where everything had been rapidly changed. The
       houses of the Medici and their garden at St. Mark had been
       pillaged, exiles had been recalled and acquitted; a price put
       on Piero's head and that of his brother, the Cardinal. … The
       fabric, so long and so carefully built up by the Medici, was
       now suddenly crumbling into dust. On the 17th November Charles
       VIII., at the head of his formidable army, rode into Florence
       with his lance in rest, believing that that fact sufficed to
       make him master of the city. But the Florentines were armed,
       they had collected 6,000 soldiers within the walls, and they
       knew perfectly well that, from the vantage posts of towers and
       houses, they could easily worst an army scattered through the
       streets. They therefore repulsed the King's insolent
       proposals, and when he threatened to sound his trumpets, Piero
       Capponi, tearing up the offered treaty, replied that the
       Florentines were more ready to ring their bells. Through this
       firmness equitable terms were arranged. The Republic was to
       pay 120,000 florins in three quotas; the fortresses, however,
       were to be speedily restored to her. On the 28th November the
       French left the city, but not without stealing all that
       remained of the collection of antiquities in the Medici
       Palace. … Nevertheless the citizens were thankful to be
       finally delivered alike from old tyrants and new invaders.
       Having reached Rome, Charles VIII., in order to have done with
       the Pope, who now seemed inclined for resistance, pointed his
       guns against the Castle of St. Angelo, and thus matters were
       soon settled. … Scarcely encountering any obstacles, Charles
       led his army on to Naples." Ferdinand I., or Ferrante, had
       died on the 25th of January, 1494, and had been succeeded by
       his son Alfonso II, a prince more cruel and more hated than
       himself. The latter now renounced the throne in favor of his
       son, Ferdinand II., and fled to Sicily. "Ferdinand II., or
       Ferrandino, as he was called, after vainly seeking aid from
       all, even from the Turk, made a fruitless stand at Monte San
       Giovanni, which was taken, destroyed, and all its population
       put to the sword. … Naples rebelled in favour of the French,
       who marched in on the 22d of February [1495]. The following
       day Ferrandino fled to Ischia, then to Messina. And shortly
       the ambassadors of the Italian States appeared to offer
       congratulations to the conqueror. Now at last the Venetians
       were aroused, and having sent their envoys to Milan to know if
       Ludovico were disposed to take up arms to drive out the
       French, they found him not only ready to do so, but full of
       indignation. … He advised that money should be sent to Spain
       and to Maximilian, to induce them to attack France; but added
       that care must be taken not to call them into Italy; 'since
       having already one fever here, we should then have two.' A
       league was in fact concluded between the Venetians, Ludovico,
       the Pope, Spain and Maximilian. … The Neapolitans, soon
       wearied of bad government, had risen in revolt, and Charles
       VIII. after a stay of only 50 days in Naples had to make his
       departure with excessive haste, before every avenue of retreat
       should be cut off, leaving hardly more than 6,000 men in the
       kingdom, and taking with him a numerous army, which however
       only numbered 10,000 real combatants. On the 6th of July a
       pitched battle took place at Fornuovo near the river Taro. The
       allies had assembled about 30,000 men, three-fourths of whom
       were Venetians, the rest composed of Ludovico's soldiers and a
       few Germans sent by Maximilian. … The battle was bloody, and
       it was a disputed question which side obtained the victory;
       but although the Italians were not repulsed, remaining indeed
       masters of the field, the French succeeded in cutting their
       way through, which was the chief object they had in view. …
       Ludovico, taking advantage of the situation, soon made an
       agreement with the French on his own account, without
       concerning himself about the Venetians. … The fortunes of
       the French now declined rapidly in Italy, and all the more
       speedily owing to their bad government in the Neapolitan
       kingdom, and their abominable behaviour towards the few
       friends who had remained faithful to them. … Ferdinand II.,
       with the aid of the Spaniards under Consalvo di Cordova,
       advanced triumphantly through Calabria and entered Naples on
       the 7th of July, 1496. In a short time all the Neapolitan
       fortresses capitulated, and the French who had held them
       returned to their own country, more than decimated and in an
       altogether deplorable condition. On the 6th of October
       Ferdinand II. breathed his last, worn out by the agitation and
       fatigues of the war, and was succeeded by his uncle Don
       Federico, the fifth King [counting Charles VIII. of France]
       who had ascended the Neapolitan throne within the last five
       years. … Naples was now in the absolute power of the
       Spaniards, who were already maturing their iniquitous designs
       upon the kingdom; these, however, were only discovered at a
       later period."

          P. Villari,
          Machiavelli and his Times,
          volume 1, chapter 4, section 2.

    {1833}

       "In spite of its transitory character the invasion of Charles
       VIII. … was a great fact in the history of the
       Renaissance. It was, to use the pregnant phrase of Michelet,
       no less than the revelation of Italy to the nations of the
       North. Like a gale sweeping across a forest of trees in
       blossom, and bearing their fertilizing pollen, after it has
       broken and deflowered their branches, to far distant trees
       that hitherto have bloomed in barrenness, the storm of
       Charles's army carried far and wide through Europe
       thought-dust, imperceptible, but potent to enrich the nations.
       The French, alone, says Michelet, understood Italy. … From
       the Italians the French communicated to the rest of Europe
       what we call the movement of the Renaissance. There is some
       truth in this panegyric of Michelet's. The passage of the army
       of Charles VIII. marks a turning point in modern history, and
       from this epoch dates the diffusion of a spirit of culture
       over Europe."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Villari,
          History of Savonarola and his Times,
          book 2, chapters 1-3 (volume 1).

          J. Dennistoun,
          Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino,
          chapters 14-15 (volume 1).

          P. de Commines,
          Memoirs,
          books 7-8.

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
          from 1494 to 1514,
          book 1, chapter 1.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.

    ITALY: A. D. 1494-1503.
       The growing power of Venice and the jealousies excited by it. See

          VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

    ITALY: A. D. 1424-1509.
       The French deliverance of Pisa.
       The long struggle and the Florentine reconquest.

          See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

    ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
       Invasion and conquest of the Milanese by Louis XII. of France.
       His claim in right of Valentine Visconti.

       Charles VIII. died in April, 1498, and was succeeded by Louis
       of Orleans, who ascended the throne as Louis XII. On his
       coronation, Louis XII. "assumed, besides his title of King of
       France, the titles of King of Naples and of Jerusalem, and
       Duke of Milan. This was as much as to say that he would pursue
       … a warlike and adventurous policy abroad. … By his policy
       at home Louis XII. deserved and obtained the name of 'Father
       of the People;' by his enterprises and wars abroad he involved
       France still more deeply than Charles VIII. had in that mad
       course of distant, reckless, and incoherent conquests for
       which his successor, Francis I., was destined to pay by
       capture at Pavia and by the lamentable treaty of Madrid, in
       1526, as the price of his release. … Outside of France,
       Milaness (the Milanese district) was Louis XII.'s first
       thought, at his accession, and the first object of his desire.
       He looked upon it as his patrimony: His grandmother, Valentine
       Visconti, widow of that Duke of Orleans who had been
       assassinated at Paris in 1407 by order of John the Fearless,
       Duke of Burgundy, had been the last to inherit the duchy of
       Milan, which the Sforzas, in 1450, had seized. When Charles
       VIII. invaded Italy in 1494, 'Now is the time,' said Louis,
       'to enforce the rights of Valentine Visconti, my grandmother,
       to Milaness.' And he, in fact, asserted them openly, and
       proclaimed his intention of vindicating them so soon as he
       found the moment propitious. When he became king, his chance
       of success was great. The Duke of Milan, Ludovic, the Moor,
       had by his sagacity and fertile mind, by his taste for arts
       and sciences and the intelligent patronage he bestowed upon
       them, by his ability in speaking, and by his facile character,
       obtained in Italy a position far beyond his real power. …
       Ludovic was, nevertheless, a turbulent rascal and a greedy
       tyrant. … He had, moreover, embroiled himself with his
       neighbours, the Venetians, who were watching for an
       opportunity of aggrandizing themselves at his expense." Louis
       XII. promptly concluded a treaty with Venice, which provided
       for the making of war in common upon the Duke of Milan, to
       recover the patrimony of the king—the Venetians to receive
       Cremona and certain forts and territory adjacent as their
       share of the expected spoils. "In the month of August, 1499,
       the French army, with a strength of from 20,000 to 25,000 men,
       of whom 5,000 were Swiss, invaded Milaness. Duke Ludovic
       Sforza opposed to it a force pretty near equal in number, but
       far less full of confidence and of far less valour. In less
       than three weeks the duchy was conquered; in only two cases
       was any assault necessary; all the other places were given up
       by traitors or surrendered without a show of resistance. The
       Venetians had the same success on the eastern frontier of the
       duchy. … Louis was at Lyons when he heard of his army's
       victory in Milaness and of Ludovic Sforza's flight. He was
       eager to go and take possession of his conquest, and, on the
       6th of October, 1499, he made his triumphal entry into Milan
       amidst cries of 'Hurrah! for France.' He reduced the heavy
       imposts established by the Sforzas, revoked the vexatious
       game-laws, instituted at Milan a court of justice analogous to
       the French parliaments, loaded with favours the scholars and
       artists who were the honour of Lombardy, and recrossed the
       Alps at the end of some weeks, leaving as governor of Milaness
       John James Trivulzio, the valiant Condottiere, who, four years
       before, had quitted the service of Ferdinand II., King of
       Naples, for that of Charles VIII. Unfortunately Trivulzio was
       himself a Milanese and of the faction of the Guelphs. He had
       the passions of a partisan and the habits of a man of war; and
       he soon became as tyrannical and as much detested in Milaness
       as Ludovic the Moor had but lately been. A plot was formed in
       favour of the fallen tyrant, who was in Germany expecting it,
       and was recruiting, during expectancy, amongst the Germans and
       Swiss, in order to take advantage of it. On the 25th of
       January, 1500, the insurrection broke out; and two months
       later Ludovic Sforza had once more became master of Milaness,
       where the French possessed nothing but the castle of Milan.
       … Louis XII., so soon as he heard of the Milanese
       insurrection, sent into Italy Louis de la Trémoille, the best
       of his captains, and the Cardinal d' Amboise, his privy
       councillor and his friend. … The campaign did not last long.
       The Swiss who had been recruited by Ludovic and those who were
       in Louis XII.'s service had no mind to fight one another; and
       the former capitulated, surrendered the strong place of
       Novara, and promised to evacuate the country on condition of a
       safe-conduct for themselves and their booty." Ludovic
       attempted flight in disguise, but fell into the hands of the
       French and remained in captivity, at the castle of Loches, in
       Touraine, during the remainder of his life,—eight years.
       "And 'thus was the duchy of Milan, within seven months and a
       half, twice conquered by the French,' says John d' Auton in
       his 'Chronique,' 'and for the nonce was ended the war in
       Lombardy, and the authors thereof were captives and exiles.'"

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 27.

          ALSO IN:
          A. M. F. Robinson,
          The End of the Middle Ages:
          Valentine Visconti; The French claim to Milan.

          E. Walford,
          Story of the Chevalier Bayard,
          chapters 3-4.

    {1834}

    ITALY: 15-16th Centuries.
       Renaissance.
       Intellectual advance and moral decline.

       "At the end of the fifteenth century, Italy was the centre of
       European civilization: while the other nations were still
       plunged in a feudal barbarism which seems almost as far
       removed from all our sympathies as is the condition of some
       American or Polynesian savages, the Italians appear to us as
       possessing habits of thought, a mode of life, political,
       social, and literary institutions, not unlike those of to-day;
       as men whom we can thoroughly understand, whose ideas and
       aims, whose general views, resemble our own in that main,
       indefinable characteristic of being modern. They had shaken
       off the morbid monastic ways of feeling, they had thrown aside
       the crooked scholastic modes of thinking, they had trampled
       under foot the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; no
       symbolical mists made them see things vague, strange, and
       distorted; their intellectual atmosphere was as clear as our
       own, and, if they saw less than we do, what they did see
       appeared to them in its true shape and proportions. Almost for
       the first time since the ruin of antique civilization; they
       could show well-organized, well-defined States; artistically
       disciplined armies; rationally devised laws; scientifically
       conducted agriculture; and widely extended, intelligently
       undertaken commerce. For the first time, also, they showed
       regularly built, healthy, and commodious towns; well-drained
       fields; and, more important than all, hundreds of miles of
       country owned not by feudal lords, but by citizens; cultivated
       not by serfs, but by free peasants. While in the rest of
       Europe men were floundering among the stagnant ideas and
       crumbling institutions of the effete Middle Ages, with but
       vague half-consciousness of their own nature, the Italians
       walked calmly through a life as well arranged as their great
       towns, bold, inquisitive, and sceptical; modern
       administrators, modern soldiers, modern politicians, modern
       financiers, scholars, and thinkers. Towards the end of the
       fifteenth century, Italy seemed to have obtained the
       philosophic, literary, and artistic inheritance of Greece; the
       administrative, legal, and military inheritance of Rome,
       increased threefold by her own strong, original, essentially
       modern activities. Yet, at that very time, and almost in
       proportion as all these advantages developed, the moral
       vitality of the Italians was rapidly decreasing, and a
       horrible moral gangrene beginning to spread: liberty was
       extinguished; public good faith seemed to be dying out; even
       private morality flickered ominously; every free State became
       subject to a despot, always unscrupulous and often infamous;
       warfare became a mere pretext for the rapine and extortions of
       mercenaries; diplomacy grew to be a mere swindle; the
       humanists inoculated literature with the filthiest refuse cast
       up by antiquity; nay, even civic and family ties were
       loosened; assassinations and fratricides began to abound, and
       all law, human and divine, to be set at defiance. … The men
       of the Renaissance had to pay a heavy price for …
       intellectual freedom and self-cognizance, which they not only
       enjoyed themselves, but transmitted to the rest of the world;
       the price was the loss of all moral standard, of all fixed
       public feeling. They had thrown aside all accepted rules and
       criteria, they had cast away all faith in traditional
       institutions, they had destroyed and could not yet rebuild. In
       their instinctive and universal disbelief in all that had been
       taught them, they lost all respect for opinion, for rule, for
       what had been called right and wrong. Could it be otherwise?
       Had they not discovered that what had been called right had
       often been unnatural, and what had been called wrong often
       natural? Moral teachings, remonstrances, and judgments
       belonged to that dogmatism from which they had broken loose;
       to those schools and churches where the foolish and the
       unnatural had been taught and worshiped; to those priests and
       monks who themselves most shamefully violated their teachings.
       To profess morality was to be a hypocrite; to reprobate others
       was to be narrow-minded. There was so much error mixed up with
       truth that truth had to share the discredit of error."

          Vernon Lee,
          Euphorion,
          volume 1, pages 27-29, 47-48.

       "The conditions under which the Italians performed their task
       in the Renaissance were such as seem at first sight
       unfavourable to any great achievement. Yet it is probable
       that, the end in view being the stimulation of mental
       activity; no better circumstances than they enjoyed could have
       been provided. Owing to a series of adverse accidents, and
       owing also to their own instinctive preference for local
       institutions, they failed to attain the coherence and the
       centralised organisation which are necessary to a nation as we
       understand that word. Their dismemberment among rival
       communities proved a fatal source of political and military
       weakness, but it developed all their intellectual energies by
       competition to the utmost. At the middle of the fifteenth
       century their communes had lost political liberty, and were
       ruled by despots. Martial spirit declined. Wars were carried
       on by mercenaries; and the people found itself in a state of
       practical disarmament, when the neighboring nations quarrelled
       for the prize of those rich provinces. At the same time
       society underwent a rapid moral deterioration. When
       Machiavelli called Italy 'the corruption of the world,' he did
       not speak rhetorically. An impure and worldly clergy; an
       irreligious, though superstitious, laity; a self-indulgent and
       materialistic middle class; an idle aristocracy, excluded from
       politics and unused to arms; a public given up to pleasure and
       money-getting; a multitude of scholars, devoted to trifles,
       and vitiated by studies which clashed with the ideals of
       Christianity—from such elements in the nation proceeded a
       widely-spread and ever-increasing degeneracy. Public energy,
       exhausted by the civil wars and debilitated by the arts of the
       tyrants, sank deep and deeper into the lassitude of
       acquiescent lethargy. Religion expired in laughter, irony and
       licence. Domestic simplicity yielded to vice, whereof the
       records are precise and unmistakable. The virile virtues
       disappeared. What survived of courage assumed the forms of
       ruffianism, ferocity and treasonable daring. Still,
       simultaneously with this decline in all the moral qualities
       which constitute a powerful people, the Italians brought their
       arts and some departments of their literature to a perfection
       that can only be paralleled by ancient Greece. The anomaly
       implied in this statement is striking; but it is revealed to
       us by evidence too overwhelming to be rejected. … It was
       through art that the creative instincts of the people found
       their true and adequate channel of expression.
    {1835}
       Paramount over all other manifestations of the epoch,
       fundamental beneath all, penetrative to the core of all, is
       the artistic impulse. The slowly self-consolidating life of a
       great kingdom, concentrating all elements of national
       existence by the centripetal force of organic unity, was
       wanting. Commonwealths and despotisms, representing a more
       imperfect stage of political growth, achieved completion and
       decayed. But art survived this disintegration of the medieval
       fabric; and in art the Italians found the cohesion denied them
       as a nation. While speaking thus of art, it is necessary to
       give a wide extension to that word. It must be understood to
       include literature. … We are justified in regarding the
       literary masterpieces of the sixteenth century as the fullest
       and most representative expression of the Italian temperament
       at the climax of its growth. The literature of the golden age
       implies humanism, implies painting. … It is not only
       possible but right to speak of Italy collectively when we
       review her work in the Renaissance. Yet it should not be
       forgotten that Italy at this time was a federation, presenting
       upon a miniature scale the same diversities in her component
       parts as the nations of Europe do now. … At the beginning of
       such a review, we cannot fail to be struck with the
       predominance of Florence. The superiority of the Tuscans was
       threefold. In the first place, they determined the development
       of art in all its branches. In the second place, they gave a
       language to Italy, which, without obliterating the local
       dialects, superseded them in literature when the right moment
       for intellectual community arrived. That moment, in the third
       place, was rendered possible by the humanistic movement, which
       began at Florence. … What the Lombards and Venetians
       produced in fine art and literature was of a later birth. Yet
       the novelists of Lombardy, the Latin lyrists of Garda, the
       school of romantic and dramatic poets at Ferrara, the group of
       sculptors and painters assembled in Milan by the Sforza
       dynasty, the maccaronic Muse of Mantua, the unrivalled
       magnificence of painting at Venice, the transient splendour of
       the Parmese masters, the wit of Modena, the learning of the
       princes of Mirandola and Carpi, must be catalogued among the
       most brilliant and characteristic manifestations of Italian
       genius. In pure literature Venice contributed but little. …
       Her place, as the home of Aldo's Greek press, and as the
       refuge for adventurers like Aretino and Folengo, when the rest
       of Italy was yielding to reactionary despotism, has to be
       commemorated. … The Romans who advanced Italian culture,
       were singularly few. The work of Rome was done almost
       exclusively by aliens, drawn for the most part from Tuscany
       and Lombardy. After Frederick II.'s brilliant reign, the
       Sicilians shared but little in the intellectual activity of
       the nation."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: Italian Literature,
          chapter 17.

    ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
       Perfidious treaty for the partition of Naples between Louis
       XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
       Their joint conquest.
       Their quarrel and war.
       The French expelled.
       The Spaniards in possession.

       "In the spring of 1501, the French army was ready to pursue
       its march to Naples. King Frederick, alarmed at the storm
       which was gathering round his head, had some months before
       renewed the propositions formerly made by his father Ferdinand
       to Charles VIII.; namely, to acknowledge himself a feudatory
       of France, to pay an annual tribute, and to pledge several
       maritime towns as security for the fulfilment of these
       conditions. Louis, however, would not hear of these liberal
       offers, although Ferdinand the Catholic [of Aragon] undertook
       to guarantee the payment of the tribute proffered by
       Frederick, and strongly remonstrated against the contemplated
       expedition of the French King. Ferdinand finding that he could
       not divert Louis from his project, proposed to him to divide
       Naples between them, and a partition was arranged by a treaty
       concluded between the two monarchs at Granada, November 11th,
       1500. Naples, the Terra di Lavoro, and the Abruzzi were
       assigned to Louis, with the title of King of Naples and
       Jerusalem; while Ferdinand was to have Calabria and Apulia
       with the title of Duke." This perfidious arrangement was kept
       secret, of course, from Frederick. "Meanwhile the forces of
       Ferdinand, under Gonsalvo of Cordova [the 'Great Captain,' as
       he was styled after his Italian campaign], were admitted as
       friends into the Neapolitan fortresses, which they afterwards
       held as enemies. Frederick opened to them without suspicion
       his ports and towns, and thus became the instrument of his own
       ruin. The unhappy Frederick had in vain looked around for
       assistance. He had paid the Emperor Maximilian 40,000 ducats
       to make a diversion in his favour by attacking Milan, but
       Maximilian was detached from the Neapolitan alliance by a
       counter bribe, and consented to prolong the truce with France.
       Frederick had then had recourse to Sultan Bajazet II., with as
       little effect; and this application only served to throw an
       odium on his cause. … The French army, which did not exceed
       13,000 men, began its march towards Naples about the end of
       May, 1501, under the command of Stuart d'Aubigny, with Cæsar
       Borgia [son of Pope Alexander VI.] for his lieutenant. When it
       arrived before Rome, June 25th, the French and Spanish
       ambassadors acquainted the Pope with the treaty of Granada,
       and the contemplated partition of Naples, in which the
       suzerainty of this kingdom was guaranteed to the Holy See; a
       communication which Alexander received with more surprise than
       displeasure, and he proceeded at once to invest the Kings of
       France and Aragon with the provinces which they respectively
       claimed. Attacked in front by the French, in the rear by
       Gonsalvo, Frederick did not venture to take the field. He
       cantoned his troops in Naples, Averso, and Capua, of which the
       last alone made any attempt at defence. It was surprised by
       the French while in the act of treating for a capitulation
       (July 24th), and was subjected to the most revolting cruelty;
       7,000 of the male inhabitants were massacred in the streets;
       the women were outraged; and forty of the handsomest reserved
       for Borgia's harem at Rome; where they were in readiness to
       amuse the Court at the extraordinary and disgusting fete given
       at the fourth marriage of Lucretia. Rather than expose his
       subjects to the horrors of a useless war, Frederick entered
       into negociations with d'Aubigny, with the view of
       surrendering himself to Louis XII. … In October, 1501, he
       sailed for France with a small squadron, which remained to him.
    {1836}
       In return for his abandonment of the provinces assigned to the
       French King, he was invested with the county of Maine, and a
       life pension of 30,000 ducats, on condition that he should not
       attempt to quit France; a guard was set over him to enforce
       the latter proviso, and this excellent prince died in
       captivity in 1504. Meanwhile Gonsalvo of Cordova was
       proceeding with the reduction of Calabria and Apulia. … The
       Spaniards entered Taranto March 1st, 1502; the other towns of
       southern Italy were soon reduced, and the Neapolitan branch of
       the House of Aragon fell for ever, after reigning 65 years. In
       the autumn of 1501, Louis had entered into negociations with
       the Emperor, in order to obtain formal investiture of the
       Duchy of Milan. With this view, Louis's daughter Claude, then
       only two years of age, was affianced to Charles [afterwards
       the Emperor, Charles V.], grandson of Maximilian, the infant
       child of the Archduke Philip and Joanna of Aragon. A treaty
       was subsequently signed at Trent, October 13th, 1501, by
       Maximilian and the Cardinal d'Amboise, to which the Spanish
       sovereigns find the Archduke Philip were also parties. By this
       instrument Louis engaged, in return for the investiture of
       Milan, to recognise the pretensions of the House of Austria to
       Hungary and Bohemia, and to second Maximilian in an expedition
       which he contemplated against the Turks. It was at this
       conference that those schemes against Venice began to be
       agitated, which ultimately produced the League of Cambray. The
       treaty between Louis and Ferdinand for the partition of Naples
       was so loosely drawn, that it seemed purposely intended to
       produce the quarrels which occurred." Disputes arose as to the
       possession of a couple of provinces, and the Spaniards were
       driven out. "In the course of 1502 the Spaniards were deprived
       of everything, except Barletta and a few towns on the coast of
       Bari. It was in the combats round this place that Bayard, by
       his deeds of courage and generosity, won his reputation as the
       model of chivalry, and became the idol of the French
       soldiery." The crafty and unscrupulous king of Aragon now
       amused Louis with the negotiation of a treaty for the
       relinquishment of the whole Neapolitan domain to the lately
       affianced infants, Charles of Austria and Claude of France,
       while he diligently reinforced the "Great Captain." Then
       "Gonsalvo suddenly resumed the offensive with extraordinary
       vigour and rapidity, and within a week two decisive battles
       were fought"—at Seminara, in Calabria, April 21, 1503, and at
       Cerignola, near Barletta, April 28. In the last named battle
       the French army was dispersed and almost destroyed. On the
       14th of May, Gonsalvo entered Naples, and by the end of July
       the French had completely evacuated the Neapolitan territory.
       The king of France made prompt preparations for vigorous war,
       not only in Naples but in Spain itself, sending two armies to
       the Pyrenees and one across the Alps. The campaign of the
       latter was ruined by Cardinal d'Amboise, who stopped its march
       near Rome, to support his candidacy for the papal chair, just
       vacated by the death of Alexander VI. Malaria made havoc in
       the ranks of the French, and they were badly commanded. They
       advanced to the seat of war in October, and forced the passage
       of the Garigliano, November 9. "Here their progress was
       arrested. … The seasons themselves were hostile to the
       French; heavy rains set in with a constancy quite unusual in
       that climate; and the French soldiers perished by hundreds in
       the mud and swamps of the Garigliano. The Spanish army,
       encamped near Sessa, was better supplied and better
       disciplined; and at length, after two months of inaction,
       Gonsalvo, having received some reinforcements, assumed the
       offensive, and in his turn crossed the river. The French,
       whose quarters were widely dispersed, were not prepared for
       this attack, and attempted to fall back upon Gaeta; but their
       retreat soon became a disorderly flight; many threw down their
       arms without striking a blow; and hence the affair has
       sometimes been called the rout of the Garigliano [December 29,
       1503]. Peter de' Medici, who was following the French army,
       perished in this retreat. … Very few of the French army
       found their way back to France. Gaeta surrendered at the first
       summons, January 1st, 1504. This was the most important of all
       Gonsalvo's victories, as it completed the conquest of Naples.
       The two attacks on Spain had also miscarried. … A truce of
       five months was concluded, November 15th, which was
       subsequently converted into a peace of three years."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 1, chapters 5-6 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1494-1514,
          book 1, chapter 4,
          and book 2, chapter 1.

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 9, chapters 8-9 (volume 4).

          M. J. Quintana,
          The Great Captain
          (Lives of Celebrated Spaniards)

          G. P. R. James,
          Memoirs of Great Commanders,
          volume 1: Gonzalvez de Cordoba.

          L. Larchey,
          History of Bayard,
          book 2.

    ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
       The Treaties of Blois.
       Tortuous diplomacy of Louis XII.
       His double renunciation of Naples.

       "There was danger [to Louis XII. of France] that the loss of
       the Milanese should follow that of the kingdom of Naples.
       Maximilian was already preparing to assert his imperial rights
       beyond the Alps, and Gonsalvo de Cordova was marching toward
       the northern part of the peninsula. Louis XII. divided and
       disarmed his enemies by three treaties, signed at Blois on the
       same day (1504). By the first Louis and Maximilian agreed to
       attack Venice, and to divide the spoil; by the second Louis
       promised the king of the Romans 200,000 francs in return for
       the investiture of the Milanese; by the third he renounced the
       kingdom of Naples in favor of Maximilian's grandson Charles,
       who was to marry Claude,' daughter of Louis XII., and receive
       as her dowry three French provinces,—Burgundy, Brittany, and
       Blois. A more disastrous agreement could not have been made.
       Charles was to obtain by inheritance from his father, Philip
       the Handsome, the Netherlands; from his mother, Castile; from
       his paternal grandfather, Austria; from his maternal
       grandfather, Aragon. And now he was assured of Italy, and
       France was to be dismembered for him. This was virtually
       giving him the empire of Europe. France protested, and Louis
       XII. seized the first occasion to respond to her wishes. He
       found it in 1505, when Ferdinand the Catholic married Germaine
       de Foix, niece of Louis XII. Louis by treaty made a second
       cession of his rights over the kingdom of Naples to his niece,
       thus breaking one of the principal conditions of his treaty
       with Maximilian. He convoked the States-General at Tours in
       order openly to break the others (1506).
    {1837}
       The Assembly declared that the fundamental law of the state
       did not permit alienations of the domains of the crown, and
       besought the king to give his daughter in marriage to his heir
       presumptive, Francis, Duke of Angoulême, in order to insure
       the integrity of the territory and the independence of France.
       Louis XII. found little difficulty in acceding to their
       request. Maximilian and Ferdinand were at the time unable to
       protest."

          V. Duruy,
          History of France,
          chapter 38.

    ITALY: A. D. 1508-1509.
       The League of Cambrai against Venice.
       The continental provinces of the Republic torn away.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

    ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
       Dissolution of the League of Cambrai and formation of the Holy
       League against France.
       The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.
       Restoration of the Medici.
       Recovery of Venetian territories.

       As the League of Cambrai began to weaken and fall in pieces,
       the vigorous republic of Venice "came forth again, retook
       Padua, and kept it through a long and terrible siege, at last
       forcing the Emperor to withdraw and send back his French
       allies. The Venetians recovered Vicenza, and threatened
       Verona; Maximilian, once more powerless, appealed to France to
       defend his conquests. Thus things stood [1510] when Julius II.
       made peace with Venice and began to look round him for allies
       against Louis XII. He negotiated with the foreign kings; but
       that was only in order thereby to neutralise their influence,
       sowing discord among them; it was on the Swiss mercenaries
       that he really leant. Now that he had gained all he wanted on
       the northern frontier of the States of the Church, he thought
       that he might safely undertake the high duty of protecting
       Italy against the foreigner: he would accomplish what Cæsar
       Borgia had but dreamed of doing, he would chase the Barbarian
       from the sacred soil of culture. … He 'thanked God,' when he
       heard of the death of the Cardinal of Amboise, 'that now he
       was Pope alone!' … He at once set himself to secure the
       Swiss, and found a ready and capable agent in Matthew
       Schynner, Bishop of Sion in the Valais. … Bishop Schynner
       was rewarded for this traffic with a cardinal's hat. And now,
       deprived by death of the guiding hand [of Cardinal d'Amboise],
       Louis XII. began to follow a difficult and dangerous line of
       policy: he called a National Council at Tours, and laid before
       it, as a case of conscience, the question whether he might
       make war on the Pope. The Council at once declared for the
       King, distinguishing, as well they might under Julius II.,
       between the temporal and the spiritual in the Papacy, and
       declaring that any papal censure that might be launched would
       be null and void. Above all, an appeal was made to a General
       Council. … Meanwhile war went on in Italy. A broadly-planned
       attack on the Milanese, on Genoa, and Ferrara, concerted by
       Julius II. with the Venetians and Swiss, had come to nothing.
       Now the warlike pontiff—one knows his grim face from
       Raphael's picture, and his nervous grasp of the arms of his
       chair, as though he were about to spring forward into
       action—took the field in person. At Bologna he fell ill; they
       thought he would die; and Chaumont of Amboise was marching up
       with the French at his heels to surround and take him there.
       But by skilful treating with the French general Julius gained
       time, till a strong force of Venetians had entered Bologna.
       Then the Pope rose from his sick-bed, in the dead of winter,
       1511, and marched out to besiege Mirandola," which
       capitulated. "Bayard soon after attacked him, and all but took
       him prisoner. A congress at Mantua followed: but the Pope
       sternly refused to make terms with the French: the war must go
       on. Then Louis took a dangerous step. He convoked an
       ecclesiastical council at Pisa, and struck a medal to express
       his contempt and hatred for Julius II. … The Pope had gone
       back to Rome, and Bologna had opened her gates to the French;
       the coming council, which should depose Julius, was proclaimed
       through Northern Italy. But, though the moment seemed
       favourable, nothing but a real agreement of the European
       powers could give success to such a step. And how far men were
       from such an agreement Louis was soon to learn; for Julius,
       finding that the French did not invade the States of the
       Church, resumed negociations with such success that in October
       1511 a 'Holy League' was formed between the Pope, Venice,
       Ferdinand of Aragon, and Henry VIII. of England. Maximilian
       wavered and doubted; the Swiss were to be had—on payment. At
       first Louis showed a bold front; in spite of this strange
       whirl of the wheel of politics from the League of Cambrai to
       the Holy League, he persevered, giving the command of Milan to
       his nephew, Gaston of Foix, Duke of Nemours, a man of 23
       years, the most promising of his younger captains. He relieved
       Bologna, seized Brescia, and pillaged it [1512]; and then
       pushed on to attack Ravenna; it is said that the booty of
       Brescia was so great that the French soldiers, having made
       their fortunes, deserted in crowds, and left the army much
       weakened. With this diminished force Gaston found himself
       caught between the hostile walls of Ravenna, and a relieving
       force of Spaniards, separated from him only by a canal. The
       Spaniards, after their usual way of warfare, made an
       entrenched camp round their position. The French first tried
       to take the city by assault; but being driven back, determined
       to attack the Spanish camp." They made the assault [on Easter
       Day, 1512] and took the camp, with great slaughter; but in his
       reckless pursuit of the retreating enemy Gaston de Foix was
       slain. "The death of the young Prince more than balanced the
       great victory of the day: for with Gaston, as Guicciardini
       says, perished all the vigour of the French army. … Though
       Ravenna was taken, the French could no longer support
       themselves. Their communications with Milan were threatened by
       the Swiss: they left garrisons in the strong places and fell
       back. The council of Pisa also had to take refuge at Milan.
       When the Swiss came down from their mountain-passes to restore
       the Sforza dynasty, the harassed council broke up from Milan,
       and fled to Lyons; there it lingered a while, but it had
       become contemptible; anon it vanished into thin air. The Pope
       retook Bologna, Parma, Piacenza; the Medici returned to
       Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569]; Maximilian Sforza
       was re-established [see MILAN: A. D. 1512], while the Grisons
       Leagues received the Valteline as their reward: the English
       annoyed the coast without any decisive result. … Ferdinand
       seized Navarre, which henceforward became Spanish to the
       Pyrenees.
    {1838}
       Before winter, not one foot of Italian soil remained to the
       French. Julius II., the formidable centre of the Alliance,
       died at this moment (1513). … The allies secured the
       election of a Medicean Pope, Leo X., a pontiff hostile to
       France, and certain not to reverse that side of his
       predecessor's policy. … Louis, finding himself menaced on
       every side, suddenly turned about and offered his friendship
       to Venice. … Natural tendencies overbore all resentments on
       both sides, and a treaty between them both guaranteed the
       Milanese to Louis and gave him a strong force of Venetian
       soldiers. Meanwhile, Ferdinand had come to terms with
       Maximilian and boyish Henry VIII., who … had framed a scheme
       for the overthrow of France. The French king, instead of
       staying at home to defend his frontiers, was eager to retake
       Milan, and to join hands with the Venetians. … But the Swiss
       round Maximilian Sforza defended him without fear or
       treachery; and catching the French troops under La Trémoille
       in a wretched position not far from Novara, attacked and
       utterly defeated them (1513). The French withdrew beyond the
       Alps; the Venetians were driven off with great loss by the
       Spaniards, who ravaged their mainland territories down to the
       water's edge. For the short remainder of his life Louis XII.
       had no leisure again to try his fortunes in Italy: he was too
       busy elsewhere."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 2, book 2, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Villari,
          Life and Times of Machiavelli,
          book 1, chapters 12-14 (volume 3).

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy,
          book 5, chapters 15-16 (volume 4).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
          from 1494 to 1514,
          book 2, chapter 3.

          Sir R. Comyn,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapters 37-38 (volume 2).

          L. Larchey,
          History of Bayard,
          book 2, chapters 21-44.

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 2, chapter 9 (volume 4).

    ITALY: A. D. 1515-1516.
       Invasion and reconquest of Milan by Francis I.
       His treaty with the Pope.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

    ITALY: A. D. 1516-1517.
       Abortive attempt against Milan by the Emperor, Maximilian.
       His peace with Venice and surrender of Verona.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

    ITALY: A. D. 1520-1542.
       Early Reformation movements
       and their want of popular support.
       The Council of Trent.

             See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

    ITALY: A. D. 1521-1522.
       Re-expulsion of the French from Milan.
       The treason of the Constable Bourbon.
       His appointment to the command of the Imperial army.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

    ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
       The double dealings of Pope Clement VII.
       Invasion of Milanese by Francis I. and his defeat and capture
       at Pavia.
       The Holy League against Charles V.
       The attack on Rome by Constable Bourbon.

       Giulio de' Medici, natural son of Guiliano de' Medici, and
       cousin of Leo X., had succeeded Adrian VI. in the Papacy in
       1523, under the name of Clement VII. "Nothing could have been
       more unfortunate than the new Pope's first steps on the
       zig-zag path which he proposed to follow. Becoming alarmed at
       the preponderating power of Charles [the Fifth, Emperor, King
       of Spain and Naples; Duke of Burgundy, and ruler of all the
       Netherlands, in 1524 be entered into a league with Francis
       [the First, king of France];

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

       but scarcely had this been concluded when the memorable battle
       of Pavia resulting in the entire defeat of the French, on the
       24th of February, 1525, and the captivity of the French king,
       frightened him back again into seeking anew the friendship of
       Charles, in April of that year.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525

       Each of these successive treaties was of course duly sworn to
       and declared inviolable; but it could hardly be expected that
       he who exercised the power of annulling other men's oaths
       would submit to be bound by his own, when the observance of
       them became inconvenient. Clement accordingly was not
       prevented by the solemn treaty of April, 1525, from conspiring
       against his new ally in the July following. The object of this
       conspiracy was to induce Ferdinando Francesco d'Avalos,
       Marquis of Pescara, who commanded the army of Charles V.
       before Milan, to revolt against his sovereign, and join the
       Italians in an attempt to put an end for ever to Spanish sway
       in Italy. … But the Spanish general had no sooner secured
       clear evidence of the plans of the conspirators, by pretending
       to listen to their proposals, than he reported the whole to
       Charles. The miscarriage of this scheme, and the exposure
       consequent upon it, necessarily threw the vacillating and
       terrified Pontiff once more into the arms of Francis. 'The
       Most Christian'—as the old Italian historians often
       elliptically call the Kings of France—obtained his release
       from his Madrid prison by promising on oath, on the 17th of
       January, 1526, all that Charles, driving a hard bargain, chose
       to demand of him.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

       And Clement hastened to prove the sincerity of his renewed
       friendship by a professional contribution to the success of
       their new alliance, in the welcome shape of a plenary
       absolution from all observance of the oaths so sworn. … On
       the 22nd of May following [at Cognac], the Pope entered into a
       formal league with Francis [called 'Holy' for the reason that
       the Pope was a party to it]. Venice joined her troops to those
       of the Ecclesiastical States, and they marched together to the
       support of the Milanese, who had risen in revolt against the
       Emperor. Assistance had also been promised by Henry of
       England, who had stipulated, however, that he should not be
       named as a party to the alliance, but only considered as its
       protector. This was the most strenuous and most united attempt
       Italy had yet made to rid herself of the domination of the
       stranger, and patriotic hopes beat high in several Italian
       hearts. … It may be easily imagined that the 'Most Catholic'
       monarch [Charles V.] felt towards Clement at this time in a
       manner which led him to distinguish very nicely between the
       infallible head of the universal Church and the sovereign of
       the Ecclesiastical States. … Though he retained the utmost
       respect and reverence for the vicegerent of heaven, he thought
       that a little correction administered to the sovereign of Rome
       would not be amiss, and nothing could be easier than to find
       means ready to his hand for the infliction of it. The Colonnas
       were of course ready for a rebellion on the slightest
       encouragement. … So when Don Ugo di Moncada, Charles's
       general at Naples, proposed to the Colonnas to join him in a
       little frolic at Clement's expense, the noble and most
       reverend members of that powerful family jumped at the
       proposal. … The united forces of the Viceroy and the
       Colonnas accordingly one morning entered Rome, altogether
       without opposition, and marched at once to the Vatican.
    {1839}
       They completely sacked, not only the Pope's palace, and the
       residences of many gentlemen and prelates, but also, says the
       historian [Varchi], 'with unheard-of avarice and impiety,'
       robbed the sacristy of St. Peter of everything it contained.
       Clement had barely time to escape into the castle of St.
       Angelo; but as he found there neither soldiers nor ammunition,
       nor even food for above three days, … he consented to a
       treaty by which the Pope agreed to pardon the Colonnas freely
       for all they had done against him; to take no steps to revenge
       himself on them; to withdraw his troops from Lombardy; and to
       undertake nothing in any way, or under any pretext, against
       the Emperor." As a hostage for the fulfilment of this treaty,
       Pope Clement gave his dear friend Filippo Strozzi; but no
       sooner was he delivered from his captors than he hired seven
       "black companies" of adventurers and 2,000 Swiss, and began a
       furious war of extermination upon the Colonnas and all their
       dependents. At the same time he wrote private letters to the
       heads of his "Holy League," "warning them to pay no heed to
       any statement respecting a treaty made by him with the
       Emperor, and assuring them of his intention to carry on the
       war with the utmost energy." A little later, however, this
       remarkable Holy Father found it convenient to make another
       treaty with the Viceroy of Naples, for the release of his
       friend Strozzi, which bound him still more to friendly
       relations with the Emperor. This latter treaty, of March,
       1527, "would seem in some sort to imply the reconciliation
       once again of the Pope and the Emperor." But Charles had
       already set forces in motion for the chastisement of the
       faithless Pope and his allies, which either he could not or
       did not care to arrest. "The Constable Bourbon, whom the gross
       injustice of Francis I., and the intolerable persecution of
       his infamous mother, Louise de Savoie, had driven to abandon
       his country and allegiance [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], …
       was now … marching southwards, with the imperial troops, to
       chastise the different members of the League against the
       Emperor, which Clement, as has been seen, had formed. George
       Frundsberg, a German leader of reputation, had also crossed
       the Alps with 15,000 men,—'all Lutherans and Lanzknechts,' as
       the Italians write with horror and dismay,—and had joined
       these forces to the Spaniards under Bourbon. … The combined
       force was in all respects more like a rabble rout of brigands
       and bandits than an army; and was assuredly such as must, even
       in those days, have been felt to be a disgrace to any
       sovereign permitting them to call themselves his soldiers.
       Their pay was, as was often the case with the troops of
       Charles V., hopelessly in arrear, and discipline was of course
       proportionably weak among them. … The progress southward of
       this bandit army … filled the cities exposed to their inroad
       with terror and dismay. They had passed like a destroying
       locust swarm over Bologna and Imola, and crossing the
       Apennines, which separate Umbria from Tuscany, had descended
       into the valley of the Arno not far from Arezzo. Florence and
       Rome both trembled. On which would the storm burst? That was
       the all-absorbing question. Pope Clement, with his usual
       avarice-blinded imbecility, had, immediately on concluding the
       above-mentioned treaty with the Neapolitan viceroy, discharged
       all his troops except a body-guard of about 600 men. Florence
       was nearly in as defenceless a position"; but a small army of
       the League, under the Duke of Urbino, was at Incisa, and it
       was "probably the presence of this army, little as it had
       hitherto done to impede the progress of the enemy, which
       decided Bourbon eventually to determine on marching towards
       Rome. It seems doubtful how far they were in so doing,
       executing the orders, or carrying out the wishes, of the
       Emperor. … Upon the whole we are warranted in supposing that
       Bourbon and Frundsberg would hardly have ventured on the
       course they took, if they had not had reason to believe that
       it would not much displease their master. … On the 5th of
       May [1527] Bourbon arrived beneath the walls of Rome. … On
       the evening of the 6th of May the city was stormed and given
       over to the unbridled cupidity and brutality of the soldiers.
       … Bourbon himself had fallen in the first moments of the
       attack."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 10, chapter 3 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          T. A. Trollope,
          Filippo Strozzi,
          chapter 7.

          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 4 (volume 2).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 4, chapters 1-3.

    ITALY: A. D. 1527.
       The Sack of Rome by the Spanish and German Imperialists.

       "Bourbon fell at the first assault; but by evening the Vatican
       suburb was in the hands of the enemy. Clement, who was even
       best informed of the state of things, had not anticipated such
       an issue. He scarcely saved himself by flight from the Vatican
       to the castle of St. Angelo, whither the fugitive population
       hurried, as the shipwrecked crew of an entire fleet hastens to
       a single boat which cannot receive them. In the midst of the
       thronging stream of men, the portcullis was lowered. Whoever
       remained without was lost. Benvenuto Cellini was at that time
       in Rome, and was among the defenders of the walls. He boasted
       that his ball had destroyed Bourbon. He stole fortunately into
       the citadel, before it was closed, and entered the Pope's
       service as bombardier. Even at this last moment, Clement might
       have saved Rome itself, which, situated on the opposite shore
       of the river, had not yet been entered by the enemy. They
       offered to spare it for a ransom; but finding this too high,
       and awaiting hourly Urbino's army, to which, though nothing
       was yet to be seen of it, he looked as a deliverer in the time
       of need, he would hear nothing of it. And thus the undefended
       city fell into the hands of the imperialists. Almost without
       resistance they entered Trastevere, a small quarter of the
       city lying to the west of the Tiber; and then crossing the
       bridges, which no one had demolished, they pressed forwards
       into the heart of Rome. It was the depth of the night.
       Benvenuto Cellini was stationed on the tower of the castle of
       St. Angelo, at the foot of the colossal angel, and saw the
       flames bursting forth in the darkness, and heard the sorrowful
       cry all around. For it was late before the soldiers began to
       cast off all restraint. They had entered quietly. The Germans
       stood in battalions. But when they saw the Spaniards broken up
       and plundering, the desire was aroused in them also; and now a
       spirit of emulation appeared, as to which nation could outdo
       the other in cruelty. The Spaniards, it is asserted by
       impartial Italians, carried the day.
    {1840}
       There had been no siege, no bombardment, no flight of any
       great extent; but as if the earth had opened, and had
       disgorged a legion of devils, so suddenly came these hosts.
       Everything was in a moment abandoned to them. We must
       endeavour to conceive what kind of men these German soldiers
       were. They formed an intermediate class between the prime and
       the refuse of the people. Gathered together by the hope of
       booty, indifferent what end was assigned them, rendered wild
       by hunger and tardy pay, left without a master after the death
       of their commander, they found themselves unrestrained in the
       most luxurious city of the world—a city abounding with gold
       and riches, and at the same time decried for centuries in
       Germany, as the infernal nest of the popes, who lived there as
       incarnate devils, in the midst of their Babylonian doings. The
       opinion that the pope of Rome, and Clement VII. in particular,
       was the devil, prevailed not only in Germany, but in Italy and
       in Rome the people called him so. In the midst of plague and
       famine he had doubled the taxes and raised the price of bread.
       What with the Romans, however, was an invective arising from
       indignation, was an article of faith among the Germans. They
       believed they had to do with the real antichrist, whose
       destruction would be a benefit to Christendom. We must
       remember, if we would understand this fury of the German
       soldiery, in whose minds, as in those of all Germans, Lutheran
       ideas at that time prevailed, how Rome had been preached and
       written upon in the north. The city was represented to people
       as a vast abyss of sin; the men as villains, from the lowest
       up to the cardinals; the women as courtesans; the business of
       all as deceit, theft, and murder; and the robbing and deluding
       of men that had for centuries been emanating from Rome, was
       regarded as the universal disease from which the world was
       languishing. Thither for centuries the gold of Germany had
       flowed; there had emperors been humbled or poisoned; from Rome
       every evil had sprung. And thus, while satiating themselves
       with rapine and murder, they believed a good work was being
       done for the welfare of Christendom, and for the avenge of
       Germany. Never, however—this we know—does the nature of man
       exhibit itself more beast-like, than when it becomes furious
       for the sake of ideas of the highest character. Before the
       castle of St. Angelo, which, carefully fortified with walls
       and fosses, alone afforded resistance, the German soldiers
       proclaimed Martin Luther as pope. Luther's name was at that
       time a war-cry against pope and priestcraft. The rude
       multitude surmised not what Luther desired when he attacked
       the papacy. In front of St. Peter's church, they represented
       an imitation of the papal election with the sacred garments
       and utensils. They compelled one priest to give extreme
       unction to a dying mule. One protested that he would not rest
       until he had consumed a piece of the pope's flesh. It is true,
       Italians for the most part relate this, but the German reports
       themselves do not deny the excessive barbarity which was
       permitted. Ten millions of precious metal was carried away.
       How much blood did this money involve, and what was done to
       those from whom it was taken? Fewer were put to death than
       were plundered, says one of the records, but what does that
       imply? It is true, the Germans often quarrelled with the
       Spaniards, because the horrors which they saw them practise
       were too terrible for them. Otherwise the sparing of human
       life was less an act of clemency than of covetousness.
       Prisoners of war were at that time regarded as slaves; they
       were carried away as personal property, or a ransom was
       extorted. … This system was carried to a great pitch in
       Rome. The possessors of palaces were obliged to purchase their
       ransom, the Spanish cardinals as well as the Italian—no
       difference was made. Thus at least escape was possible. …
       And as the people were treated, so were the things. Upon the
       inlaid marble floor of the Vatican, where the Prince of Orange
       took up his abode—the command of the army devolving upon him
       after Bourbon's death—the soldiers lighted their fire. The
       splendid stained glass windows, executed by William of
       Marseilles, were broken for the sake of the lead. Raphael's
       tapestries were pronounced excellent booty; in the paintings
       on the walls the eyes were put out; and valuable documents
       were given as straw to the horses which stood in the Sistine
       Chapel. The statues in the streets were thrown down; the
       images of the Mother of God in the churches were broken to
       pieces. For six months the city thus remained in the power of
       the soldiery, who had lost all discipline, Pestilence and
       famine appeared. Rome had more than 90,000 inhabitants under
       Leo X.; when Clement VII. returned a year after the conquest,
       scarcely a third of that number then existed—poor, famished
       people, who had remained behind, because they knew not whither
       to turn. All this lay on the conscience of the man who now for
       months had been condemned to look down upon this misery from
       the castle of St. Angelo, in which the Spaniards held him
       completely blockaded, and where pestilence and want of
       provisions appeared just as much as down below in Rome. At
       last, after waiting day after day, he saw Urbino's army
       approaching from afar: their watch-fires were to be perceived;
       and every moment he expected that the duke would attack and
       deliver the city. But he moved not. It is thought he intended
       now to avenge the rapine which the Medici under Leo. X. had
       carried on against him. … After having rested for some time
       in sight of the city, in which the imperialists had opened
       their intrenchments round the castle of St. Angelo for a
       regular siege, he withdrew back again to the north, and left
       the pope to his fate."

          H. Grimm,
          Life of Michael Angelo,
          chapter 10, section 3 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Benvenuto Cellini,
          Life,
          translated by J. A. Symonds,
          book 1, sections 34-38 (volume 1).

          Benvenuto Cellini,
          Life,
          translated by T. Roscoe,
          chapter 7.

          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          chapter 25 (volume 2).

    ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
       Siege and captivity of the Pope.
       New league against the Emperor.
       French invasion and disastrous siege of Naples.
       Genoese independence recovered.
       Treaties of Barcelona and Cambrai.
       Francis renounces all pretensions beyond the Alps.
       Charles V. supreme.

       Shut up in Castle St. Angelo, the Pope, Clement VII.,
       "deprived of every resource, and reduced to such extremity of
       famine as to feed on asses' flesh, was obliged to capitulate
       on such conditions as the conquerors were pleased to
       prescribe. He agreed to pay 400,000 ducats to the army; to
       surrender to the emperor all the places of strength belonging
       to the Church; and, besides giving hostages, to remain a
       prisoner himself until the chief articles were performed. …
       The account of this extraordinary and unexpected event was no
       less surprising than agreeable to the emperor.
    {1841}
       But in order to conceal his joy from his subjects, who were
       filled with horror at the success and crimes of their
       countrymen, and to lessen the indignation of the rest of
       Europe, he declared that Rome had been assaulted without any
       order from him. He wrote to all the princes with whom he was
       in alliance, disclaiming his having had any knowledge of
       Bourbon's intention. He put himself and court into mourning;
       commanded the rejoicings which had been ordered for the birth
       of his son Philip to be stopped; and, employing an artifice no
       less hypocritical than gross, he appointed prayers and
       processions throughout all Spain for the recovery of the
       pope's liberty, which, by an order to his generals, he could
       have immediately granted him. … Francis and Henry [of France
       and England], alarmed at the progress of the imperial arms in
       Italy, had, even before the taking of Rome, entered into a
       closer alliance; and, in order to give some check to the
       emperor's ambition, had agreed to make a vigorous diversion in
       the Low Countries. The force of every motive which had
       influenced them at that time was now increased; and to these
       was added the desire of rescuing the pope out of the emperor's
       hands, a measure no less politic than it appeared to be pious.
       This, however, rendered it necessary to abandon their hostile
       intentions against the Low Countries, and to make Italy the
       seat of war. … Besides all … public considerations, Henry
       was influenced by one of a more private nature: having begun,
       about this time, to form his great scheme of divorcing
       Catharine of Aragon, towards the execution of which he knew
       that the sanction of papal authority would be necessary, he
       was desirous to acquire as much merit as possible with
       Clement, by appearing to be the chief instrument of his
       deliverance. … Henry … entered so eagerly into this new
       alliance, that, in order to give Francis the strongest proof
       of his friendship and respect, he formally renounced the
       ancient claim of the English monarchs to the crown of France,
       which had long been the pride and ruin of the nation; as a
       full compensation for which he accepted a pension of 50,000
       crowns, to be paid annually to himself and his successors. The
       pope, being unable to fulfil the conditions of his
       capitulation, still remained a prisoner. … The Florentines
       no sooner heard of what had happened at Rome, than they ran to
       arms … and, declaring themselves a free state, reëstablished
       their ancient popular government.

          See FLORENCE: A. D.1502-1569.

       The Venetians, taking advantage of the calamity of their ally,
       the pope, seized Ravenna, and other places belonging to the
       church, under pretext of keeping them in deposite." On the
       other hand, Lannoy, Charles' viceroy at Naples, "marched to
       Rome, together with Moncada and the Marquis del Guasto, at the
       head of all the troops which they could assemble in the
       kingdom of Naples. The arrival of this reinforcement brought
       new calamities on the unhappy citizens of Rome; for the
       soldiers, envying the wealth of their companions, imitated
       their license, and with the utmost rapacity gathered the
       gleanings which had escaped the avarice of the Spaniards and
       Germans. There was not now any army in Italy capable of making
       head against the imperialists." But the troops who had enjoyed
       months of license and riotous pillage in Rome could not be
       brought back to discipline, and refused to quit the perishing
       city. They had chosen for their general the Prince of Orange,
       who "was obliged to pay more attention to their humours than
       they did to his commands. … This gave the king of France and
       the Venetians leisure to form new schemes, and to enter into
       new arrangements for delivering the pope, and preserving the
       liberties of Italy. The newly-restored republic of Florence
       very imprudently joined with them, and Lautrec … was …
       appointed generalissimo of the league. … The best troops in
       France marched under his command; and the king of England,
       though he had not yet declared war against the emperor,
       advanced a considerable sum towards carrying on the
       expedition. Lautrec's first operations [1527] were prudent,
       vigorous and successful. By the assistance of Andrew Doria,
       the ablest sea-officer of that age, he rendered himself master
       of Genoa, and reëstablished in that republic the faction of
       the Fregosi, together with the dominion of France. He obliged
       Alexandria to surrender after a short siege, and reduced all
       the country on that side of the Tessino. He took Pavia, which
       had so long resisted the arms of his sovereign, by assault,
       and plundered it with … cruelty. … But Lautrec durst not
       complete a conquest which would have been so honourable to
       himself and of such advantage to the league. Francis … was
       afraid that, if Sforza were once reëstablished in Milan, they
       [his confederates] would second but coldly the attack which he
       intended to make on the kingdom of Naples. … Happily the
       importunities of the pope and the solicitations of the
       Florentines, the one for relief, and the other for protection,
       were so urgent as to furnish him with a decent pretext for
       marching forward. … While Lautrec advanced slowly towards
       Rome, the emperor" came to terms with the pope, and Clement
       obtained his liberty at the cost of 350,000 crowns, a tenth of
       the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain, and an agreement to take
       no part in the war against Charles. The latter next made
       overtures to the French king, offering some relaxation of the
       treaty of Madrid; but they were received in a manner that
       irritated even his cold temper. He, in turn, provoked his
       antagonist, until a ridiculous exchange of defiances to
       personal combat passed between them. Meantime "Lautrec
       continued his operations, which promised to be more decisive.
       His army, which was now increased to 35,000 men, advanced by
       great marches towards Naples." The remains of the imperial
       army retreated, as he advanced, from Rome, where it had held
       riot for ten months, and took shelter behind the
       fortifications of the Neapolitan capital. Lautrec undertook
       (April, 1528) the siege of Naples, with the co-operation of
       the Genoese admiral, Doria, who blockaded its port. But he was
       neglected by his own frivolous king, and received little aid
       from the Pope, the king of England, or other confederates of
       the league. Moreover, Doria and the Genoese suffered treatment
       so insolent, oppressive and threatening, from the French court
       that the former opened negotiations with the emperor for a
       transfer of his services. "Charles, fully sensible of the
       importance of such an acquisition, granted him whatever terms
       he required.
    {1842}
       Doria sent back his commission, together with the collar of
       St. Michael, to Francis, and, hoisting the imperial colours,
       sailed with all his galleys towards Naples, not to block up
       the harbour of that unhappy city, as he had formerly engaged,
       but to bring them protection and deliverance. His arrival
       opened the communication with the sea, and restored plenty in
       Naples, which was now reduced to the last extremity; and the
       French … were soon reduced to great straits for want of
       provisions." With the heat of summer came pestilence; Lautrec
       died, and the wasted French army, attempting to retreat, was
       forced to lay down its arms and march under guard to the
       frontiers of France. "The loss of Genoa followed immediately
       upon the ruin of the army in Naples." Doria took possession of
       the town; the French garrison in the citadel capitulated
       (September 12, 1528), and the citadel was destroyed. "It was
       now in Doria's power to have rendered himself the sovereign of
       his country, which he had so happily delivered from
       oppression." But he magnanimously refused any preeminence
       among his fellow citizens. "Twelve persons were elected to
       new-model the constitution of the republic. The influence of
       Doria's virtue and example communicated itself to his
       countrymen; the factions which had long torn and ruined the
       state seemed to be forgotten; prudent precautions were taken
       to prevent their reviving; and the same form of government
       which hath subsisted with little variation since that time in
       Genoa, was established with universal applause." In Lombardy,
       the French army, under St. Pol, was surprised, defeated and
       ruined at Landriano (June, 1529), as completely as the army in
       Naples had been a few months before. All parties were now
       desirous of peace, but feared to seem too eager in making
       overtures. Two women took the negotiations in hand and carried
       them to a conclusion. "These were Margaret of Austria,
       dutchess dowager of Savoy, the emperor's aunt, and Louise,
       Francis's mother. They agreed on an interview at Cambray, and,
       being lodged in two adjoining houses, between which a
       communication was opened, met together without ceremony or
       observation, and held daily conferences, to which no person
       whatever was admitted." The result was a treaty signed August
       5, 1529, known as the Peace of Cambray, or "the Ladies'
       Peace," or "Peace of the Dames." By its terms, Francis was to
       pay 2,000,000 crowns for the ransom of his sons; restore such
       towns as he still held in the Milanese; resign and renounce
       his pretensions to Naples, Milan, Genoa, and every other place
       beyond the Alps, as well as to Flanders and Artois; and
       consummate his marriage with the emperor's sister, Eleanora.
       On the other hand, the emperor only agreed not to press his
       claims on Burgundy, for the present, but reserved them, in
       full force. Another treaty, that of Barcelona, had already, in
       1529, been concluded between the emperor and the pope. The
       former gave up the papal states which he occupied, and agreed
       to reëstablish the dominion of the Medici in Florence; besides
       giving his natural daughter in marriage to Alexander, the head
       of that family. In return he received the investiture of
       Naples, absolution for all concerned in the plundering of
       Rome, and the grant to himself and his brother of a fourth of
       the ecclesiastical revenues throughout their dominions.

          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          books 4-5.

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 28.

          C. Coignat,
          Francis I. and his Times,
          chapter 9.

          G. B. Malleson,
          Studies from Genoese History,
          chapter 1.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1528-1570.
       Naples under the Spanish Viceroys.
       Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
       Successful revolt against the Inquisition.
       Unsuccessful French invasion under Guise.

       "After the memorable and unfortunate expedition of Lautrec, in
       1528, Philibert of Chalons, Prince of Orange, who commanded
       the Imperial army, exercised the severest vengeance [in
       Naples] on the persons and estates of all those nobles who had
       joined the French, or who appeared to demonstrate any
       attachment towards that nation. … These multiplied … acts
       of oppression received no effectual redress during the short
       administration [1529-1532] of Cardinal Colonna, who succeeded
       to the Prince of Orange. … In the place of Cardinal Colonna
       was substituted Don Pedro de Toledo, who governed Naples with
       almost unlimited powers, during the space of near 21 years.
       His viceroyalty, which forms a memorable Epocha in the annals
       of the country, demands and fixes attention. We are impressed
       with horror at finding, by his own confession, … that during
       the progress of his administration, he put to death near
       18,000 persons, by the hand of the executioner. Yet a fact
       still more extraordinary is that Giannoné, himself a
       Neapolitan, and one of the ablest as well as most impartial
       historians whom the 18th century has produced, not only
       acquits, but even commends Toledo's severity, as equally
       wholesome and necessary," on account of the terrible
       lawlessness and disorder which he found in the country. "The
       inflexible and stern character of the viceroy speedily
       redressed these grievances, and finally restored order in the
       capital. … All the provinces experienced equal attention,
       and became the objects of his personal inspection. The
       unprotected coasts of Calabria and of Apulia, subject to the
       continual devastation of the Turks, who landed from their
       gallies, were fortified with towers and beacons to announce
       the enemy's approach. … Repeated attempts were made by
       Solyman II., Emperor of the Turks, either alone or in
       conjunction with the fleets of France, to effect the conquest
       of Naples, during this period: but the exertions of Toledo
       were happily attended with success in repulsing the Turkish
       invaders. … In no part of the middle ages … were the
       coasts of Naples and Sicily so frequently plundered, ravaged,
       and desolated, as at this period. Thousands of persons of both
       sexes, and of all conditions, were carried off by Barbarossa,
       Dragut, Sinan, and the other Bashaws, or admirals of the
       Porte. Not content with landing on the shores and ravaging the
       provinces, their squadrons perpetually appeared in sight of
       Naples; laid waste the islands of Ischia and Procida, situate
       in its immediate vicinity; attacked the towns of Pouzzoli and
       Baiæ; and committed every outrage of wanton barbarity. … The
       invasion of 1552, when Dragut blocked up the harbour of
       Naples, with 150 large gallies, during near four weeks, spread
       still greater consternation; and if the fleet of France had
       arrived, as had been concerted, it is more than probable that
       the city must have fallen into their hands. But the delays of
       Henry II., Solyman's ally, proved its preservation. The
       Turkish admiral, corrupted by a present of 200,000 ducats,
       which the Viceroy found means of conveying to him, retired and
       made sail for Constantinople. …
    {1843}
       The administration of Toledo … was … completely subverted
       from the moment that he attempted [1546] to introduce the
       Inquisition. … The Neapolitans, patient under every other
       species of oppression, instantly revolted. … They even
       forgot, in the general terror, the distinction of ranks; and
       the Barons united with their fellow-citizens to oppose that
       formidable tribunal. The Viceroy, returning to the capital,
       reinforced by 3,000 veteran Spaniards, determined
       nevertheless, to support the measure. Hostilities took place,
       and the city, during near three months, was abandoned to
       anarchy, while the inhabitants, having invested the castle,
       besieged their governor. … The Emperor, convinced by
       experience of the impracticability of success in his attempt,
       at length desisted." Toledo died in 1553, and "was succeeded
       by the Cardinal Pacheco, as Viceroy; and the abdication of
       Charles V., in the following year, devolved on his son Philip
       II. the sovereignty of Naples. Alarmed at the preparations
       made by Henry II., King of France, in conjunction with Paul
       IV., who had newly ascended the papal throne, Philip
       dispatched Ferdinand, Duke of Alva, to the aid of his
       Neapolitan subjects; and to the vigorous measures embraced by
       him on his arrival was due the safety of the kingdom.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

       … The administration of the Duke of Alcala, to whom Philip
       delegated the supreme power soon after the recall of Alva
       [1558], lasted near 12 years, and was marked by almost every
       species of calamity."

          Sir N. W. Wraxall,
          History of France, 1574-1610,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

       "The march of the Mareschal of Lautrec was the last important
       attempt of the French to reconquer Naples. … Spain remained
       in possession of this beautiful country for two centuries. …
       Their [the Spaniards'] ascendancy was owing as well to an iron
       discipline as to that inveterate character of their race, the
       firmness of purpose which had gradually developed itself in
       the long struggle for the country which they wrenched inch by
       inch from their tenacious enemies. The Neapolitans found that
       they had in the Spaniards different rulers from the French."

          A. de Reumont,
          The Carafas of Maddaloni:
          Naples under Spanish Dominion,
          book 1.

    ITALY: A. D. 1529.
       Siege of Florence by the Imperial forces.
       Reinstatement of the Medici.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

    ITALY: A. D. 1530-1600.
       Under the Spanish domination, and the Papacy of the
       Counter-Reformation.
       The Inquisition.
       The Jesuits.
       The Vice-regal rule.
       Deplorable state of the country.

       "It will be useful, at this point, to recapitulate the net
       results of Charles's administration of Italian affairs in
       1530. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the island of
       Sardinia and the Duchy of Milan, became Spanish provinces, and
       were ruled henceforth by viceroys. The House of Este was
       confirmed in the Duchy of Ferrara, including Modena and
       Reggio. The Duchies of Savoy and Mantua and the Marquisate of
       Montferrat, which had espoused the Spanish cause, were
       undisturbed. Genoa and Siena, both of them avowed allies of
       Spain, the former under Spanish protection, the latter subject
       to Spanish coercion, remained with the name and empty
       privileges of republics. Venice had made her peace with Spain,
       and though she was still strong enough to pursue an
       independent policy, she showed as yet no inclination, and had,
       indeed, no power, to stir up enemies against the Spanish
       autocrat. The Duchy of Urbino, recognised by Rome and
       subservient to Spanish influence, was permitted to exist. The
       Papacy once more assumed a haughty tone, relying on the firm
       alliance struck with Spain. This league, as years went by, was
       destined to grow still closer, still more fruitful of results.
       Florence alone had been excepted from the articles of peace.
       It was still enduring the horrors of the memorable siege when
       Clement left Bologna at the end of May. … Finally, on August
       12, the town capitulated. Alessandro de' Medici, who had
       received the title of Duke of Florence from Charles at
       Bologna, took up his residence there in July 1531, and held
       the State by help of Spanish mercenaries under the command of
       Alessandro Vitelli. … Though the people endured far less
       misery from foreign armies in the period between 1530 and 1600
       than they had done in the period from 1494 to 1527, yet the
       state of the country grew ever more and more deplorable. This
       was due in the first instance to the insane methods of
       taxation adopted by the Spanish viceroys, who held monopolies
       of corn and other necessary commodities in their hands, and
       who invented imposts for the meanest articles of consumption.
       Their example was followed by the Pope and petty princes. …
       The settlement made by Charles V. in 1530, and the various
       changes which took place in the duchies between that date and
       the end of the century, had then the effect of rendering the
       Papacy and Spain omnipotent in Italy. … What they only
       partially effected in Europe at large, by means of S.
       Bartholomew massacres, exterminations of Jews in Toledo and of
       Mussulmans in Granada, holocausts of victims in the Low
       Countries, wars against French Huguenots and German Lutherans,
       naval expeditions and plots against the state of England,
       assassinations of heretic princes, and occasional burning of
       free thinkers, they achieved with plenary success in Italy.
       … It is the tragic history of the eldest and most beautiful,
       the noblest and most venerable, the freest and most gifted of
       Europe's daughters, delivered over to the devilry that issued
       from the most incompetent and arrogantly stupid of the
       European sisterhood, and to the cruelty, inspired by panic, of
       an impious theocracy. When we use these terms to designate the
       Papacy of the Counter-Reformation, it is not that we forget
       how many of those Popes were men of blameless private life and
       serious views for Catholic Christendom. When we use these
       terms to designate the Spanish race in the sixteenth century,
       it is not that we are ignorant of Spanish chivalry and
       colonising enterprise, of Spanish romance, or of the fact that
       Spain produced great painters, great dramatists, and one great
       novelist in the brief period of her glory. We use them
       deliberately, however, in both cases; because the Papacy at
       this period committed itself to a policy of immoral,
       retrograde, and cowardly repression of the most generous of
       human impulses under the pressure of selfish terror; because
       the Spaniards abandoned themselves to a dark fiend of
       religious fanaticism; because they were merciless in their
       conquests and unintelligent in their administration of
       subjugated provinces; because they glutted their lusts of
       avarice and hatred on industrious folk of other creeds within
       their borders; because they cultivated barren pride and
       self-conceit in social life; because at the great epoch of
       Europe's reawakening they chose the wrong side and adhered to
       it with fatal obstinacy. …
    {1844}
       After the year 1530 seven Spanish devils entered Italy. These
       were the devil of the Inquisition, with stake and
       torture-room, and war declared against the will and soul and
       heart and intellect of man; the devil of Jesuitry, with its
       sham learning, shameless lying, and casuistical economy of
       sins; the devil of vice-royal rule, with its life-draining
       monopolies and gross incapacity for government; the devil of
       an insolent soldiery, quartered on the people, clamorous for
       pay, outrageous in their lusts and violences; the devil of
       fantastical taxation, levying tolls upon the bare necessities
       of life, and drying up the founts of national well-being at
       their sources; the devil of petty-princedom, wallowing in
       sloth and cruelty upon a pinchbeck throne; the devil of
       effeminate hidalgoism, ruinous in expenditure, mean and
       grasping, corrupt in private life, in public ostentatious,
       vain of titles, cringing to its masters, arrogant to its
       inferiors. In their train these brought with them seven other
       devils, their pernicious offspring: idleness, disease,
       brigandage, destitution, ignorance, superstition,
       hypocritically sanctioned vice. These fourteen devils were
       welcomed, entertained, and voluptuously lodged in all the
       fairest provinces of Italy. The Popes opened wide for them the
       gates of outraged and depopulated Rome. … After a tranquil
       sojourn of some years in Italy, these devils had every where
       spread desolation and corruption. Broad regions, like the
       Patrimony of S. Peter and Calabria, were given over to
       marauding bandits; wide tracts of fertile country, like the
       Sienese Maremma, were abandoned to malaria; wolves prowled
       through empty villages round Milan; in every city the
       pestilence swept off its hundreds daily; manufactures,
       commerce, agriculture, the industries of town and rural
       district, ceased; the Courts swarmed with petty nobles, who
       vaunted paltry titles, and resigned their wives to cicisbei
       and their sons to sloth; art and learning languished; there
       was not a man who ventured to speak out his thought or write
       the truth; and over the Dead Sea of social putrefaction
       floated the sickening oil of Jesuitical hypocrisy."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
          part 1, chapter 1.

    ITALY: A. D. 1536-1544.
       French invasion of Piedmont.
       French and Turkish siege of Nice.
       Turkish ravages on the coast.
       The Treaty of Crespy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    ITALY: A. D. 1545-1556.
       Creation of the duchy of Parma and Placentia,
       under the rule of the House of Farnese.

          See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

    ITALY: A. D. 1559-1580.
       End of the French occupation of Savoy and Piedmont.
       The notable reign of Emanuel Philibert.

          See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    ITALY: A. D. 1559-1600.
       Peace without Prosperity.
       Foreign and domestic Despotism.
       Exhaustion and helplessness of the country.

       "From the epoch of the treaty of Château Cambresis [1559] to
       the close of the 16th century, Italy remained, in one sense,
       in profound and uninterrupted peace. During this long period
       of 41 years, her provinces were neither troubled by a single
       invasion of foreign armies, nor by any hostilities of
       importance between her own feeble and nerveless powers. But
       this half century presented, nevertheless, anything rather
       than the aspect of public happiness and prosperity. Her
       wretched people enjoyed none of the real blessings of peace.
       Subject either to the oppressive yoke of their native despots,
       or to the more general influence of the arch-tyrant of Spain,
       they were abandoned to all the exactions of arbitrary
       government, and compelled to lavish their blood in foreign
       wars and in quarrels not their own. While France, torn by
       religious and civil dissensions, sank for a time from her
       political station among the powers of the continent, and was
       no longer capable of affording protection or exciting
       jealousy, Philip II. was left free to indulge in the peninsula
       all the obdurate tyranny of his nature. … The popes were
       interested in supporting his career of bigotry and religious
       persecution; the other powers of Italy crouched before him in
       abject submission. To feed the religious wars, in which he
       embarked as a principal or an accessory, in the endeavour to
       crush the protestant cause in France, in the Low Countries,
       and in Germany, he drained Italy of her resources in money and
       in men. … While the Italian soldiery fought with the courage
       of freemen, they continued the slaves of a despot, and while
       the Italian youth were consumed in transalpine warfare, their
       suffering country groaned under an iron yoke, and was
       abandoned a prey to the unresisted assaults of the infidels.
       Her coasts, left without troops, or defences in fortifications
       and shipping, were insulted and ravaged by the constant
       descents of the corsairs of Turkey and Barbary. Her maritime
       villages were burnt, her maritime population dragged off into
       slavery; and her tyrants, while they denied the people the
       power of defending themselves, were unable or careless also to
       afford them protection and safety."

          G. Procter,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 9.

    ITALY: A. D. 1569.
       Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

    ITALY: A. D. 1597.
       Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

    ITALY: A. D. 1605-1607.
       Venice under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
       Successful contest of the Republic with the Papacy.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607;
          and PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

    ITALY: A. D. 1620-1626.
       The Valtelline War.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
       Disputed succession to the Duchy of Mantua.
       War of France with Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.

       "About Christmas in the year 1627, Vincenzo II., Duke of
       Mantua, of the house of Gonzaga, died without issue. His next
       of kin, beyond all controversy, was Charles Gonzaga, Duke of
       Nevers, whose family had settled in France some fifty years
       before, and acquired by marriage the dukedoms of Nevers and
       Rethel. Although there was a jealousy on the part both of
       Austria and Spain that French influences should be introduced
       into Upper Italy, there seems to have been no intention, in
       the first instance, of depriving Charles of his Italian
       inheritance. … But … when the old Duke Vincenzo's days
       were evidently numbered, Charles's son, the young Duke of
       Rethel, by collusion with the citizens, arrived at Mantua to
       seize the throne which in a little while death would make
       vacant."
    {1845}
       At the same time, he took from a convent in the city a young
       girl who represented whatever claims might exist in the direct
       native line, and married her, the pope granting a
       dispensation. "Both the King of Spain and the Emperor … were
       incensed by conduct which both must needs have regarded as
       indicative of hostility, and the latter as an invasion of his
       feudal rights. Spain flew to arms at once. The emperor
       summoned the young duke before his tribunal, to answer the
       charges of having seized the succession without his
       investiture, and married his ward without his consent. …
       Charles, supported by the promises of Richelieu, refused to
       acknowledge the emperor's rights of superiority, or to submit
       to his jurisdiction."

          B. Chapman,
          History of Gustavus Adolphus,
          chapter 8.

       "The emperor … sequestered the disputed territory, and a
       Spanish army invaded Montferrat [embraced in the dominions of
       the Duke of Mantua] and besieged Casale, the capital. Such was
       the paramount importance attached by Richelieu to his
       principle of opposition to the house of Austria, that he
       induced Louis to cross the Alps in person with 36,000 men, in
       order to establish the Duke of Nevers in his new possessions.
       The king and the cardinal forced the pass of Susa in March,
       1629, in spite of the Duke of Savoy, who was another
       competitor for Montferrat, and so decisive was the superiority
       of the French arms that the duke immediately afterward signed
       a treaty of peace and alliance with Louis, by which he
       undertook to procure the abandonment of the siege of Casale
       and the retreat of the Spaniards into their own territory.
       This engagement was fulfilled, and the Duke of Nevers took
       possession of his dominions without farther contest. But the
       triumph was too rapid and easy to be durable."

          N. W. Jervis,
          Students' History of France,
          chapter 19.

       "The Spaniards remained, however, in Milaness, ready to burst
       again upon the Duke of Mantua. The king was in a hurry to
       return to France, in order to finish the subjugation of the
       Reformers in the south, commanded by the Duke of Rohan. The
       cardinal placed little or no reliance upon the Duke of Savoy.
       … A league … was formed between France, the republic of
       Venice, the Duke of Mantua, and the Duke of Savoy, for the
       defence of Italy in case of fresh aggression on the part of
       the Spaniards; and the king, who had just concluded peace with
       England, took the road back to France. Scarcely had the
       cardinal joined him before Privas when an Imperialist army
       advanced into the Grisons and, supported by the celebrated
       Spanish general Spinola, laid siege to Mantua. Richelieu did
       not hesitate: he entered Piedmont in the month of March, 1630,
       to march before long on Pignerol, an important place
       commanding the passage of the Alps; it, as well as the
       citadel, was carried in a few days. … The Duke of Savoy was
       furious, and had the soldiers who surrendered Pignerol cut in
       pieces. The king [Louis XIII.] had put himself in motion to
       join his army. … The inhabitants of Chambéry opened their
       gates to him; Annecy and Montmélian succumbed after a few
       days' siege; Maurienne in its entirety made its submission,
       and the king fixed his quarters there, whilst the cardinal
       pushed forward to Casale [the siege of which had been resumed
       by Spinola] with the main body of the army. Rejoicings were
       still going on for a success gained before Veillane over the
       troops of the Duke of Savoy, when news arrived of the capture
       of Mantua by the Imperialists. This was the finishing blow to
       the ambitious and restless spirit of the Duke of Savoy. He saw
       Mantua in the hands of the Spaniards, 'who never give back
       aught of what falls into their power' … ; it was all hope
       lost of an exchange which might have given him back Savoy; he
       took to his bed and died on the 26th of July, 1630, telling
       his son that peace must be made on any terms whatever." A
       truce was arranged, followed by negotiations at Ratisbon, and
       Casale was evacuated by both parties—the Spaniards having
       had possession of the city, while the citadel was held by the
       French. "It was only in the month of September, 1631, that the
       states of Savoy and Mantua were finally evacuated by the
       hostile troops. Pignerol had been given up to the new Duke of
       Savoy, but a secret agreement had been entered into between
       that prince and France: French soldiers remained concealed in
       Pignerol; and they retook possession of the place in the name
       of the king, who had purchased the town and its territory, to
       secure himself a passage into Italy. … The affairs of the
       emperor in Germany were in too bad a state for him to rekindle
       war, and France kept Pignerol."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 41.

       "The peace left all parties very nearly in the condition in
       which they were when the war began; the chief loser was the
       emperor, who was now compelled to acknowledge De Nevers as
       Duke of Mantua and Montserrat; and the chief gainer was the
       Duke of Savoy, whose territories were enlarged by the addition
       of Alba, Trino, and some portions of the territory of
       Montserrat which lay nearest to his Piedmontese dominions.
       France; too, made some permanent acquisitions to compensate
       her for the cost of the war. She eluded the stipulation which
       bound her to evacuate Casal, and Victor Amedée subsequently
       suffered her to retain both that fortress and Pignerol, such
       permission, as was generally believed, … having furnished
       the secret reason which influenced Richelieu to consent to the
       duke's obtaining the portion of Montserrat already mentioned,
       the cardinal thus making the Duke of Mantua furnish the
       equivalent for the acquisitions made by Louis."

          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    ITALY: A. D. 1631.
       Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

    ITALY: A. D. 1635.
       Italian alliances of Richelieu against the Spaniards in Milan.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
       Invasion of Milanese by French and Italian armies.
       Civil war and foreign war in Savoy and Piedmont.
       The extraordinary siege of Turin.
       Treaty of the Pyrenees.
       Restoration of territory to Savoy.

       "Richelieu … having obtained the alliance of the Dukes of
       Savoy, Parma, and Mantua, and having secured the neutrality of
       the Republics of Venice and Genoa, now bent all his efforts to
       expel the Spaniards from Milan, which was at that time but
       weakly defended. … In 1635, a French army of 15,000 men was
       accordingly assembled in Dauphiny, and placed under the
       command of Mareschal Crequi. Having crossed the Alps, it
       formed a junction with 8,000 troops under the Duke of Parma,
       and 12,000 under the Duke of Savoy, to whom the supreme
       command of this formidable army of 35,000 men was entrusted.
    {1846}
       Such a force, if properly employed, ought to have proved
       sufficient to overwhelm the Dutchy of Milan, in its present
       unprotected condition. … But the confederates were long
       detained by idle disputes among themselves, their
       licentiousness and love of plunder." When they did advance
       into Milanese, their campaign was ineffective, and they
       finally "separated with mutual disgust," but "kept the field,
       ravaging the open and fertile plains of Milan. They likewise
       took possession of several towns, particularly Bremi, on the
       Po. … On hearing of the distress of Milan, the King of Spain
       took immediate steps for the relief of that bulwark of his
       Italian power. In 1636 he appointed to its government Diego
       Guzman, Marques of Leganez, who was a near relative of
       Olivarez. … He had not long entered on the government
       intrusted to him when he succeeded in expelling the enemy from
       every spot in Milan, with exception of Bremi, which they still
       retained. Milan having been thus delivered, Leganez
       transferred the theatre of war to the States of the Duke of
       Parma, and completely desolated those fertile regions,"
       compelling the Duke to renounce his French alliance (1637).
       "The Duke of Savoy, Victor Amadeus, did not long survive these
       events; and it was strongly suspected, both in Spain and
       Italy, though probably on no just grounds, that he had been
       poisoned. … The demise of the Duke of Mantua occurred nearly
       about the same period; and on the decease of these two
       princes, the Court of Spain used every exertion to detach
       their successors from the French confederacy. Its efforts
       succeeded, at least to a certain extent, with the
       Dutchess-dowager of Mantua. … But the Dutchess of Savoy, …
       being the sister of Louis XIII., could not easily be drawn off
       from the French interests. Olivarez [the Spanish minister],
       despairing to gain this princess, excited by his intrigues the
       brothers of the late Duke [Cardinal Maurice and Prince Thomas]
       to dispute with her the title to the regency." Leganez, now
       (1638) laid siege to Bremi, and Marshal Crequi, in attempting
       to relieve the place, was killed by a cannon shot. "By the
       loss of Bremi, the French were deprived of the last receptacle
       for their supplies or forces in the Dutchy of Milan; and in
       consequence of the death of Crequi, they had now no longer any
       chief of their own nation in Italy. The few French nobility
       who were still in the army returned to their own country, and
       the soldiery dispersed into Montferrat and Piedmont. Leganez,
       availing himself of this favourable posture of affairs,
       marched straightway into Piedmont, at the head of an army of
       20,000 men. … He first laid siege to Vercelli, which, from
       its vicinity to Milan, had always afforded easy access for the
       invasion of that dutchy, by the French and Savoyards." A new
       French army, of 13,000 men, under Cardinal La Valette, was
       sent to the relief of the place, but did not save it from
       surrender. "After the capture of Vercelli, the light troops of
       Leganez ravaged the principality of Piedmont as far as the
       gates of Turin."

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoirs of Spain, from 1621 to 1700,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

       Fabert and Turenne were now sent from France to the assistance
       of La Valette, "and soon changed the aspect of affairs.
       Turenne aided powerfully in driving back Leganez and Prince
       Thomas from Turin, in seizing Chivasso and in organizing a
       decisive success." In November, 1639, the French, through want
       of provisions, were forced to retreat to Carignano, repelling
       an attack made upon them in the course of the retreat. The
       command was now handed over to Turenne, "with instructions to
       revictual the citadel of Turin, which was defended by French
       troops against Prince Thomas, who had gained most of the town.
       Turenne succeeded … in conveying food and munitions into the
       citadel. In the following spring d'Harcourt [resuming command]
       undertook to relieve Casale, which belonged to the Duke of
       Mantua. … The place was besieged by Leganez." The attempt
       succeeded, the besieging army was beaten, and the siege
       raised. "After the relief of Casale d'Harcourt resolved, on
       the advice of Turenne, to besiege Turin. The investment was
       made on the 10th May, 1640. This siege offered a curious
       spectacle; the citadel which the French held was besieged by
       Prince Thomas, who held the town. He himself was besieged by
       the French army, which in its turn was besieged in its lines
       of circumvallation by the Spanish army of Leganez. The place
       capitulated on the 17th September. … Prince Thomas
       surrendered; Leganez recrossed the Po; Marie Christine [the
       Dowager-Duchess] re-entered Turin; and d'Harcourt, being
       recalled to France by the cardinal, left the command of the
       army to Turenne."

          H. M. Hozier,
          Turenne,
          chapter 2.

       "The fall of Turin did not put an end to the civil war, but
       its main exploits were limited to the taking of Cuneo by
       Harcourt (September 15th, 1641), … and of Revel, which was
       reduced by the Piedmontese troops who fought on the French
       side. … In the meantime the Regent, no less than her
       opponents, began to grow weary of the burdensome protection of
       their respective allies. … Under such circumstances, a
       reconciliation between the hostile parties became practicable,
       and was indeed effected on the 24th of July, 1642. The Princes
       were admitted to a share of the Regent's power, and from that
       time they joined the French standard, and took from the
       Spaniards most of the places they had themselves placed in
       their hands. … In the meanwhile the great agitator of
       Europe, Richelieu, had died (1642), and had been followed by
       the King, Louis XIII., five months later. … The struggle
       between the two great rival powers, France and Spain, scarcely
       interrupted by the celebrated peace of Westphalia, which put
       an end to the Thirty Years' War in the North, in 1648,
       continued throughout the greatest part of this period; but the
       rapid decline of Spain, the factions of Alessio in Sicily and
       of Massaniello in Naples, as much paralysed the efforts of the
       Court of Madrid as the disorders of the Fronde weakened that
       of Paris. The warlike operations in North Italy were languid
       and dull. The taking of Valenza by the French (September 3rd,
       1656) is the greatest event on record, and even that [was]
       void of results. By the treaty of the Pyrenees (November 17th,
       1059) Savoy was restored to her possessions, and Vercelli was
       evacuated by the Spaniards. The citadel of Turin had been
       given up by the French two years before, owing to the
       influence of Mazarin, who married on that occasion his niece
       Olimpia Mancini to Eugene Maurice, son of Thomas, Prince of
       Carignano, and first cousin to Charles Emanuel II. From that
       union, it is well known, was born in Paris, in 1663, Prince
       Eugene of Savoy.
    {1847}
       The French nation were highly displeased at the loss of the
       Turin citadel, and never forgave the Cardinal this mere act of
       just and tardy restitution. Pinerola and Perosa, however,
       still remained in their hands, and placed the Court of Turin
       entirely at their discretion. During all this lapse of years,
       and until the latter end of the century, the history of
       Piedmont presents but a melancholy blank."

          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

    ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
       French hostility to the Pope.
       Siege of Orbitello.
       Masaniello's revolt at Naples.
       French intrigue and failures.

       "The war [of France and Spain] in Italy had for some years
       languished, but hostility to the Pope [on the election of
       Innocent X., which Cardinal Mazarin, then supreme in France,
       had opposed] stirred it again into life. New vessels were
       fitted out for the navy, and large preparations were made for
       the invasion of Italy. … On April 26, 1646, the expedition
       set sail, and on the 9th of May it cast anchor off the
       important city of Orbitello. The fleet consisted of 156 sail,
       and was expected to land 10,000 men, and Mazarin wrote that
       all Italy was in terror. The ships were commanded by the Duke
       of Brézé, and no more skilful or gallant leader could have
       been found. … The command of the land forces was, however,
       entrusted to a leader whose deficiencies more than
       counterbalanced Brézé's skill. Mazarin desired an Italian
       prince to lead his expedition, and Prince Thomas of Savoy had
       been chosen for the command. … Fearing that disease would
       come with the hot weather, Mazarin urged Prince Thomas to
       press forward with the siege. But the most simple advances
       seemed beyond his skill. … A severe misfortune to the navy
       made the situation worse. In a sharp and successful engagement
       with the Spanish fleet, a cannon ball struck and killed the
       Duke of Brézé. His death was more disastrous than would have
       been the loss of 20 sail. The French fleet retired to Provence
       and left the sea open to the Spanish. Sickness was fast
       reducing the army on land, and on July 18th Prince Thomas
       raised the siege, which was no further advanced than when it
       was begun, and led back the remains of his command to
       Piedmont. … So mortifying an end to this expensive venture
       only strengthened Mazarin's resolution to make his power felt
       in Italy. The battered ships and fever-wasted soldiers were
       scarcely back in Provence, when the minister began to prepare
       a second expedition for the same end. … By September a fleet
       of 200 sail, with an army of 8,000 men commanded by the
       Marshals of La Meilleraie and Du Plessis, was under way. The
       expedition was conducted with skill and success. Orbitello was
       not again attacked, but Porto Longone, on the island of Elba,
       and Piombino, on the mainland, both places of much strategic
       importance, were captured after brief sieges. With this result
       came at once the change in the feelings of Innocent X. for
       which Mazarin had hoped," and certain objects of the latter's
       desire—including a cardinal's hat for his brother
       Michael—were brought within his reach. His attention was now
       turned to the more southerly portion of the peninsula. "During
       the expedition to Orbitello in 1646, Mazarin had closely
       watched Naples, whose coming revolution he foresaw. The
       ill-suppressed discontents of the city now showed themselves
       in disturbances, sudden and erratic as the eruptions of
       Vesuvius, and they offered to France an opportunity for
       seizing the richest of the remaining possessions of Spain.
       After the vicissitudes of centuries, Naples and Sicily were
       now subject to the Spanish crown. They were governed by a
       viceroy, and were subjected to the drain of men and money
       which was the result of Spain's necessities and the
       characteristic of her rule. Burdened with taxation, they
       complained that their viceroy, the Duke of Arcos, was sending
       to Spain money raised solely for their own defence. The
       imposition of a duty on fruits, in a country where fruit
       formed a cheap article of diet for the poor, and where almost
       all were poor, kindled the long smouldering discontent. Under
       the leadership of a fisherman [Tommaso Aniello], nicknamed
       Masaniello, the people of Naples in 1647 rose in revolt.
       Springing from utter obscurity, this young man of
       twenty-seven, poor and illiterate, became powerful almost in a
       day. While the Duke of Arcos hid himself away from the revolt,
       Masaniello was made Captain-General of Naples. So sudden a
       change turned his head. At first he had been bold, popular,
       and judicious. He sought only, he said, to deliver the people
       from their taxes, and when that was done, he would return
       again to selling soles and red mullets. But political delirium
       seized him when he reached an elevation which, for him, was as
       dizzy as the throne of the Roman emperors, and like some who
       reached that terrible eminence, his brain was crazed by the
       bewilderment and ecstasy of power. He made wild and incoherent
       speeches. He tore his garments, crying out against popular
       ingratitude, attacking groups of passers-by, riding his horse
       wildly through the multitude, and striking with his lance to
       the right and left. The populace wearied of its darling.
       Exalted to power on July 7th, he was murdered on the 16th,
       with the approval of those who had worshipped him a week
       before. But the revolution did not perish with him. Successive
       chiefs were chosen and deposed by a fickle people. When the
       insurrection was active, the representatives of Spain promised
       untaxed fruits and the privileges allowed by Charles V., and
       they revoked their promises when it appeared to subside. In
       the meantime, Mazarin watched the movement, uncertain as to
       the course he should pursue. … While the minister hesitated,
       the chance was seized by one who was never accused of too
       great caution." This was the Duke of Guise—the fifth Henry of
       that Dukedom—a wild, madcap young nobleman, who accepted an
       invitation from the Neapolitan insurgents to become their
       chief. Guise landed at Naples on the 15th of November, 1647,
       with half a dozen attendants, and a month later he was
       followed by a French fleet. But the latter did nothing, and
       Guise was helplessly without means. "The truth was that
       Mazarin, even if desirous of crippling the Spaniards, was very
       averse to assisting Guise. He believed that the duke either
       desired to form a republic, of which he should be chief, or a
       monarchy, of which he should be king, and neither plan was
       agreeable to the cardinal." At the end of a fortnight the
       fleet sailed away. Guise held his ground as the leader of the
       revolt until the following April, when certain of the
       Neapolitan patriots, corrupted by the enemy, betrayed the city
       into the hands of the Spaniards.
    {1848}
       "Guise endeavored, with a handful of followers, to escape
       towards Capua, but they were captured by a detachment of
       Spaniards. … By the petition of powerful friends, and by the
       avowal of France, Guise was saved from the public execution
       which some of his enemies demanded, but he was presently taken
       to Spain, and there was kept a prisoner during four years."
       Meantime, Mazarin had prepared another expedition, which
       appeared before Naples in the summer of 1648, but only to
       discover that the opportunity for deriving any advantage from
       the popular discontent in that city was past. "Receiving no
       popular aid, the expedition, after some ineffective endeavors,
       was abandoned." Six years afterwards, in 1654, Mazarin sent a
       third expedition to Naples, and entrusted it to the command of
       the Duke of Guise, who had lately been released from his
       captivity in Spain. "Guise hoped that the Neapolitans would
       rise in revolt when it was known that their former leader was
       so near, but not a person in the city showed any desire to
       start a movement in behalf of the Duke of Guise. The Spanish
       met him with superior forces." After some slight encounters
       the expedition sailed back to France.

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under Mazarin,
          chapter 8 (volume 1),
          and chapter 16 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          A. De Reumont,
          The Carafas of Maddaloni:
          Naples under Spanish Dominion,
          book 3.

          F. Midon,
          Rise and Fall of Masaniello.

          Mrs. H. R. St. John,
          Masaniello of Naples.

          H. G. Smith,
          Romance of History,
          chapter 1.

    ITALY: A. D. 1648.
       The Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
       Savoy and Piedmont.
       The War of the Spanish Succession.
       The Peace of Utrecht.

       "Compelled to take part, with one of the contending parties
       [in the War of the Spanish Succession—see SPAIN: A. D.
       1698-1700, and 1701-1702], Victor [Duke of Savoy] would have
       been prompted by his interest to an alliance with Austria; but
       he was beset on all sides by the combined forces of France and
       Spain, and was all the more at their mercy as Louis XIV. had
       (April 5th, 1701) obtained from Ferdinand Gonzaga of Mantua
       permission to garrison his capital, in those days already one
       of the strongest places in Italy. The Duke of Savoy had
       already, in 1697, married his daughter, Adelaide, to one of
       Louis's grandsons, the Duke of Burgundy; he now gave his
       younger daughter, Mary Louise, to Burgundy's brother, the new
       King of Spain (September 11th, 1701), and took the field as
       French commander-in-chief. He was opposed by his own cousin,
       Prince Eugene, at the head of the Imperial armies. The war in
       Lombardy was carried on with some remissness, partly owing to
       the natural repugnance or irresolution of the Duke of Savoy,
       partly to the suspicion with which, on that very account, he
       was looked upon by Catinat and Vaudemont, the French and
       Spanish commanders under him. The King, in an evil hour,
       removed his able marshal, Catinat, and substituted for him
       Villeroi, a carpet knight and court warrior, who committed one
       fault after another, allowed himself to be beaten by Eugene at
       Chiari (September 1st), and to be surprised and taken prisoner
       at Cremona (1702, January 21st), to the infinite relief of his
       troops. Vendôme restored the fortunes of the French, and a
       very brilliant but undecisive action was fought at Luzzara
       (August 15th), after which Prince Eugene was driven from the
       neighbourhood of Mantua, and fell back towards the mountains
       of Tyrol. With the success of the French their arrogance
       increased, and with their arrogance the disgust and ill-will
       of Victor Amadeus." The Duke withdrew from the camp and began
       to listen to overtures from the Powers in the Grand Alliance.
       "Report of the secret intercourse of the Duke with Austrian
       agents reached Louis XIV., who sent immediate orders to
       Vendôme to secure and disarm the Piedmontese soldiers (3,800
       to 6,000 in number) who were fighting under French standards
       at Mantua. This was achieved by treachery, at San Benedetto,
       on the 29th of September, 1703. An attempt to seize the Duke
       himself, whilst hunting near Turin, miscarried. Savoy
       retaliated by the arrest of the French and Spanish
       ambassadors, and war was declared (October 5th). The moment
       was ill-chosen. Victor had barely 4,000 men under his orders.
       The whole of Savoy was instantly overrun; and in Piedmont
       Vercelli, Ivrea, Verrua, as well as Susa, Bard, and Pinerolo,
       and even Chivasso, fell into the enemy's hands during the
       campaigns of 1704 and 1705. In the ensuing year the tide of
       invasion reached Nice and Villafranca; nothing was left to
       Victor Amadeus but Cuneo and Turin, and the victorious French
       armies appeared at last under the very walls of the capital
       (March, 1706). The war had, however, been waged with different
       results beyond the Alps, where the allies had crushed the
       French at Blenheim (1704) and at Ramillies (1705). One of the
       heroes of those great achievements, Prince Eugene, now
       hastened to the rescue of his cousin. He met with a severe
       check at Cassano (August 16th, 1705), and again at Calcinato
       (April 19th, 1706); but his skilful antagonist, Vendôme, was
       called away to Flanders, and Prince Eugene so out-manœuvred
       his successors as to be able to join Victor at Turin. The
       French had begun the siege of this place on the 13th of May,
       1706. They had between 50,000 and 60,000 men, and 170 pieces
       of artillery with them." When Prince Eugene, early in
       September, reached the neighborhood of Turin, he concerted
       with Victor Amadeus an attack on the investing army which
       destroyed it completely. "Its relics withdrew in awful
       disorder towards Pinerolo, pursued not only by the victorious
       troops but also by the peasantry, who, besides attachment to
       their princes, obeyed in this instance an instinct of revenge
       against the French, who had barbarously used them. Out of
       50,000 or 60,000 men who had sat down before Turin in March,
       hardly 20,000 recrossed the Alps in September. Three of the
       French generals lay dead on the field; … 6,000 prisoners
       were marched through the streets of the liberated town, and 55
       French banners graced the main altar of the cathedral. In the
       following year, Victor and Eugene, greatly against their
       inclination, were induced by the allies to undertake an
       expedition against Toulon, which, like all previous invasions
       of Provence, led to utter discomfiture, and the loss of 10,000
       combatants (1707, July 1st to September 1st). An attack upon
       Briançon, equally undertaken against the sound judgment of the
       Duke of Savoy, in 1708, led to no better results; but Savoy
       won back Exilles, Perosa, Fenestrelles, and, one by one, all
       the redoubts with which during those wars the Alps were
       bristling.
    {1849}
       The war slackened in Italy, and the fates of Europe were
       decided in the Netherlands. … By the Peace of Utrecht [A. D.
       1713] France renounced to Savoy all the invaded territories,
       and, besides, the valleys of Oulx, Cesanne, Bardonneche, and
       Castel Delfino, ancient possessions of Dauphiny, east of the
       Alps, from the 12th century, whilst, for her own part, Savoy
       gave up the western valley of Barcellonette; thus the limits
       between the two nations (with the exception of Savoy and Nice)
       were at last fixed on the mountain-crest, at 'the parting of
       the waters.' By virtue of an agreement signed with Austria,
       November 8th, 1703, the whole of Montferrat, as well as
       Alessandria, Valenza, Lomellina, and Val Sesia, dependencies
       of the duchy of Milan, and the imperial fiefs in the Langhe
       (province of Alba), were ceded to Savoy."

          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Colonel G. B. Malleson,
          Prince Eugene of Savoy,
          chapters 5, and 7-9.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapters 5-6.

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapters 68, 69, 73-75, 77 (volume 2-3).

          See, also,
          UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    ITALY: A. D. 1713-1714.
       Milan, Naples and Sardinia ceded to the House of Austria and
       Sicily to the Duke of Savoy.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
       Ambitions of Elizabeth Farnese, the Spanish queen.
       The Austro-Spanish conflict.
       The Quadruple Alliance.
       Acquisition of Naples by the Spanish Bourbons.

       By the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V. of Spain
       was left with no dominions in Italy, the Italian possessions
       of the Spanish monarchy having been transferred to Austria.
       Philip might have accepted this arrangement without demur. Not
       so his wife—"Elizabeth Farnese, a lady of the Italian family
       for whom the Duchy of Parma had been created by the Pope. The
       crown of Spain was settled on her step-son. For her own child
       the ambitious queen desired the honours of a crown. Cardinal
       Alberoni, a reckless and ambitious ecclesiastic, was the
       minister of the Spanish court. Under his advice and instigated
       by the queen, Philip claimed the possessions in Italy, which
       in the days of his grandfather had belonged to the Spanish
       crown. When his title to that crown was admitted, he denied
       the right of the other powers of Europe to alienate from it
       its possessions. This was not all: in right of his queen he
       claimed the duchies of Parma and of Tuscany. She determined to
       recover for him all the Italian possessions of the Spanish
       crown, and to add to them the duchies of Parma and Tuscany.
       The Duke of Parma was old and childless. The extinction of the
       reigning line of the Medici was near. Cosmo di Medici, the
       reigning sovereign, was old. His only son, Jean Gaston, was
       not likely to leave heirs. To Parma Elizabeth advanced her
       claims as heiress of the family of Farnese; to Tuscany she
       asserted a more questionable title in right of a descent from
       the family of Medici. These duchies she demanded for her son,
       Don Carlos, in whose behalf she was ready to waive her own
       claims. The success of these demands would have given to the
       Spanish monarchy even greater power than it had before
       enjoyed. To Naples, Sicily, and Milan, would have been added
       the territories of Parma and Tuscany. All Europe denounced the
       ambitious projects of Alberoni as entirely inconsistent with
       that balance of power which it had then become a political
       superstition to uphold. Philip's French relatives were
       determined in opposition to his claims; and to resist them the
       quadruple alliance was formed between Holland, England, France
       and the emperor. The parties to this alliance offered to the
       Spanish Bourbons that the emperor should settle on Don Carlos
       the reversion to the duchies of Parma and Tuscany on their
       lapsing to him by the failure of the reigning families without
       heirs. These proposals were rejected, and it was not until the
       Spanish court found the combination of four powerful monarchs
       too strong for them, that they reluctantly acceded to the
       terms of the Quadruple Alliance, and accepted for Don Carlos
       the promised reversion of Parma and Tuscany. To induce the
       emperor to accede to this arrangement the Duke of Savoy was
       compelled to surrender to him his newly-acquired kingdom of
       Sicily, receiving instead the island of Sardinia with its
       kingly title. It is as kings of Sardinia that the princes of
       Savoy have since been known in European history. The treaty of
       the quadruple alliance was thus the second by which at this
       period the European powers attempted to arrange the affairs of
       Italy. This treaty left the house of Austria in possession of
       Sicily and Naples. It was assented to by Spain in 1720.
       European complications unconnected with Italy produced new
       wars and a new treaty; and the treaty of Seville in 1724,
       followed by one entered into at Vienna two years later,
       confirmed Don Carlos in the duchy of Parma, of which, on the
       death of the last of the Farnese in 1734, he entered into
       possession. A dispute as to the election of a king of Poland
       gave the Spanish court an opportunity of once more attempting
       the resumption of the Neapolitan dominions. Don Carlos, the
       second son of Philip and Elizabeth, was now just grown to
       man's estate. His father placed in his hand the sword which he
       himself had received from Louis XIV. Don Carlos was but
       seventeen years old when he took possession of his sovereignty
       of Parma. In the same year [1734] he was called from it to
       invade the Sicilian dominions of Austria. He conquered in
       succession the continental territories, and the island of
       Sicily; and on the 15th of June, 1734, he was proclaimed as
       King of the Two Sicilies. The war of the Polish Succession was
       ended in the following year by a peace, the preliminaries of
       which were signed at Vienna. In this treaty an entirely new
       arrangement of Italian affairs was introduced. The rights of
       Don Carlos to the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily were
       recognised. Parma was surrendered to the emperor; and, lastly,
       the duchy of Tuscany was disposed of to a new claimant
       [Francis of Lorraine] for the honours of an Italian prince."

          I. Butt,
          History of Italy,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Armstrong,
          Elisabeth Farnese,
          chapters 2-10.

          P. Colletta,
          History of the Kingdom of Naples, 1734-1856,
          book 1, chapter 1-2.

          See, also,
          SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    ITALY: A. D. 1719.
       The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchange Sardinia for
       Sicily.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    ITALY: A. D. 1733-1735.
       Franco-Austrian War.
       Invasion of the Milanese by the French.
       Naples and Sicily occupied by the Spaniards and erected into a
       kingdom for Don Carlos.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    {1850}

    ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       Ambitious undertakings of Spain.

       "The struggle between England and Spain had altogether merged
       in the great European war, and the chief efforts of the
       Spaniards were directed against the Austrian dominions in
       Italy.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

       The kingdom of Naples, which had passed under Austrian rule
       during the war of the [Spanish] Succession, had, as we have
       seen, been restored to the Spanish line in the war which ended
       in 1740, and Don Carlos, who ruled it, was altogether
       subservient to Spanish policy. The Duke of Lorraine, the
       husband of Maria Theresa, was sovereign of Tuscany; and the
       Austrian possessions consisted of the Duchy of Milan, and the
       provinces of Mantua and Placentia. They were garrisoned at the
       opening of the war by only 15,000 men, and their most
       dangerous enemy was the King of Sardinia, who had gradually
       extended his dominions into Lombardy, and whose army was,
       probably, the largest and most efficient in Italy. 'The
       Milanese,' his father is reported to have said, 'is like an
       artichoke, to be eaten leaf by leaf,' and the skill and
       perseverance with which for many generations the House of
       Savoy pursued that policy, have in our own day had their
       reward. Spanish troops had landed at Naples as early as
       November 1741. The King of Sardinia, the Prince of Modena, and
       the Republic of Genoa were on the same side. Venice was
       completely neutral, Tuscany was compelled to declare herself
       so, and a French army was soon to cross the Alps. The King of
       Sardinia, however, at this critical moment, was alarmed by the
       ambitious projects openly avowed by the Spaniards, and he was
       induced by English influence to change sides. He obtained the
       promise of certain territorial concessions from Austria, and
       of an annual subsidy of £200,000 from England; and on these
       conditions he suddenly marched with an army of 30,000 men to
       the support of the Austrians. An the plans of the confederates
       were disconcerted by this defection. The Spaniards went into
       winter quarters near Bologna in October, fought an
       unsuccessful battle at Campo Santo in the following February
       [1743], and then retired to Rimini, leaving Lombardy in
       complete tranquillity. The British fleet in the Mediterranean
       had been largely strengthened by Carteret, and it did good
       service to the cause. It burnt a Spanish squadron in the
       French port of St. Tropez, compelled the King of Naples, by
       the threat of bombardment, to withdraw his troops from the
       Spanish army, and sign an engagement of neutrality, destroyed
       large provisions of corn collected by the Genoese for the
       Spanish army, and cut off that army from all communications by
       sea."

           W. E. H. Lecky,
           History of England, 18th Century,
           chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 102 (volume 3).

    ITALY: A. D. 1743.
       The War of the Austrian Succession: Treaty of Worms.

       "By a treaty between Great Britain, the Queen of Hungary, and
       the King of Sardinia, signed at Worms September 23rd, 1743,
       Charles Emanuel renounced his pretensions to Milan; the Queen
       of Hungary ceding to him the Vigevanesco, that part of the
       duchy of Pavia between the Po and the Tessino, the town and
       part of the duchy of Piacenza, and a portion of the district
       of Anghiera. Also whatever rights she might have to the
       marquisate of Finale hoping that the Republic of Genoa would
       facilitate this agreement, in order that the King of Sardinia
       might have a communication with the sea. The Queen of Hungary
       promised to increase her army in Italy to 30,000 men as soon
       as the affairs of Germany would permit; while the King of
       Great Britain engaged to keep a strong fleet in the
       Mediterranean, and to pay Charles Emanuel annually £200,000,
       so long as the war lasted, he keeping in the field an army of
       45,000 men."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

    ITALY: A. D. 1743.
       The Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain) for establishing
       Spanish claims.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1744.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       Indecisive campaigns.

       "In Italy, the discordant views and mutual jealousies of Maria
       Theresa and the king of Sardinia prevented the good effects
       which might have been derived from their recent union. The
       king was anxious to secure his own dominions on the side of
       France, and to conquer the marquisate of Finale; while Maria
       Theresa was desirous to direct her principal force against
       Naples, and recover possession of the two Sicilies. Hence,
       instead of co-operating for one great object, their forces
       were divided; and, after an arduous and active campaign, the
       Austrians were nearly in the same situation as at the
       commencement of the year. Prince Lobcowitz being reinforced,
       compelled the Spaniards to retreat successively from Pesara
       and Senegallia, attacked them at Loretto and Reconati, and
       drove them beyond the Fronto, the boundary of the kingdom of
       Naples. Alarmed by the advance of the Austrians, the king of
       Naples broke his neutrality, quitted his capital at the head
       of 15,000 men, and hastened to join the Spaniards. But Prince
       Lobcowitz … turned towards Rome, with the hope of
       penetrating into Naples on that side; and, in the commencement
       of June, reached the neighbourhood of Albano. His views were
       anticipated by the king of Naples, who, dividing the Spanish
       and Neapolitan troops into three columns, which were led by
       himself, the duke of Modena, and the count de Gages, passed
       through Anagm, Valmonte, and Monte Tortino, and reunited his
       forces at Veletri, in the Campagna di Roma. In this situation,
       the two hostile armies, separated only by a deep valley,
       harassed each other with continual skirmishes. At length
       prince Lobcowitz, in imitation of prince Eugene at Cremona,
       formed the project of surprising the head-quarters of the king
       of Naples. In the night of August 10th, a corps of Austrians,
       led by count Brown, penetrated into the town of Veletri,
       killed all who resisted, and would have surprised the king and
       the duke of Modena in their beds, had they not been alarmed by
       the French ambassador, and escaped to the camp. The Austrian
       troops, giving way to pillage, were vigorously attacked by a
       corps of Spaniards and Neapolitans, despatched from the camp,
       and driven from the town with great slaughter, and the capture
       of the second in command, the marquis de Novati. In this
       contest, however, the Spanish army lost no less than 3,000
       men. This daring exploit was the last offensive attempt of the
       Austrian forces. Prince Lobcowitz perceiving his troops
       rapidly decrease by the effects of the climate, and the
       unwholesome air of the Pontine marshes, began his retreat in
       the beginning of November, and though followed by an army
       superior in number, returned without loss to Rimini, Pesaro,
       Cesano, and Immola; while the combined Spaniards and
       Neapolitans took up their quarters between Viterbo and Civita
       Vecchia.
    {1851}
       In consequence of the expedition against Naples, the king of
       Sardinia was left with 30,000 men, many of them new levies,
       and 6,000 Austrians, to oppose the combined army of French and
       Spaniards, who advanced on the side of Nice. After occupying
       that place, the united army forced the intrenched camp of the
       Sardinians, though defended by the king himself, made
       themselves masters of Montalbano and Villafranca, and prepared
       to penetrate into Piedmont along the sea coast. The Genoese,
       irritated by the transfer of Finale, were inclined to
       facilitate their operations; but were intimidated by the
       presence of an English squadron which threatened to bombard
       their capital. The prince of Conti, who commanded under the
       infant Don Philip, did not, however, relinquish the invasion
       of Piedmont, but formed the spirited project of leading his
       army over the passes of the Alps, although almost every rock
       was a fortress, and the obstacles of nature were assisted by
       all the resources of art. He led his army, with a large train
       of artillery, and numerous squadrons of cavalry, over
       precipices and along beds of torrents, carried the fort of
       Chateau Dauphin, forced the celebrated Barricades which were
       deemed impregnable, descended the valley of the Stura, took
       Demont after a slight resistance, and laid siege to Coni. The
       king of Sardinia, having in vain attempted to stop the
       progress of this torrent which burst the barriers of his
       country, indignantly retired to Saluzzo, to cover his capital.
       Being reinforced by 6,000 Austrians, he attempted to relieve
       Coni, but was repulsed after a severe engagement, though he
       succeeded in throwing succours into the town. This victory,
       however, did not produce any permanent advantage to the
       confederate forces; Coni continuing to hold out, the approach
       of winter and the losses they had sustained, amounting to
       10,000 men, compelled them to raise the siege and repass the
       Alps, which they did not effect without extreme difficulty."

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 105 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Russell,
          History of Modern Europe,
          part 2, chapter 28.

    ITALY: A. D. 1745.
       The War of he Austrian Succession:
       Successes of the Spaniards, French and Genoese.

       "The Italian campaign of 1745, in boldness of design and
       rapidity of execution, scarcely finds a parallel in military
       history, and was most unpropitious to the Queen of Hungary and
       King of Sardinia. The experience of preceding years had taught
       the Bourbon Courts that all attempts to carry their arms
       across the Alps would be fruitless, unless they could secure a
       stable footing in the dominions of some Italian state on the
       other side, to counteract the power of their adversary, who
       had the entire command of the passes between Germany and
       Italy, by means of which reinforcements could be continually
       drafted to the scene of action. Accordingly they availed
       themselves of the jealousy and alarm excited at Genoa, by the
       transfer of Finale to the King of Sardinia, to engage that
       republic on their side. The plan was to unite the two armies
       which had wintered on the distant frontiers of Naples and
       Provence, in the vicinity of Genoa, where they were to be
       joined by 10,000 auxiliaries on the part of the republic.
       Charles Emanuel was sensible of the terrible consequences to
       himself, should the Genoese declare openly for the house of
       Bourbon, and sent General Pallavicini, a man of address and
       abilities, to renounce his pretensions to Finale, while
       Admiral Rowley, with a British fleet, hovered on their coasts.
       In spite of all this, nevertheless, the treaty of Aranjuez was
       concluded between France, Spain, and Genoa. After surmounting
       amazing difficulties, and making the most arduous and
       astonishing marches, the army commanded by Don Philip, who was
       accompanied by the French General Maillebois, and that
       commanded by Count de Gages, effected their junction on the
       14th of June, near Genoa, when their united forces, now under
       Don Philip, amounted to 78,000 men. All that the King of
       Sardinia could do under these circumstances, was to make the
       best dispositions to defend the Milanese, the Parmesan, and
       the Plaisantine; but the whole disposable force under the King
       and Count Schulenburg, the successor of Lobkowitz, did not
       amount to above 45,000 men. Count Gages with 30,000 men was to
       be opposed to Schulenburg, and took possession of Serravalle,
       on the Scrivia; then advancing towards Alessandria he obliged
       the Austrians to retire under the cannon of Tortona. Don
       Philip made himself master of Acqui, so that the King of
       Sardinia, with the Austrian General, Count Schulenburg, had to
       retreat behind the Tanaro. On the 24th of July the strong
       citadel of Tortona was taken by the Spaniards, which opened
       the way to the occupation of Parma and Placentia. The combined
       army of French, Spanish, Neapolitans, and Genoese being now
       masters of an extensive tract with all the principal towns
       south of the Po, they readily effected a passage near the
       confluence of the Ticino, and with a detachment surprised
       Pavia. The Austrians, fearful for the Milanese, separated
       accordingly from the Sardinian troops. The Bourbon force
       seeing this, suddenly reunited, gained the Tanaro by a rapid
       movement on the night of the 27th of September, forded it in
       three columns, although the water reached to the very necks of
       the soldiers, fell upon the unsuspecting and unprepared
       Sardinians, broke their cavalry in the first charge, and drove
       the enemy in dismay and confusion to Valenza. Charles Emanuel
       fled to Casale, where he reassembled his broken army, in order
       to save it from utter ruin. The confederate armies still
       advanced, drove the King back and took Trino and Verua, which
       last place lay but twenty miles from his capital: fearful now
       that this might be bombarded he hastened thither, withdrew his
       forces under its cannon, and ordered the pavement of the city
       to be taken up. Maillebois, on his side, penetrated into the
       Milanese, and by the month of October the territories of the
       house of Austria in Italy were wholly subdued. The whole of
       Lombardy being thus open, Don Philip made a triumphant entry
       into Milan on the 20th of December, fondly hoping that he had
       secured for himself an Italian kingdom, as his brother, Don
       Carlos, had done at Naples. The Austrian garrison, however,
       still maintained the citadel of Milan and the fortress of
       Mantua."

          Sir E. Cust,
          Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
          volume 2, pages 75-76.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 4.

    {1852}

    ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
       The War of the Austrian Succession: A turn of fortune.
       The Spaniards and French abandon North Italy.
       The Austrians in Genoa, and their expulsion from the city.

       "Of all the Austrian possessions in Lombardy, little remained
       except the fortress of Mantua and the citadel of Milan; while
       the citadels of Asti and Alessandria, the keys of Piedmont,
       were expected to fall before the commencement of the ensuing
       campaign. On the return of the season for action, the struggle
       for the mastery of Italy was renewed, and the queen of Spain
       already saw in imagination the crown of Lombardy gracing the
       brow of her second son. On the east, the French and Spanish
       armies had extended themselves as far as Reggio, Placentia,
       and Guastalla; on the north they were masters of the whole
       country between the Adda and Tesino; they blockaded the
       passages by the lake of Como and the Lago Maggiore, and were
       preparing to reduce the citadel of Milan; on the west their
       posts extended as far as Casale and Asti, though of the last
       the citadel was still held by the Sardinians. The main body of
       the French secured the communication with Genoa and the
       country south of the Po; a strong body at Reggio, Parma, and
       Placentia, covered their conquests on the east; and the
       Spaniards commanded the district between the Po and the
       mountains of Tyrol. The Sardinians were collected into the
       neighbourhood of Trino; while the Austrians fell back into the
       Novarrese to effect a junction with the reinforcements which
       were daily expected from Germany. In this situation, a sudden
       revolution took place in the fortune of the war. The empress
       queen [Maria Theresa], by the conclusion of a peace with
       Prussia, was at liberty to reinforce her army in Italy, and
       before the end of February 30,000 men had already descended
       from the Trentine Alps, and spread themselves as far as the
       Po." This change of situation caused the French court to make
       overtures to the king of Sardinia, which gave great offense to
       Spain. The wily Sardinian gained time by his negotiations with
       the French, until he found an opportunity, by suddenly ending
       the armistice, to capture the French garrison in Asti, to
       relieve the citadel of Alessandria and to lay siege to
       Valenza. "These disasters compelled Maillebois [the French
       general] to abandon his distant posts and concentrate his
       forces between Novi and Voghera, in order to maintain the
       communication with Genoa. Nor were the Spaniards beyond the Po
       in a less critical situation. A column of 10,000 Austrians
       under Berenclau having captured Codogno, and advanced to Lodi,
       the Spanish general was compelled to withdraw his troops from
       the passes towards the lakes, to send his artillery to Pavia
       and draw towards the Po. The infant had scarcely quitted Milan
       before a party of Austrian hussars entered the place."
       Meantime, the Spanish general Castelar, blockaded in Parma by
       the Austrians, broke through their lines and gained the
       eastern Riviera, with the loss of half his force. In June, the
       Spaniards and French, concentrated at Placentia, made a
       powerful attack on the Austrians, to arrest their progress,
       but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Sardinians soon
       afterwards formed a junction with the Austrians, which
       compelled the Spaniards and French to evacuate Placentia and
       retreat to Genoa, abandoning stores and artillery and losing
       many men. In the midst of these disasters, the Spanish king,
       Philip V., died, and his widowed queen, Elizabeth Farnese
       —the "Spanish termagant," Carlyle calls her—who had been
       the moving spirit of the struggle for Italy, lost the reins of
       government. His son (by his first wife, Maria Louisa of Savoy)
       who succeeded him, had no ambitions and no passions to
       interest him in the war, and resolved to escape from it. The
       marquis Las Minas, whom he sent to take command of the
       retreating army, speedily announced his intention to abandon
       Italy. "Thus deserted, the situation of the French and Genoese
       became desperate. … Maillebois, after exhorting the Genoese
       to defend their territory to the last extremity, was obliged
       to follow the example of Las Minas in withdrawing towards
       Provence. Abandoned to their fate, the Genoese could not
       withstand the combined attacks of the Austro-Sardinians,
       assisted by the British fleet. The city surrendered almost at
       discretion; the garrison were made prisoners of war; the
       stores, arms and artillery were to be delivered; the doge and
       six senators to repair to Vienna and implore forgiveness. The
       marquis of Botta, who had replaced Lichtenstein in the
       command, took possession of the place with 15,000 men, while
       the king of Sardinia occupied Finale and reduced Savona. In
       consequence of this success the Austrian court meditated the
       re-conquest of Naples and Sicily, which had been drained of
       troops to support the war in Lombardy." But this project was
       overruled by the British government, and the allied army
       crossed the Var, to carry the war into the southeastern
       provinces of France. "Their progress was, however, instantly
       arrested by an insurrection at Genoa, occasioned by the
       exactions and oppressions of the Austrian commanders. The
       garrison was expelled by the tumultuary efforts of the
       populace; and the army, to obviate the mischiefs of this
       unexpected reverse, hastily measured back its steps. Instead
       of completing the disasters of the Bourbon troops, the
       Austro-Sardinians employed the whole winter in the investment
       of Genoa." The siege was protracted but unsuccessful, and the
       allies were forced to abandon it the following summer, on the
       approach of the Bourbon forces, which resumed the offensive
       under Marshal Belleisle. After delivering Genoa, the latter
       sent a detachment of his army into Piedmont, where it met with
       disaster. No further operations of importance were undertaken
       before the conclusion of the peace, which was then being
       negotiated at Aix-la-Chapelle.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          chapters 46-48 (volumes 3-4).

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Bent,
          Genoa,
          chapter 16.

    ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
       Peace in the Peninsula.

       The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle "left nothing to Austria in
       Italy except the duchies of Milan and Mantua. Although the
       grand-duchy of Tuscany was settled on the family of
       Hapsburg-Lorraine, every precaution was taken to prevent that
       province from being united with the German possessions of
       their house. The arrangements of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle
       continued up to the period of the French revolution
       undisturbed. Those arrangements, although the result of a
       compromise of the interests and ambitions of rival statesmen,
       were not, considering the previous state of Italy,
       unfavourable to the cause of Italian independence.
    {1853}
       Piedmont, already recognised as the protector of Italian
       nationality, gained not only in rank, but in substantial
       territory, by the acquisition of the island of Sardinia, still
       more by that of the High Novarese, and by extending her
       frontier to the Ticino. Naples and Sicily were released from
       the tyranny of viceroys, and placed under a resident king,
       with a stipulation to secure their future independence, that
       they should never be united to the Spanish crown. … In the
       45 [?] years which elapsed between the treaty of
       Aix-la-Chapelle and the French revolution, Italy enjoyed a
       perfect and uninterrupted peace. In some, at least, of its
       principalities, its progress in prosperity and in legislation
       was rapid. Naples and Sicily, under the government of Charles
       III., and subsequently under the regency of his minister,
       Tanucci, were ruled with energy and prudence. Tuscany
       prospered under the sway of the princes of Lorraine, Milan and
       Mantua were mildly governed by the Austrian court; and
       Lombardy rose from the misery to which the exactions of
       Spanish viceroys had reduced even the great resources of that
       rich and fertile province. In the other Italian States at
       least no change had taken place for the worse. Industry
       everywhere flourished under the presence of the most essential
       of all blessings,—peace."

          I. Butt,
          History of Italy,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

    ITALY: A. D. 1792-1793.
       Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.
       Sardinia and the Two Sicilies in the coalition against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
          and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1794-1795.
       Passes of the Maritime Alps secured by the French.
       The coalition abandoned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
       French successes at Loano.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
          and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1796-1797.
       French invasion.
       Bonaparte's first campaigns.
       His victories and his pillage.
       Expulsion of the Austrians.
       French treaties with Genoa and Naples.
       The Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.
       Surrender of Papal territories.
       Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER);
          and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    ITALY: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
       Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
       The Peace of Campo-Formio.
       Lombardy relinquished by Austria.
       Venice and Venetian territory made over to her.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
       French occupation of Rome.
       Formation of the Roman Republic.
       Removal of the Pope.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

    ITALY: A. D. 1798-1799.
       Overthrow of the Neapolitan Kingdom.
       Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.
       Relinquishment of Piedmont by the king of Sardinia.
       French reverses.

          See FRANCE: A. D.1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    ITALY: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-AUGUST).
       Successful Austro-Russian campaign.
       Suwarrow's victories.
       French evacuation of Lombardy, Piedmont and Naples.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
       Austrian successes.
       Expulsion of the French.
       Fall of the Parthenopeian and Roman Republics.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1800.
       Bonaparte's Marengo campaign.
       Northern Italy recovered by the French.
       Siege and capture of Genoa by the Austrians.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    ITALY: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
       The king of Naples spared by Napoleon.
       Restoration of Papal authority at Rome.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

    ITALY: A. D. 1802.
       Name of the Cisalpine Republic changed to Italian Republic.
       Bonaparte president.
       Annexation of part of Piedmont, with Parma and Elba, to
       France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803,
          and 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1805.
       Transformation of the Italian Republic into the Kingdom of
       Italy.
       Election and coronation of Napoleon.
       Annexation of Genoa to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    ITALY: A. D. 1805.
       Cession of Venetian territory by Austria to the Kingdom of
       Italy.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

    ITALY: A. D. 1805-1806.
       Napoleon's dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
       Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

    ITALY: A. D. 1807-1808.
       Napoleon's visit.
       His arbitrary changes in the constitution.
       His public works.
       His despotism.
       His annexation of Tuscany to France, and seizure of the Papal
       States.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

    ITALY: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
       The crown of Naples resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of
       Spain) and conferred on Joachim Murat.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1808-1809.
       Beginning of the reign of Murat at Naples.
       Expulsion of the English from Capri.
       Insolence of Murat's soldiery.
       Popular discontent and hatred.
       Rise of the Carbonari.
       Civil war in Calabria.

       "Joachim Murat, the new King of Naples, announced his
       accession to the nation [July, 1808]. 'The august Napoleon,'
       he said, 'had given him the kingdom of the two Sicilies.
       Gratitude to the donor, and a desire to benefit his subjects,
       would divide his heart.' … The commencement of Murat's reign
       was felicitous; the English, however, occupied the island of
       Capri, which, being placed at the opening of the gulf, is the
       key of the bay of Naples. Their presence stimulated all who
       were averse to the new government, intimidated its adherents,
       and impeded the freedom of navigation, to the manifest injury
       of commerce; besides, it was considered disgraceful, that one
       of the Napoleonides should suffer an enemy so near, and that
       enemy the English, who were at once so hated and so despised.
       The indolence of Joseph had patiently suffered the disgrace;
       but Joachim, a spirited soldier, was indignant at it, and he
       thought it necessary to commence his reign by some important
       enterprise. He armed therefore against Capri: Sir Hudson Lowe
       was there in garrison with two regiments collected from all
       the nations of Europe, and which were called the Royal
       Corsican and the Royal Maltese. … A body of French and
       Neapolitans were sent from Naples and Salerno, under the
       command of General Lamarque, to reduce the island; and they
       effected a landing, by means of ladders hung to the rocks by
       iron hooks, and thus possessed themselves of Anacarpi, though
       not without great difficulty, as the English resolutely
       defended themselves. …
    {1854}
       The siege proceeded but slowly—succours of men and
       ammunition reached the besieged from Sicily; but fortune
       favoured the enemy, as an adverse wind drove the English out
       to sea. The King, who superintended the operations from the
       shore of Massa, having waited at the point of Campanella,
       seizing the propitious moment, sent fresh squadrons in aid of
       Lamarque, and the English, being already broken, and the forts
       dismantled, now yielded to the conqueror. The Neapolitans were
       highly gratified by the acquisition of Capri, and from that
       event augured well of the new government. The kingdom of
       Naples contained three classes of people—barons, republicans,
       and populace. The barons willingly joined the party of the new
       king, because they were pleased by the honours granted to
       them, and they were not without hopes of recovering their
       ancient privileges, or at least of acquiring new ones. … The
       republicans were, on the contrary, inimical to Joachim, not
       because he was a king, for they easily accommodated themselves
       to royalty; but because his conduct in Tuscany, where he had
       driven them forth or bound them in chains like malefactors,
       had rendered him personally obnoxious to them. They were
       moreover disgusted by his incredible vanity, which led him to
       court and caress with the most zealous adulation every bearer
       of a feudal title. … The populace, who cared no more for
       Joachim than they had done for Joseph, would easily have
       contented themselves with the new government, if it had
       protected them from the oppressions of the barons, and had
       procured for them quiet and abundance. But Joachim, wholly
       intent on courting the nobles, neglected the people, who,
       oppressed by the barons and soldiery, became alienated from
       him. … The spirit of discontent was further increased by his
       introduction of the conscription laws of France. … Joachim,
       a soldier himself, permitted every thing to his soldiery; and
       an insupportable military license was the result. Hence, also,
       they became the sole support of his power, and it took no root
       in the affections of the people. The insolence of the troops
       continually augmented not only every desire, but every caprice
       of the head of a regiment, nay, even of the inferior officers,
       was to be complied with, as if they were the laws of the
       realm; and whosoever even lamented his subjection to their
       will was ill-treated and incurred some risk of being declared
       an enemy to the King. … The discontents produced by the
       enormities committed by the troops of Murat gave hopes to the
       court of Palermo that its fortunes might be re-established in
       the kingdom beyond the Faro. Meanwhile, the civil war raged in
       Calabria; nor were the Abruzzi tranquil. In these disturbances
       there were various factions in arms, and various objects were
       pursued: some of those who fought against Joachim, and had
       fought against Joseph, were adherents of Ferdinand,—others
       were the partisans of a republican constitution. … The sect
       of the Carbonari arose at this period."

          C. Botta,
          Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
          chapter 5.

       "The most famous, the most widely disseminated, and the most
       powerful of all the secret societies which sprang up in Italy
       was that of the Carbonari, or Charcoal-makers. … The
       Carbonari first began to attract attention in the Kingdom of
       Naples about the year 1808. A Genoese named Maghella, who
       burned with hatred of the French, is said to have initiated
       several Neapolitans into a secret order whose purpose it was
       to goad their countrymen into rebellion. They quitted Naples,
       where Murat's vigilant policy kept too strict a watch on
       conspirators, and retired to the Abruzzi, where in order to
       disarm suspicion they pretended to be engaged in
       charcoal-burning. As their numbers increased, agents were sent
       to establish lodges in the principal towns. The Bourbon king,
       shut up in Sicily, soon heard of them, and as he had not
       hesitated at letting loose with English aid galley-prisoners,
       or at encouraging brigands, to harass Murat, so he eagerly
       connived with these conspirators in the hope of recovering his
       throne. Murat, having striven for several years to suppress
       the Carbonari, at last, when he found his power slipping from
       him, reversed his policy towards them, and strove to
       conciliate them. But it was too late: neither he nor they
       could prevent the restoration of the Bourbons under the
       protection of Austria. The sectaries who had hitherto
       foolishly expected that, if the French could be expelled,
       Ferdinand would grant them a Liberal government, were soon
       cured of their delusion, and they now plotted against him as
       sedulously as they had plotted against his predecessor. Their
       membership increased to myriads; their lodges, starting up in
       every village in the Kingdom of Naples, had relations with
       branch-societies in all parts of the Peninsula: to the anxious
       ears of European despots the name Carbonaro soon meant all
       that was lawless and terrible; it meant anarchy, chaos,
       assassination. But when we read the catechism, or confession
       of faith, of the Carbonari we are surprised by the
       reasonableness of their aims and tenets. The duties of the
       individual Carbonaro were, 'to render to the Almighty the
       worship due to Him; to serve the fatherland with zeal; to
       reverence religion and laws; to fulfil the obligations of
       nature and friendship; to be faithful to promises; to observe
       silence, discretion, and charity; to cause harmony and good
       morals to prevail; to conquer the passions and submit the
       will; and to abhor the seven deadly sins.' The scope of the
       Society was to disseminate instruction; to unite the different
       classes of society under the bond of love; to impress a
       national character on the people, and to interest them in the
       preservation and defense of the fatherland and of religion; to
       destroy by moral culture the source of crimes due to the
       general depravity of mankind; to protect the weak and to raise
       up the unfortunate. … It went still farther and asserted the
       un-Catholic doctrine of liberty of conscience: 'to every
       Carbonaro,' so reads one of its articles, 'belongs the natural
       and unalterable right to worship the Almighty according to his
       own intuition and understanding.' We must not be misled,
       however, by these enlightened professions, into a wrong notion
       of the real purposes of Carbonarism. Politics, in spite of a
       rule forbidding political discussion, were the main business,
       and ethics but the incidental concern of the conspirators.
       They organized their Order under republican forms as if to
       prefigure the ideal towards which they aspired. The Republic
       was subdivided into provinces, each of which was controlled by
       a grand lodge, that of Salerno being the 'parent.' There were
       also four 'Tribes,' each having a council and holding an
       annual diet.
    {1855}
       Each tribe had a Senate, which advised a House of
       Representatives, and this framed the laws which a magistracy
       executed. There were courts of the first instance, of appeal,
       and of cessation, and no Carbonaro might bring suit in the
       civil courts against a fellow member, unless he had first
       failed to get redress in one of these. … The Carbonari
       borrowed some of their rites from the Freemasons, with whom
       indeed they were commonly reported to be in such close
       relations that Freemasons who joined the 'Carbonic Republic'
       were spared the formality of initiation; other parts of their
       ceremonial they copied from the New Testament, with such
       additions as the special objects of the order called for."

          W. R. Thayer,
          The Dawn of Italian Independence,
          book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          P. Colletta,
          History of the Kingdom of Naples,
          book 7 (volume 2).

          T. Frost,
          Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

          General Sir H. Bunbury,
          The Great War with France,
          page 343, and after.

          The Chevalier O'Clery,
          History of the Italian Revolution
          chapter 3.

    ITALY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-MAY).
       Renewed war of Austria with France.
       Austrian advance and retreat.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

    ITALY: A. D. 1809 (MAY-JULY).
       Annexation of the Papal States to the French Empire.
       Removal of the Pope to Savona.
       Rome declared to be a free and imperial city.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    ITALY: A. D. 1812.
       Removal of the captive Pope to Fontainebleau.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    ITALY: A. D. 1812.
       Participation in Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER), and after.

    ITALY: A. D. 1813.
       Participation in the war in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).

    ITALY: A. D. 1814.
       Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
       His treaty with the Allies.
       Expulsion of the French from the Peninsula.

       Murat, king of Naples, "foreseeing the downfall of the
       Emperor, had attempted to procure from Napoleon, as the price
       of his fidelity, the union under his own sceptre of all Italy
       south of the Po; but, failing in this, he prepared to abandon
       the cause of his benefactor. On the 11th January, 1814, he
       concluded a treaty with the Allies, by which he was guaranteed
       possession of Naples; and forthwith advancing on Rome with
       20,000 men, occupied the second city in his brother-in-law's
       empire (January 19); having previously published a flaming
       proclamation, in which the perfidy and violence of the
       imperial government were denounced in terms which came
       strangely from a chief of the Revolution. … At the end of
       December, 1813, Eugene had withdrawn to the Adige with 36,000
       men, before Bellegarde and 50,000 Austrians; and he was
       already taking measures for a further retreat, when the
       proclamation of Murat, and his hostile advance, rendered such
       a movement inevitable. He had accordingly fallen back to the
       Mincio, when, finding himself threatened on the flank by a
       British expedition from Sicily under Lord William Bentinck, he
       determined on again advancing against Bellegarde, so as to rid
       himself of one enemy before he encountered another. The two
       armies, however, thus mutually acting on the offensive, passed
       each other, and an irregular action at last ensued on the
       Mincio (February 8), in which the advantage was rather with
       the French, who made 1,500 prisoners, and drove Bellegarde
       shortly after over the Mincio, about 3,000 being killed and
       wounded on each side. But, in other quarters, affairs were
       going rapidly to wreck. Verona surrendered to the Austrians on
       the 14th, and Ancona to Murat on the 16th; and the desertion
       of the Italians, unequal to the fatigues of a winter campaign,
       was so great that the Viceroy was compelled to fall back to
       the Po. Fouché, meanwhile, as governor of Rome, had concluded
       a convention (February 20) with the Neapolitan generals for
       the evacuation of Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, and other garrisons
       of the French empire in Italy. A proclamation, however, by the
       hereditary prince of Sicily, who had accompanied Bentinck from
       Sicily, gave Murat such umbrage that he separated his troops
       from the British, and commenced operations, with little
       success, against Eugene on the Po, in which the remainder of
       March passed away. Bentinck, having at length received
       reinforcements from Catalonia, moved forward with 12,000 men,
       and occupied Spezia on the 29th of March, and, driving the
       French (April 8) from their position at Sestri, forced his way
       through the mountains, and appeared on the 16th in front of
       Genoa. On the 17th the forts and positions before the city
       were stormed; and the garrison, seeing preparations made for a
       bombardment, capitulated on the 18th, on condition of being
       allowed to march out with the honours of war. Murat had by
       this time recommenced vigorous operations, and after driving
       the French (April 13) from the Taro, had forced the passage of
       the Stura; but the news of Napoleon's fall put an end to
       hostilities. By a convention with the Austrians, Venice,
       Palma-Nuova, and the other fortresses still held by the
       French, were surrendered; the whole of Lombardy was occupied
       by the Germans; and in the first week of May the French troops
       finally repassed the Alps."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          sections 775, and 807-808.

    ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.
       Return of the Despots.
       Restoration of Austrian tyranny in the North.
       The Pope in Rome again.

       "With little resistance, Northern Italy was taken from the
       French. Had it been otherwise, had Murat and Beauharnais
       joined their forces, they might have long held the Austrians
       in check, perhaps even have made a descent on Vienna; and
       although this might not have hindered the ultimate overthrow
       of Napoleon, yet it must have compelled the Allies, at the day
       of settlement, to respect the wishes of the Italians. But
       disunited, and deluded into the belief that they were partners
       in a war of liberation, the Italians woke up to find that they
       had escaped from the talons of the French eagle, only to be
       caught in the clutch of the two-headed monstrosity of Austria.
       They were to be used, in the language of Joseph De Maistre,
       like coins, wherewith the Allies paid their debts. This was
       plain enough when the people of the just-destroyed Kingdom of
       Italy prepared to choose a ruler for themselves: one party
       favored Beauharnais, another wished an Austrian prince, a
       third an Italian, but all agreed in demanding independence.
       Austria quickly informed them that they were her subjects, and
       that their affairs would be decided at Vienna. Thus, almost
       without striking a blow, and without a suspicion of the lot
       awaiting them, the Northern Italians fell back under the
       domination of Austria. In the spring and early summer of 1814
       the exiled princelings returned: Victor Emanuel I. from his
       savage refuge in Sardinia to Turin; Ferdinand III. from
       Würzburg to Florence; Pius VII. from his confinement at
       Fontainebleau and Savona to Rome.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814;

    {1856}

       Francis IV. to Modena. Other aspirants anxiously waited for
       the Congress of Vienna to bestow upon them the remaining
       provinces. The Congress … dragged on into the spring of the
       following year. … In Lombardy and Venetia, Metternich soon
       organized a thoroughly Austrian administration. The government
       of the two provinces was separate, that of Lombardy being
       centred at Milan, that of Venetia at Venice; but over all was
       placed an Austrian archduke as Viceroy. Each district had its
       civil and military tribunals, but the men who composed these
       being appointees of the viceroy or his deputies, their
       subservience could usually be reckoned upon. The trials were
       secret, a provision which, especially in political cases, made
       convictions easy. … Feudal privileges, which had been
       abolished by the French, could be recovered by doing homage to
       the Emperor and by paying specific taxes. In some respects
       there was an improvement in the general administration, but in
       others the deterioration was manifest. … Art, science, and
       literature were patronized, and they throve as potted plants
       thrive under the care of a gardener who cuts off every new
       shoot at a certain height. … We may liken the people of the
       Austro-Italian provinces to those Florentine revelers who, at
       the time of the plague, tried to drive away their terror by
       telling each other the merry stories reported by Boccaccio.
       The plague which penetrated every corner of Lombardy and
       Venetia was the Austrian police. Stealthy, but sure, its
       unseen presence was dreaded in palace and hovel, in church,
       tribunal, and closet. … Every police-office was crammed with
       records of the daily habits of each citizen, of his visitors,
       his relatives, his casual conversations,—even his style of
       dress and diet were set down. … Such was the Metternichian
       system of police and espionage that counteracted every mild
       law and every attempt to lessen the repugnance of the
       Italians. They were not to be deceived by blandishments:
       Lombardy was a prison, Venetia was a prison, and they were all
       captives, although they seemed to move about unshackled to
       their work or pleasure."

          W. R. Thayer,
          The Dawn of Italian Independence,
          book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          See, also,
          VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
          AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
          and HOLY ALLIANCE.

    ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1815.
       Murat's attempt to head a national movement.
       His failure, downfall and death.
       Restoration of the Bourbons at Naples.

       "Wild as was the attempt in which, after Napoleon's return
       from Elba, the King of Naples lost his crown, we must yet
       judge of it both by his own character and the circumstances in
       which he was placed. … In the autumn of 1813 communications
       took place at Milan between Murat and the leaders of the
       secret societies which were then attempting to organise
       Italian patriotism in arms. In 1814, when the restoration of
       Austrian rule in Lombardy so cruelly disappointed the national
       hopes, these communications were renewed. The King of Naples
       was assured that he needed but to raise the standard of
       Italian independence to rally round him thousands and tens of
       thousands of volunteers. … These calculations … were
       readily adopted by the rash and vain-glorious monarch to whom
       they were presented. … His proud spirit chafed and fretted
       under the consciousness that he had turned upon Napoleon, and
       the mortification of finding himself deserted by those in
       reliance upon whose faith this sacrifice had been made. The
       events in France had taken him by surprise. In joining the
       alliance against Napoleon he had not calculated on the
       deposition of the emperor, still less had he dreamed of the
       destruction of the empire. … He bitterly reproached his own
       conduct for having lent himself to such results. … When his
       mind was agitated with these mingled feelings, the
       intelligence reached him that Napoleon had actually left Elba,
       on that enterprise in which he staked everything upon
       regaining the imperial throne of France. It came to him direct
       from Napoleon. … He foresaw that the armies of the allied
       powers would be engaged in a gigantic struggle with the
       efforts which Napoleon would be sure to make. Under such
       circumstances, he fancied Italy an easy conquest; once master
       of this he became a power with whom, in the conflict of
       nations, any of the contending parties could only be too happy
       to treat. He determined to place himself at the head of
       Italian nationality, and strike one daring blow for the
       chieftainship of the nation. … His ministers, his friends,
       the French generals, even his queen, Napoleon's sister,
       dissuaded him from such a course. … But with an obstinacy by
       which the vacillating appear sometimes to attempt to atone for
       habitual indecision, he persevered in spite of all advice. …
       He issued a proclamation and ordered his troops to cross the
       Papal frontier. … The Pope appointed a regency and retired,
       accompanied by most of the cardinals, to Florence. … On the
       30th of March his [Murat's] troops attacked the Austrian
       forces at Cesena. The Germans were driven, without offering
       much resistance, from the town. On the evening of that day he
       issued from Rimini his proclamation to the Italian people,
       which was against Austria a declaration of war. … A
       declaration of war on the part of Austria immediately
       followed. … The whole of the Italian army of Austria was
       ordered at once to march upon Naples; and a treaty was
       concluded with Ferdinand, by which Austria engaged to use all
       her endeavours to recover for him his Neapolitan dominions.
       … The army which Murat led northward, instead of numbering
       80,000 as he represented in his proclamation, certainly never
       exceeded 34,000. … Nearly 60,000 Austrians defended the
       banks of the Po. … On the 10th of April, the troops of
       Murat, under the command of General Pepe, were driven back by
       the Austrians, who now in their turn advanced. … A retreat
       to the frontiers of Naples was unanimously resolved on. This
       retreat was one that had all the disasters without any of the
       redeeming glories of war. … At last, as they approached the
       confines of the Neapolitan kingdom, an engagement which took
       place between Macerata and Tolentino, on the 4th of May, ended
       in a total and ignominious rout. … At Macerata most of the
       troops broke up into a disorganised rabble, and with
       difficulty Murat led to Capua a small remnant of an army, that
       could hardly be said to be defeated, because they were worsted
       without anything that deserves to be called a fight.
    {1857}
       From Capua, on the 12th of May, the king sent to Naples a
       proclamation granting a free constitution. To conceal the fact
       that this was wrung from him only in distress, he resorted to
       the miserable subterfuge of ante-dating it from Rimini, on the
       30th of March." On the evening of the 18th of May, Murat
       entered Naples quietly on foot, and had his last interview
       with his queen and children. A British squadron was already in
       the harbor. The next night he slipped away to the island of
       Ischia, and thence to Frejus, while Queen Caroline remained to
       discharge the last duties of sovereignty. On the 20th Naples
       was surrendered to the Austrians, and the ex-queen took refuge
       on an English vessel to escape from a threatening mob of the
       lazzaroni. She was conveyed to Trieste, where the Austrian
       emperor had offered her an asylum. The restored Bourbon king,
       Ferdinand, made his entry into the capital on the 17th of
       June. Meantime, Murat, in France, had offered his services to
       Napoleon and they had been declined. After Waterloo, he
       escaped to Corsica, whence, in the following October, he made
       a foolhardy attempt to recover his kingdom, landing with a few
       followers at Pizzo, on the Neapolitan coast, expecting a
       rising of the people to welcome his return. But the rising
       that occurred was hostile instead of friendly. The party was
       quickly overpowered, Murat taken prisoner and delivered to
       Ferdinand's officers. He was summarily tried by court martial
       and shot, October 13, 1815.

          I. Butt,
          History of Italy,
          volume 2, chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Colletta,
          History of Naples,
          book 7, chapter 5,
          and book 8, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
       Revolutionary insurrections in Naples and Sicily.
       Perjury and duplicity of the king.
       The revolt crushed by Austrian troops.
       Abortive insurrection in Piedmont.
       Its end at Novara.
       Abdication of Victor Emmanuel I.
       Accession of Charles Felix.

       "In the last days of February, 1820, a revolution broke out in
       Spain. The object of its leaders was to restore the
       Constitution of 1812, which had been suppressed on the return
       of the Bourbons to the throne. … The Revolution proved
       successful, and for a short time the Spaniards obtained
       possession of a democratic Constitution. Their success stirred
       up the ardour of the Liberal party in the kingdom of the two
       Sicilies, and before many weeks were over a revolutionary
       movement occurred at Naples. The insurrection originated with
       the army under the command of General Pepé, and it is worthy
       of note that the movement was not directed against the
       reigning dynasty, and was not, even nominally, associated with
       any demand for national unity. All the insurgents asked for
       was the establishment of a Constitution similar to that then
       existing in Spain. After a very brief and feeble resistance,
       the King yielded to the demands of the military conspirators,
       who were strongly supported by popular feeling. On the 1st of
       October, a Parliament of the Neapolitan kingdom was opened by
       His Majesty Francis the First, who then and there took a
       solemn oath to observe the Constitution, and even went out of
       his way to profess his profound attachment for the principles
       on which the new Government was based. General Pepé thereupon
       resigned the Dictatorship he had assumed, and constitutional
       liberty was deemed to have been finally established in
       Southern Italy by a bloodless revolution. The rising on the
       mainland was followed after a brief interval by a popular
       insurrection in Sicily. The main object, however, of the
       Sicilian Constitutionalists was to bring about a legislative
       separation between the island and the kingdom of Naples
       proper. … The Sicilian insurrection afforded Francis I. the
       pretext he had looked for, from the commencement, for
       overthrowing the Constitution to which he had personally
       plighted his faith. The Allied Sovereigns took alarm at the
       outbreak of the revolutionary spirit in Sicily, and a Congress
       of the Great Powers was convoked at Laibach [see VERONA, THE
       CONGRESS OF] to consider what steps required to be taken for
       the protection of social order in the kingdom of Naples. …
       By the Neapolitan Constitution the Sovereign was not at
       liberty to leave the kingdom without the consent of the
       Parliament. This consent was only given, after much
       hesitation, in reliance upon the reiterated assurances of the
       King, both publicly and privately, that his one object in
       attending the Congress was to avert, if possible, a foreign
       intervention. His Majesty also pledged himself most solemnly
       not to sanction any change in the Constitution to which he had
       sworn allegiance, and … he promised further that he would
       not be a party to any reprisals being inflicted upon his
       subjects for the part they might have taken in the
       establishment of Constitutional liberty. As soon, however, as
       Francis the First had arrived at Laibach, he yielded without a
       protest to the alleged necessity for a foreign occupation of
       his kingdom, with the avowed object of putting down the
       Constitution. Without any delay being given, the Austrian
       regiments crossed the frontier, preceded by a manifesto from
       the King, calling upon his faithful subjects to receive the
       army of occupation not as enemies, but as friends. … The
       national troops, under General Pepé, were defeated with ease
       by the Austrians, who in the course of a few weeks effected,
       almost without opposition, the military occupation of the
       whole kingdom [February-March, 1821]. Forthwith reprisals
       commenced in grim earnest. On the plea that the resistance
       offered by the Constitutionalists to the invading army
       constituted an act of high treason, the King declared himself
       absolved from all promises he had given previously to his
       departure. A reign of terror was set on foot. … Signor Botta
       thus sums up the net result of the punishments inflicted after
       the return of the King in the Neapolitan provinces alone.
       'About a thousand persons were condemned to death, imprisoned,
       or exiled. Infinitely greater was the number of officers and
       officials who were deprived of their posts by the
       Commissioners of Investigation.' … The establishment of
       Constitutional Government in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies,
       and the resolution adopted at the instigation of Austria, by
       the Congress of Laibach, to suppress the Neapolitan
       Constitution by armed force, produced a profound effect
       throughout Italy, and especially in Sardinia. The fact that
       internal reforms were incompatible with the ascendency of
       Austria in the Peninsula was brought home to the popular mind,
       and, for the first time in the history of Italy, the desire
       for civil liberty became identified with the national aversion
       to foreign rule.
    {1858}
       In Piedmont there was a powerful Constitutional party,
       composed chiefly of professional men, and a strong military
       caste, aristocratic by birth and conviction, but opposed on
       national grounds to the domination of Austria over Italy.
       These two parties coalesced for a time upon the common
       platform of Constitutional Reform and war with Austria; and
       the result was the abortive rising of 1821. The insurrection,
       however, though directed against the established Government,
       had about it nothing of an anti-dynastic, or even of a
       revolutionary character. On the contrary, the leaders of the
       revolt professed, and probably with sincerity, that they were
       carrying out the true wishes of their Sovereign. Their theory
       was, that Victor Emmanuel I. was only compelled to adhere to
       the Holy Alliance by considerations of foreign policy, and
       that, if his hands were forced, he would welcome any
       opportunity of severing himself from all complicity with
       Austria. Acting on this belief, they determined to proclaim
       the Constitution by a sort of coup d' état, and then, after
       having declared war on Austria, to invade Lombardy, and thus
       create a diversion in favour of the Neapolitans. It is certain
       that Victor Emmanuel I. gave no sanction to, and was not even
       cognisant of, this mad enterprise. … The troubles and
       calamities of his early life had exhausted his energy; and his
       one desire was to live at peace at home and abroad. On the
       other hand, it is certain that Charles Albert [prince of
       Savoy-Carignan, heir presumptive to the throne of Sardinia]
       was in communication with the leaders of the insurrection,
       though how far he was privy to their actual designs has never
       yet been clearly ascertained. The insurrection broke out just
       about the time when the Austrian troops were approaching the
       Neapolitan frontiers. … The insurrection gained head
       rapidly, and the example of Alexandria was followed by the
       garrison of Turin. Pressure was brought to bear upon Victor
       Emmanuel I., and he was led to believe that the only means of
       averting civil war was to grant the Constitution. The
       pressure, however, overshot its mark. On the one hand, the
       King felt that he could not possibly withstand the demand for
       a Constitution at the cost of having to order the regiments
       which had remained loyal to fire upon the insurgents. On the
       other hand, he did not feel justified in granting the
       Constitution without the sanction of his brother and
       [immediate] heir. In order, therefore, to escape from this
       dilemma, his Majesty abdicated suddenly in favour of Charles
       Felix [his brother]. As, however, the new Sovereign happened
       to be residing at Modena, at the Court of his brother-in-law,
       the Prince of Savoy-Carignan was appointed Regent until such
       time as Charles Felix could return to the capital. Immediately
       upon his abdication, Victor Emmanuel quitted Turin, and
       Charles Albert was left in supreme authority as Regent of the
       State. Within twelve hours of his accession to power, the
       Regent proclaimed the Spanish Constitution as the fundamental
       law of Piedmont. … The probability is … that Charles
       Albert, or rather his advisers, were anxious to tie the hands
       of the new Sovereign. They calculated that Charles Felix, who
       was no longer young, and who was known to be bitterly hostile
       to all Liberal theories of Government, would abdicate sooner
       than accept the Crown of a Constitutional kingdom. This
       calculation proved erroneous. … As soon as his Majesty
       learned the news of what had occurred in his absence, he
       issued a manifesto [March, 1821], declaring all the reforms
       granted under the Regency to be null and void, describing the
       authors of the Constitution as rebels, and avowing his
       intention, in the case of necessity, of calling upon the
       Allied Powers to assist him in restoring the legitimate
       authority of the Crown. Meanwhile, he refused to accept the
       throne till the restoration of order had given Victor Emmanuel
       full freedom to reconsider the propriety of abdication. This
       manifesto was followed by the immediate advance of an Austrian
       corps d'armée to the frontier stream of the Ticino, as well as
       by the announcement that the Russian Government had ordered an
       army of 100,000 men to set out on their march towards Italy,
       with the avowed object of restoring order in the Peninsula.
       The population of Piedmont recognised at once, with their
       practical good sense, that any effective resistance was out of
       the question. … The courage of the insurgents gave way in
       view of the obstacles which they had to encounter, and the
       last blow was dealt to their cause by the sudden defection of
       the Prince Regent. … Unable either to face his coadjutors in
       the Constitutional pronunciamento, or to assume the
       responsibility of an open conflict with the legitimate
       Sovereign, the Regent left Turin secretly [March 21, 1821],
       without giving any notice of his intended departure, and, on
       arriving at Novara, formally resigned his short-lived power.
       The leaders, however, of the insurrection had committed
       themselves too deeply to follow the example of the Regent. A
       Provisional Government was established at Turin, and it was
       determined to march upon Novara, in the hope that the troops
       collected there would fraternise with the insurgents. As soon
       as it was known that the insurgents were advancing in force
       from Turin, the Austrians, under General Bübner, crossed the
       Ticino, and effected a junction with the Royal troops. When
       the insurgents reached Novara, they suddenly found themselves
       confronted, not by their own fellow-countrymen, but by an
       Austrian army. A panic ensued, and the insurrectionary force
       suffered a disastrous, though, fortunately, a comparatively
       bloodless, defeat. After this disaster the insurrection was
       virtually at an end. … The Austrians, with the consent of
       Charles Felix, occupied the principal fortresses of Piedmont.
       The old order of things was restored, and, upon Victor
       Emmanuel's formal refusal to withdraw his abdication, Charles
       Felix assumed the title of King of Sardinia. As soon as
       military resistance had ceased, the insurrection was put down
       with a strong hand."

          E. Dicey,
          Victor Emmanuel,
          chapters 3-4.

       "Henceforth the issue could not be misunderstood. The conflict
       was not simply between the Neapolitans and their Bourbon king,
       or between the Piedmontese and Charles Felix, but between
       Italian Liberalism and European Absolutism. Santarosa and Pepé
       cried out in their disappointment that the just cause would
       have won had their timid colleagues been more daring, had
       promises but been kept; we, however, see clearly that though
       the struggle might have been prolonged, the result would have
       been unchanged. Piedmont and Naples, had each of their
       citizens been a hero, could not have overcome the Holy
       Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE], which was their real antagonist.
    {1859}
       The revolutionists had not directly attacked the Holy
       Alliance; they had not thrown down the gauntlet to Austria;
       they had simply insisted that they had a right to
       constitutional government; and Austria, more keen-witted than
       they, had seen that to suffer a constitution at Naples or
       Turin would be to acknowledge the injustice of those
       principles by which the Holy Alliance had decreed that Europe
       should be repressed to the end of time. So when the Carbonari
       aimed at Ferdinand they struck Austria, and Austria struck
       back a deadly blow. … But Austria and the Reactionists were
       not content with simple victory; treating the revolution as a
       crime, they at once proceeded to take vengeance. …
       Ferdinand, the perjured Neapolitan king, tarried behind in
       Florence, whilst the Austrians went down into his kingdom. …
       But as soon as Ferdinand was assured that the Austrian
       regiments were masters of Naples, he sent for that Prince of
       Canosa whom he had been forced unwillingly to dismiss on
       account of his outrageous cruelty five years before, and
       deputed to him the task of restoring genuine Bourbon tyranny
       in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. A better agent of
       vindictive wrath than Canosa could not have been found; he was
       troubled by no humane compunctions, nor by doubts as to the
       justice of his fierce measures; to him, as to Torquemada,
       persecution was a compound of duty and pleasure. … The right
       of assembling, no matter for what purpose, being denied, the
       universities, schools, and lyceums had to close; proscription
       lists were hurriedly drawn up, and they contained not only the
       names of those who had been prominent in the recent rising,
       but also of all who had incurred suspicion for any political
       acts as far back as 1793. … Houses were searched without
       warrant; seals were broken open; some of the revelations of
       the confessional were not sacred. The church-bells tolled
       incessantly for victims led to execution. To strike deeper
       terror, Canosa revived the barbarous torture of scourging in
       public. … How many victims actually suffered during this
       reign of terror we cannot tell. Canosa's list of the
       proscribed had, it is said, more than four thousand names. The
       prisons were choked with persons begging for trial; the
       galleys of Pantelleria, Procida, and the Ponza Islands swarmed
       with victims condemned for life; the scaffolds, erected in the
       public squares of the chief towns, were daily occupied. … At
       length, when his deputies had terrorized the country into
       apparent submission, and when the Austrian regiments made it
       safe for him to travel, Ferdinand quitted Florence and
       returned to Naples. … In Sicily the revolution smouldered
       and spluttered for years, in spite of remorseless efforts to
       stamp it out; on the mainland, robberies and brigandage, and
       outbreaks now political and now criminal, proved how delusive
       was a security based on oppression and lies. Amid these
       conditions Ferdinand passed the later years of his infamous
       reign. … In Piedmont the retaliation was as effectual as in
       Naples, but less blood was shed there. Della Torre took
       command of the kingdom in the name of Charles Felix. …
       Seventy-three officers were condemned to death, one hundred
       and five to the galleys; but as nearly all of them had
       escaped, they were hanged in effigy; only two, Lieutenant
       Lanari and Captain Garelli, were executed. The property of the
       condemned was sequestrated, their families were tormented, and
       the commission, not content with sentencing those who had
       taken an active part in the revolution, cashiered two hundred
       and twenty-one officers who, while holding aloof from
       Santarosa, had refused to join Della Torre at Novara and fight
       against their countrymen. … The King … had soon reason to
       learn the truth of a former epigram of his, 'Austria is a
       bird-lime which you cannot wash off your fingers when you have
       once touched it'; for Austria soon showed that her motive in
       bolstering falling monarchs on their shaky thrones was not
       simply philanthropic nor disinterested. General Bubna, on
       taking possession of Alessandria, sent the keys of that
       fortress to Emperor Francis, in order, he said,—and we wonder
       whether there was no sarcasm in his voice,—in order to give
       Charles Felix 'the pleasure of receiving them back from the
       Emperor's hand.' 'Although I found this a very poor joke,'
       wrote Charles Felix to his brother, 'I dissembled.' How,
       indeed, could he do otherwise? … Charles Felix had in truth
       become but the vassal of the hereditary enemy of his line, and
       that not by conquest, but by his own invitation."

          W. R. Thayer,
          The Dawn of Italian Independence,
          book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          P. Colletta,
          History of Naples,
          books 9-10 (volume 2).

          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 6.

          R. H. Wrightson,
          History of Modern Italy,
          chapters 2-3, and 6.

    ITALY: A. D. 1820-1822.
       The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

          See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
       Revolt in Modena, Parma, and the Papal States,
       suppressed by Austrian troops.

       "The Revolution of 1830 [in France] made a natural impression
       in a country which had many evils to complain of and which had
       so lately been connected with France. The duke of Modena,
       Francis IV., sought to make use of the liberal movement to
       extend his rule over northern Italy. But at the last moment he
       was terrified by threats from Vienna, turned against his
       fellow-conspirators, and imprisoned them (February 3, 1831).
       The people, however, were so alienated by his treachery that
       he fled with his prisoners to seek safety in Austrian
       territory. A provisional government was formed, and Modena was
       declared a free state. Meanwhile the election of a new pope,
       Gregory XVI., gave occasion for a rising in the papal states.
       Bologna took the lead in throwing off its allegiance to Rome,
       and in a few weeks its example was followed by the whole of
       Romagna, Umbria, and the Marches. The two sons of Louis
       Bonaparte, the late king of Holland, hastened to join the
       insurgents, but the elder died at Forli (17 March), and thus
       an eventful career was opened to the younger brother, the
       future Napoleon III. Parma revolted against Maria Louisa, who
       followed the example of the duke of Modena and fled to
       Austria. The success of the movement, however, was very
       short-lived. Austrian troops marched to the assistance of the
       papacy, the rebellion was put down by force, and the exiled
       rulers were restored. Louis Philippe, on whom the insurgents
       had relied, had no sympathy with a movement in which members
       of the Bonaparte family were engaged. But a temporary revival
       of the insurrection brought the Austrians back to Romagna, and
       a great outcry was raised in France against the king.
    {1860}
       To satisfy public opinion, Louis Philippe sent a French force
       to seize Ancona (February 22, 1832), but it was a very
       harmless demonstration, and had been explained beforehand to
       the papal government. In Naples and Sardinia no disturbances
       took place. Ferdinand II. succeeded his father Francis I. on
       the Neapolitan throne in 1830, and satisfied the people by
       introducing a more moderate system of government. Charles
       Albert became king of Sardinia on the death of Charles Felix
       (27 April, 1831), and found himself in a difficult position
       between Austria, which had good reason to mistrust him, and
       the liberal party, which he had betrayed."

          R. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 25.

          ALSO IN:
          L. G. Farini,
          The Roman State, 1815-1850,
          volume 1, chapters 3-5.

    ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.
       The Mission of Mazzini, the Revolutionist.
       Young Italy.

       "The Revolution of 1830, ineffectual as it seemed to its
       promoters, was yet most significant. It failed in Italy and
       Poland, in Spain and Portugal; it created a mongrel monarchy,
       neither Absolute nor Constitutional, in France; only in
       Belgium did it attain its immediate purpose. Nevertheless, if
       we look beneath the surface, we see that it was one of those
       epoch-marking events of which we can say, 'Things cannot be
       again what until just now they were.' … The late risings in
       the Duchies and Legations had brought no comfort to the
       conspirators, but had taught them, on the contrary, how
       ineffectual, how hopeless was the method of the secret
       societies. After more than fifteen years they had not gained
       an inch; they had only learned that their rulers would concede
       nothing, and that Austria, their great adversary, had staked
       her existence on maintaining thraldom in Italy. Innumerable
       small outbursts and three revolutions had ended in the death
       of hundreds and in the imprisonment or proscription of
       thousands of victims. … Just when conspiracy, through
       repeated failures, was thus discredited, there arose a leader
       so strong and unselfish, so magnetic and patient and zealous,
       that by him, if by anyone, conspiracy might be guided to
       victory. This leader, the Great Conspirator, was Joseph
       Mazzini, one of the half dozen supreme influences in European
       politics during the nineteenth century, whose career will
       interest posterity as long as it is concerned at all in our
       epoch of transition. For just as Metternich was the High
       Priest of the Old Regime, so Mazzini was the Prophet of a
       Social Order, more just, more free, more spiritual than any
       the world has known. He was an Idealist who would hold no
       parley with temporizers, an enthusiast whom half-concessions
       could not beguile: and so he came to be decried as a fanatic
       or a visionary. … Mazzini joined the Carbonari, not without
       suspecting that, under their complex symbolism and
       hierarchical mysteries they concealed a fatal lack of harmony,
       decision, and faith. … As he became better acquainted with
       Carbonarism, his conviction grew stronger that no permanent
       good could be achieved by it. … The open propaganda of his
       Republican and Unitarian doctrines was of course impossible;
       it must be carried on by a secret organization. But he was
       disgusted with the existing secret societies: they lacked
       harmony, they lacked faith, they had no distinct purpose;
       their Masonic mummeries were childish and farcical. …
       Therefore, Mazzini would have none of them; he would organize
       a new secret society, and call it 'Young Italy,' whose
       principles should be plainly understood by every one of its
       members. It was to be composed of men under forty, in order to
       secure the most energetic and disinterested members, and to
       avoid the influence of older men, who, trained by the past
       generation, were not in touch with the aspirations and needs
       of the new. It was to awaken the People, the bone and sinew of
       the nation; whereas the earlier sects had relied too much on
       the upper and middle classes, whose traditions and interests
       were either too aristocratic or too commercial. Roman
       Catholicism had ceased to be spiritual; it no longer purified
       and uplifted the hearts of the Italians. … Young Italy
       aimed, therefore, to substitute for the mediæval dogmas and
       patent idolatries of Rome a religion based on Reason, and so
       simple as to be within the comprehension of the humblest
       peasant. … The doctrines of the new sect spread, but since
       secret societies give the census-taker no account of their
       membership, we cannot cite figures to illustrate the growth of
       Young Italy. Contrary to Mazzini's expectations, it was
       recruited, not so much from the People, as from the Middle
       Class, the professional men, and the tradesmen." In 1831
       Mazzini was forced into exile, at Marseilles, from which city
       he planned an invasion of Savoy. The project was discovered,
       and the Sardinian government revenged itself cruelly upon the
       patriots within its reach. "In a few weeks, eleven alleged
       conspirators had been executed, many more had been sentenced
       to the galleys, and others, who had escaped; were condemned in
       contumacy. Among the men who fled into exile at this time were
       … Vincent Gioberti and Joseph Garibaldi. … To an
       enthusiast less determined than Mazzini, this calamity would
       have been a check; to him, however, it was a spur. Instead of
       abandoning the expedition against Savoy, he worked with might
       and main to hurry it on. … One column, in which were fifty
       Italians and twice as many Poles, … was to enter Savoy by
       way of Annemasse. A second column had orders to push on from
       Nyon; a third, starting from Lyons, was to march towards
       Chambéry. Mazzini, with a musket on his shoulder, accompanied
       the first party. To his surprise, the peasants showed no
       enthusiasm when the tricolor flag was unfurled and the
       invaders shouted 'God and People! Liberty and the Republic!'
       before them. At length some carabineers and a platoon of
       troops appeared. A few shots were fired. Mazzini fainted; his
       comrades dispersed across the Swiss border, taking him with
       them. … His enemies attributed his fainting to cowardice; he
       himself explained it as the result of many nights of
       sleeplessness, of great fatigue, fever and cold. … To all
       but the few concerned in it, this first venture of Young Italy
       seemed a farce, the disproportion between its aim and its
       achievement was so enormous, and Mazzini's personal collapse
       was so ignominious. Nevertheless, Italian conspiracy had now
       and henceforth that head for lack of which it had so long
       floundered amid vague and contradictory purposes. The young
       Idealist had been beaten in his first encounter with obdurate
       Reality, but he was not discouraged. … Now began in earnest
       that 'apostolate' of his, which he laid down only at his
       death.
    {1861}
       Young Italy was established beyond the chance of being
       destroyed by an abortive expedition; Young Poland, Young
       Hungary, Young Europe itself, sprang up after the Mazzinian
       pattern; the Liberals and revolutionists of the Continent felt
       that their cause was international, and in their affliction
       they fraternized. No one could draw so fair and reasonable a
       Utopia for them as Mazzini drew; no one could so fire them
       with a sense of duty, with hope, with energy. He became the
       mainspring of the whole machine—truly an infernal machine to
       the autocrats—of European conspiracy. The redemption of Italy
       was always his nearest aim, but his generous principle reached
       out over other nations, for in the world that he prophesied
       every people must be free. Proscribed in Piedmont, expelled
       from Switzerland, denied lodging in France, he took refuge in
       London, there to direct, amid poverty and heartache, the whole
       vast scheme of plots. His bread he earned by writing critical
       and literary essays for the English reviews,—he quickly
       mastered the English language so as to use it with remarkable
       vigor,—and all his leisure he devoted to the preparation of
       political tracts, and to correspondence with numberless
       confederates. … He was the consulting physician for all the
       revolutionary practitioners of Europe. Those who were not his
       partisans disparaged his influence, asserting that he was only
       a man of words; but the best proof of his power lies in the
       anxiety he caused monarchs and cabinets, and in the
       precautions they took to guard against him. … Mazzini and
       Metternich! For nearly twenty years they were the antipodes of
       European politics. One in his London garret, poor, despised,
       yet indomitable and sleepless, sending his influence like an
       electric current through all barriers to revivify the heart of
       Italy and of Liberal Europe; the other in his Vienna palace,
       haughty, famous, equally alert and cunning, … shedding over
       Italy and over Europe his upas-doctrines of torpor and decay!"

          W. R. Thayer,
          The Dawn of Italian Independence,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. L. Garrison,
          Joseph Mazzini,
          chapters 2-5.

          J. Mazzini,
          Collected Works,
          volume 1.

    ITALY: A. D. 1848.
       Expulsion of Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

    ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Insurrection and revolution throughout the peninsula.
       French occupation of Rome.
       Triumph of King "Bomba" in Naples and Sicily.
       Disastrous war of Sardinia with Austria.
       Lombardy and Venice enslaved anew.

       "The revolution of 1831, which affected the States of the
       Church, Modena, and Parma, had been suppressed, like the still
       earlier rebellions in Naples and Piedmont, by Austrian
       intervention. … Hence, all the hatred of the Italians was
       directed against foreign rule, as the only obstacle to the
       freedom and unity of the peninsula. … The secret societies,
       and the exiles in communication with them—especially Joseph
       Mazzini, who issued his commands from London—took care that
       the national spirit should not be buried beneath material
       interests, but should remain ever wakeful. Singularly, the
       first encouragement came from" Rome. "Pope Gregory XVI., …
       had died June 1st, 1846, and been succeeded by the
       fifty-four-year-old Cardinal Count Mastai Ferretti, who took
       the name of Pius IX. If the pious world which visited him was
       charmed by the amiability and clemency of its new head, the
       cardinals were dismayed at the reforms which this new head
       would fain introduce in the States of the Church and in all
       Italy. He published an amnesty for all political offences;
       permitted the exiles to return with impunity; allowed the
       Press freer scope; threw open the highest civil offices to
       laymen; summoned from the notables of the provinces a council
       of state, which was to propose reforms; bestowed a liberal
       municipal constitution on the city of Rome; and endeavored to
       bring about an Italian confederation. … After the French
       revolution of 1848 he granted a constitution. There was a
       first chamber, to be named by the Pope, and a second chamber,
       to be elected by the people, while the irresponsible college
       of cardinals formed a sort of privy council. A new era
       appeared to be dawning. The old-world capital, Rome, once the
       mistress of the nations, still the mistress of all Roman
       Catholic hearts, was to become the central point of Italy. …
       But when the flames of war broke out in the north [see below],
       and the fate of Italy was about to be decided between Sardinia
       and Austria on the old battle fields of Lombardy, the Romans
       demanded from the Pope a declaration of war against Austria,
       and the despatch of Roman troops to join Charles Albert's
       army. Pius rejected their demands as unsuited to his papal
       office, and so broke with the men of the extreme party. … In
       this time of agitation Pius thought that in Count Pellegrino
       Rossi, of Carrara, … he had found the right man to carry out
       a policy of moderate liberalism, and on the 17th of September,
       1848, he set him at the head of a new ministry. The anarchists
       … could not forgive Rossi for grasping the reins with a firm
       hand." On the 15th of November, as he alighted from his
       carriage at the door of the Chambers, he was stabbed in the
       neck by an assassin, and died on the spot. He was about, when
       murdered, to open the Chambers with a speech, in which he
       intended "to promise abolition of the rule of the cardinals
       and introduction of a lay government, and to insist upon
       Italy's independence and unity. … The next day an armed
       crowd appeared before the Quirinal and attacked the guard,
       which consisted of Swiss mercenaries, some of the bullets
       flying into the Pope's antechamber. He had to accept a radical
       ministry and dismiss the Swiss troops. … Pius fled in
       disguise from Rome to Gaeta, November 24th, and sought shelter
       with the King of Naples. Mazzini and his party had free scope.
       A constitutional convention was summoned, which declared the
       temporal power of the Pope abolished (February 5th, 1849), and
       Rome a republic. To them attached itself Tuscany. Grand-duke
       Leopold II. had granted a constitution, February 17th, 1848,
       but nevertheless the republican-minded ministry of Guerrazzi
       compelled him to join the Pope at Gaeta, February 21st, 1849.
       The republic was then proclaimed in Tuscany and union with
       Rome resolved upon." But Louis Napoleon, President of the
       French republic, intervened. "Marshal Oudinot was despatched
       with 8,000 men. He landed in Civita Vecchia, April 26th, 1849,
       and appeared before the walls of Rome on the 30th, expecting
       to take the city without any trouble. But … after a fight of
       several hours, he had to retreat to Civita Vecchia with a loss
       of 700 men.
    {1862}
       A few days later the Neapolitan army, which was to attack the
       rebels from the south, was defeated at Velletri; and the
       Spanish troops, the third in the league against the red
       republic, prudently avoided a battle. But Oudinot received
       considerable re-enforcements, and on June 3d he advanced
       against Rome for the second time, with 35,000 men, while the
       force in the city consisted of about 19,000, mostly volunteers
       and national guards. In spite of the bravery of Garibaldi and
       the volunteers, into whom he breathed his spirit, Rome had to
       capitulate, after a long and bloody struggle, owing to the
       superiority of the French artillery. On the 4th of July
       Oudinot entered the silent capital. Garibaldi, Mazzini, and
       their followers fled. … Pius, for whose nerves the Roman
       atmosphere was still too strong, did not return until the 4th
       of April, 1850. His ardor for reform was cooled. … In the
       Legations they had to protect themselves by Austrian bayonets,
       and in Rome and Civita Vecchia by French. This lasted in the
       Legations until 1859, and in Rome and Civita Vecchia until
       1866 and 1870. Simultaneously with Rome the south of Italy had
       entered into the movement so characteristic of the year 1848.
       The scenes of 1820 and 1821 were repeated." The Sicilians
       again demanded independence; expelled the Neapolitan garrison
       from Palermo; refused to accept a constitution proffered by
       King Ferdinand II., which created a united parliament for
       Naples and Sicily; voted in a Sicilian parliament the
       perpetual exclusion of the Bourbon dynasty from the throne,
       and offered the crown of Sicily to a son of the king of
       Sardinia, who declined the gift. In Naples, Ferdinand yielded
       at first to the storm, and sent, under compulsion, a force of
       13,000 Neapolitan troops, commanded by the old revolutionist,
       General Pepé, to join the Sardinians against Austria. This was
       in April, 1848. A month later he crushed the revolution with
       his Swiss mercenaries, recalled his army from northern Italy,
       and was master, again, in his capital and his peninsular
       kingdom. The following summer he landed 8,000 troops in
       Sicily; his army bombarded and stormed Messina in September;
       defeated the insurgents at the foot of Mount Etna; took
       Catania by storm in April, 1849, and entered Palermo, after a
       short bombardment, on the 17th of May, having gained for its
       master the nickname of "King Bomba." "He ordered a general
       disarmament, and established an oppressive military rule over
       the whole island; and there was no more talk of parliament and
       constitution. All these struggles in central and southern
       Italy stood in close connection with the events of 1848 and
       1849 in upper Italy. … In the north the struggle was to
       shake off the Austrian yoke. … During the month of January,
       1848, there was constant friction between the citizens and the
       military in Milan and the university cities of Pavia and
       Padua. … March 18th, Milan rose. All classes took part in
       the fight; and the eighty-two-year-old field-marshal Count
       Joseph Radetzky … was obliged, after a street fight of two
       days, to draw his troops out of the city, call up as quickly
       as possible the garrisons of the neighboring cities, and take
       up his position in the famous Quadrilateral, between
       Peschiera, Verona, Legnano, and Mantua. March 22d, Venice,
       where Count Zichy commanded, was lost for the Austrians," who
       yielded without resistance, releasing their political
       prisoners, one of whom, the celebrated Daniel Manin, a
       Venetian lawyer, took his place at the head of a provisional
       government. "Other cities followed the lead of Venice. The
       little duchies of Modena and Parma could hold out no longer;
       Dukes Francis and Charles fled to Austria, and provisional
       governments sprung up behind them. Like Naples, the duchies
       and Tuscany also sent their troops across the Po to help the
       Sardinians in the decisive struggle. The hopes of all Italy
       were centred on Sardinia and its king. … Charles Albert,
       called to the aid of Lombardy, entered Milan to win for
       himself the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom and the hegemony of
       Italy. He presented himself as the liberator of the peninsula,
       but it was not a part for which he was qualified by his
       antecedents. … He was a brave soldier, but a poor captain.
       … His opponent, Radetzky, was old, but his spirit was still
       young and fresh. … Radetzky received re-enforcements from
       Austria, and on the 6th of May repelled the attack of the
       Sardinian king south-west of Verona [at Santa Lucia]. May
       29th, he carried the intrenchments at Cartatone; but as the
       Sardinians were victorious at Goito and took Peschiera, while
       Garibaldi with his Alpine rangers threatened the Austrian
       rear, he had to desist from further advances, and limit his
       operations to the recapture of Vicenza and the other cities of
       the Venetian main-land. In the mean time the Austrian court,
       chiefly at the instigation of the British embassy, had opened
       negotiations with the Lombards, and offered them their
       independence on condition of their assuming a considerable
       share of the public debt, and concluding a favorable
       commercial treaty with Austria. But, as the Lombards felt sure
       of acquiring their freedom more cheaply, they did not accept
       the proposition. Radetzky was now in a position to assume an
       active offensive. He won a brilliant victory at Custozza, July
       25th. The Sardinians attempted to make a stand at Goito and
       again at Volta, but were driven back, and Radetzky advanced on
       Milan. Charles Albert had to evacuate the city," and on the
       9th of August he concluded an armistice, withdrawing his
       troops from Lombardy and the duchies. But in the following
       March (1849) he was persuaded to renew the war, and he placed
       his army under the command of the Polish general Chrzanowski.
       It was the intention of the Sardinians to advance again into
       Lombardy, but they had no opportunity. "Radetzky crossed the
       Ticino, and in a four days' campaign on Sardinian soil
       defeated the foe so completely—March 21st at Mortara, and
       March 23d at Novara—that there could be no more thought of a
       renewal of the struggle. … Charles Albert, who had vainly
       sought death upon the battle-field, was weary of his throne
       and his life. In the night of March 23d, at Novara, he laid
       down the crown and declared his eldest son king of Sardinia,
       under the title of Victor Emmanuel II. He hoped that the
       latter would obtain a more favorable peace from the Austrians.
       … Then, saying farewell to his wife by letter, attended by
       but two servants, he travelled through France and Spain to
       Portugal. He died at Oporto, July 26th, 1849, of repeated
       strokes of apoplexy." After long negotiations, the new king
       concluded a treaty of peace with Austria on the 6th of August.
       "Sardinia retained its boundaries intact, and paid 75,000,000
       lire as indemnity. The false report of a Sardinian victory at
       Novara had caused the population of Brescia to fall upon the
       Austrian garrison and drive them into the citadel.
    {1863}
       General Haynau hastened thither with 4,000 men well provided
       with artillery. The city was bombarded, and on the 1st of
       April it was reoccupied, after a fearful street fight, in
       which even women took part; but Haynau stained his name by
       inhuman cruelties, especially toward the gentler sex. Venice
       was not able to hold out much longer. It had at first attached
       itself to Sardinia, but after the defeat of the Sardinians the
       republic was proclaimed. Without the city, in Haynau's camp,
       swamp fever raged; within, hunger and cholera. On the news of
       the capitulation of Hungary, August 22d, it surrendered, and
       the heads of the revolution, Manin and Pepe, went into exile.
       All Italy was again brought under its old masters."

          W. Müller,
          Political History of Recent Times,
          section 16.

       The siege of Venice, "reckoning from April 2, when the
       Assembly voted to resist at any cost, lasted 146 days; but the
       blockade by land began on June 18, 1848, when the Austrians
       first occupied Mestre. During the twenty-one weeks of actual
       siege, 900 Venetian troops were killed, and probably 7,000 or
       8,000 were at different times on the sick-list. Of the
       Austrians, 1,200 were killed in engagements, 8,000 succumbed
       to fevers and cholera, and as many more were in the hospitals:
       80,000 projectiles were fired from the Venetian batteries;
       from the Austrian, more than 120,000. During the seventeen
       months of her independence, Venice raised sixty million
       francs, exclusive of patriotic donations in plate and
       chattels. When Gorzkowsky came to examine the accounts of the
       defunct government he exclaimed, 'I did not believe that such
       Republican dogs were such honest men.' With the fate of Venice
       was quenched the last of the fires of liberty which the
       Revolution had kindled throughout Europe in 1848. Her people,
       whom the world had come to look down upon as degenerate,—mere
       trinket-makers and gondoliers,—had proved themselves second
       to none in heroism, superior to all in stability. At Venice,
       from first to last, we have had to record no excesses, no
       fickle changes, no slipping down of power from level to level
       till it sank in the mire of anarchy. She had her demagogues
       and her passions, but she would be the slave of neither; and
       in nothing did she show her character more worthily than in
       recognizing Manin and making him her leader. He repaid her
       trust by absolute fidelity. I can discover no public act of
       his to which you can impute any other motive than solicitude
       for her welfare. The common people loved him as a father,
       revered him as a patron saint; the upper classes, the
       soldiers, the politicians, whatever may have been the
       preferences of individuals or the ambition of cliques, felt
       that he was indispensable, and gave him wider and wider
       authority as danger increased. … The little lawyer, with the
       large, careworn face and blue eyes, had redeemed Venice from
       her long shame of decadence and servitude. But Europe would
       not suffer his work to stand; Europe preferred that Austria
       rather than freedom should rule at Venice. At daybreak on
       August 28 a mournful throng of the common people collected
       before Manin's house in Piazza San Paterniano. 'Here is our
       good father, poor dear fellow,' they were heard to say. 'He
       has endured so much for us. May God bless him!' They escorted
       him and his family to the shore, whence he embarked on the
       French ship Pluton, for he was among the forty prominent
       Venetians whom the Austrians condemned to banishment. At six
       o'clock the Pluton weighed anchor and passed through the
       winding channel of the lagune, out into the Adriatic. Long
       before the Austrian banners were hoisted that morning on the
       flagstaffs of St. Mark's, Venice, with her fair towers and
       glittering domes, had vanished forever from her Great
       Defender's sight. Outwardly, the Revolutionary Movement had
       failed; in France it had resulted in a spurious Republic, soon
       to become a tinsel Empire; elsewhere, there was not even a
       make-believe success to hide, if but for a while, the failure.
       In Italy, except in Piedmont, Reaction had full play. Bomba
       filled his Neapolitan and Sicilian prisons with political
       victims, and demonstrated again that the Bourbon government
       was a negation of God. Pius IX., having loitered at Naples
       with his Paragon of Virtue until April, 1850, returned to
       Rome, to be henceforth now the puppet and now the accomplice
       of Cardinal Antonelli in every scheme for oppressing his
       subjects, and for resisting Liberal tendencies. He held his
       temporal sovereignty through the kindness of the Bonapartist
       charlatan in France; it was fated that he should lose it
       forever when that charlatan lost his Empire. In Tuscany,
       Leopold thanked Austria for permitting him to rule over a
       people the intelligent part of which despised him. In Modena,
       the Duke was but an Austrian deputy sheriff. Lombardy and
       Venetia were again the prey of the double-beaked eagle of
       Hapsburg. Only in Piedmont did Constitutionalism and liberty
       survive to become, under an honest king and a wise minister,
       the ark of Italy's redemption."

          W. R. Thayer,
          The Dawn of Italian Independence,
          book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          W. E. Gladstone,
          Gleanings of Past Years,
          volume 4, chapters 1-4.

          L. C. Farini,
          The Roman State from 1815 to 1850,
          books 2-7 (volumes 1-4).

          H. Martin,
          Daniel Manin and Venice in 1848-49.

          G. Garibaldi,
          Autobiography,
          period 2 (volumes 1-2).

          L. Mariotti,
          Italy in 1848.

          E. A. V.,
          Joseph Mazzini,
          chapters 4-5.

          The Chevalier O'Clery,
          History of the Italian Revolution,
          chapters 6-7.

    ITALY: A. D. 1855.
       Sardinia in the alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

    ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
       Austro-Italy before Europe in the Congress of Paris.
       Alliance of France with Sardinia.
       War with Austria.
       Emancipation of Lombardy.
       Peace of Villa-franca.

       "The year 1856 brought an armistice between the contending
       powers [in the Crimea—see RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854 to
       1854-1856], followed by the Congress of Paris, which settled
       the terms of peace. At that Congress Count Cavour and the
       Marquis Villamarina represented their country side by side
       with the envoys of the great European States. The Prime
       Minister of Piedmont, while taking his part in the
       re-establishment of the general peace with a skill and tact
       which won him the favour of his brother plenipotentiaries,
       never lost sight of the further object he had in view, namely,
       that of laying before the Congress the condition of Italy. …
       His efforts were rewarded with success.
    {1864}
       On the 30th March, 1856, the treaty of peace was signed, and
       on the 8th April Count Walewski called the attention of the
       members of the Congress to the state of Italy. … Count Buol,
       the Austrian plenipotentiary, would not admit that the
       Congress had any right to deal with the Italian question at
       all; he declined courteously, but firmly, to discuss the
       matter. … But although Austria refused to entertain the
       question, the fact remained that the condition of Italy now
       stood condemned, not by revolutionary chiefs, nor by the
       rulers of Piedmont alone, but by the envoys of some of the
       leading powers of Europe speaking officially in the name of
       their respective sovereigns. It was in truth a great
       diplomatic victory for Italy. … No one in Europe was more
       thoroughly convinced than Napoleon III. that the discontent of
       Italy and the plots of a section of Italians had their origin
       in the despotism which annihilated all national life in the
       Peninsula with the single exception of Piedmont. He felt
       keenly, also, how false, was his own position at Rome. …
       France upheld the Pope as a temporal sovereign, but,
       nevertheless, the latter ruled in a manner which pleased
       Austria and which displeased France. … Count Cavour went
       privately to meet the French Emperor at Plombières in July,
       1858. During that interview it was arranged that France should
       ally herself actively with Piedmont against Austria. … The
       first public indication of the attitude taken up by France
       with regard to Austria and Italy was given on the 1st January,
       1859, when Napoleon III. received the diplomatic corps at the
       Tuileries. Addressing Baron Hubner, the Austrian Ambassador,
       the French Emperor said: 'I regret that the relations between
       us are bad; tell your sovereign, however, that my sentiments
       towards him are not changed.' … The ties which united France
       to Piedmont were strengthened by the marriage, in the end of
       January, 1859, of the Princess Clotilde, the eldest daughter
       of Victor Emmanuel, with Prince Napoleon, the first cousin of
       the French Emperor. … An agreement was made by which the
       Emperor Napoleon promised to give armed assistance to Piedmont
       if she were attacked by Austria. The result, in case the
       allies were successful, was to be the formation of a northern
       kingdom of Italy. … Both Austria and Piedmont increased
       their armaments and raised loans in preparation for war. Men
       of all ranks and conditions of life flocked to Turin from the
       other States of Italy to join the Piedmontese army, or enrol
       themselves among the volunteers of Garibaldi, who had hastened
       to offer his services to the king against Austria. …
       Meanwhile, diplomacy made continual efforts to avert war. …
       The idea of a European Congress was started. … Then came the
       proposition of a general disarmament by way of staying the
       warlike preparations, which were taking ever enlarged
       proportions. On the 18th April, 1859, the Cabinet of Turin
       agreed to the principle of disarmament at the special request
       of England and France, on the condition that Piedmont took her
       seat at the Congress. The Cabinet of Vienna had made no reply
       to this proposition. Then suddenly it addressed, on the 23rd
       April, an ultimatum to the Cabinet of Turin demanding the
       instant disarmament of Piedmont, to which a categorical reply
       was asked for within three days. At the expiration of the
       three days Count Cavour, who was delighted at this hasty step
       of his opponent, remitted to Baron Kellerberg, the Austrian
       envoy, a refusal to comply with the request made. War was now
       inevitable. Victor Emmanuel addressed a stirring proclamation
       to his army on the 27th April, and two days afterwards another
       to the people of his own kingdom and to the people of Italy.
       … On the 30th April some French troops arrived at Turin. On
       the 13th May Napoleon III. disembarked at Genoa. … Although
       the Austrian armies proceeded to cross the Ticino and invade
       the Piedmontese territory, they failed to make a decisive
       march on Turin. Had Count Giúlay, the Austrian commander, done
       so without hesitation, he might well have reached the capital
       of Piedmont before the French had arrived in sufficient force
       to enable the little Piedmontese army to arrest the invasion.
       As it was, the opportunity was lost never to occur again. In
       the first engagements at Montebello and Palestro [May 20, 30
       and 31] the advantage rested decidedly with the allies. … On
       the 4th June the French fought the battle of Magenta, which
       ended, though not without a hard struggle, in the defeat of
       the Austrians. On the 8th the Emperor Napoleon and King Victor
       Emmanuel entered Milan, where they were received with a
       welcome as sincere as it was enthusiastic. The rich Lombard
       capital hastened to recognise the king as its sovereign. While
       there he met in person, Garibaldi, who was in command of the
       volunteer corps, whose members had flocked from all parts of
       Italy to carry on under his command the war in the mountainous
       districts of the north against Austria. … The allied troops
       pursued their march onwards towards the River Mincio, upon
       whose banks two of the fortresses of the famous Quadrilateral
       are situated. On the 24th June they encountered the Austrian
       army at Solferino and San Martino. French, Piedmontese, and
       Austrians, fought with courage and determination. Nor was it
       until after ten or eleven hours of hard fighting that the
       allies forced their enemy to retreat and took possession of
       the positions he had occupied in the morning. While victory
       thus crowned the efforts of France and Piedmont in battle,
       events of no little importance were taking place in Italy.
       Ferdinand II. of Naples died on the 22nd May, just after he
       had received the news of the successes of the allies at
       Montebello and Palestro. He was succeeded by his son, Francis
       II. … Count Salmour was at once despatched by the
       Piedmontese Government … with the offer of a full and fair
       alliance between Turin and Naples. The offer was rejected.
       Francis determined to follow his father's example of
       absolutism at home while giving all his influence to Austria.
       Thus it was that the young Neapolitan king sowed, and as he
       sowed so he reaped. Leopold, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, had in
       April refused the proffered alliance of Piedmont. … Finally
       he left Florence and took refuge in the Austrian camp. A
       provisional Government was formed, which placed the Tuscan
       forces at the disposal of Victor Emmanuel. This change was
       effected in a few hours without bloodshed or violence. The
       Duchess of Parma went away to Switzerland with her young son,
       Duke Robert. Francis Duke of Modena betook himself, with what
       treasures he had time to lay his hands on, to the more
       congenial atmosphere of the head-quarters of the Austrian
       army. … 'The deputations which hastened from Tuscany, Parma,
       and Modena, to offer their allegiance to Victor Emmanuel, were
       received without difficulty. It was agreed that their complete
       annexation should be deferred until after the conclusion of
       peace.
    {1865}
       In the meanwhile the Piedmontese Government was to assume the
       responsibility of maintaining order and providing for military
       action. … The French and Piedmontese armies had won the
       battle of Solferino, and driven the enemy across the Mincio;
       their fleets were off the lagoons of Venice, and were even
       visible from the lofty Campanile of St. Mark. Italy was
       throbbing with a movement of national life daily gathering
       volume and force. Europe was impatiently expecting the next
       move. It took the unexpected form of an armistice, which the
       Emperor of the French proposed, on his sole responsibility, to
       the Emperor Francis Joseph on the 8th July. On the 12th the
       preliminaries of peace were signed at Villafranca. Victor
       Emmanuel was opposed to this act of his ally, but was unable
       to prevent it. The Italians were bitterly disappointed, and
       their anger was only too faithfully represented by Cavour
       himself. He hastened to the headquarters of the king,
       denounced in vehement language the whole proceeding, advised
       his majesty not to sign the armistice, not to accept Lombardy
       [see below], and to withdraw his troops from the Mincio to the
       Ticino. But Victor Emmanuel, though sympathising with the
       feelings of Italy and of his Minister, took a wiser and more
       judicious course than the one thus recommended. He accepted
       Cavour's resignation and signed the armistice, appending to
       his signature these words:—'J'accepte pour ce qui me
       concerne.' He reserved his liberty of action for the future
       and refused to pledge himself to anything more than a
       cessation of hostilities."

          J. W. Probyn,
          Italy from 1815 to 1890,
          chapters 9-10.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Bossoli,
          The War in Italy.

          C. de Mazade,
          Life of Count Cavour,
          chapters 2-5.

          C. Arrivabene,
          Italy under Victor Emmanuel,
          chapters 1-13 (volume 1).

          C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns, 1796-1870,
          pages 271-340.

          L. Kossuth,
          Memories of My Exile.

          Countess E. M. Cesaresco,
          Italian Characters in the Epoch of Unification.

    ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
       The Treaty of Zurich and its practical negation.
       Annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia by Plebiscite.
       Revolution in Sicily and Naples.
       Garibaldi's great campaign of liberation.
       The Sardinian army in the Papal States.
       The new Kingdom of Italy proclaimed.

       "The treaty concluded at Zurich in November [1859] between the
       ambassadors of France, Austria, and Sardinia substantially
       ratified the preliminaries arranged at Villafranca. Lombardy
       passed to the king of Sardinia; Venetia was retained by
       Austria. The rulers of Modena and Parma were to be restored,
       the papal power again established in the Legations, while the
       various states of the peninsula, excepting Sardinia and the
       Two Sicilies, were to form a confederation under the
       leadership of the Pope. According to the terms of the treaty
       Lombardy was the only state directly benefited by the war. …
       The people of central Italy showed no inclination to resume
       the old régime. They maintained their position firmly and
       consistently, despite the decisions of the Zurich Congress,
       the advice of the French emperor, and the threatening attitude
       of Naples and Rome. … The year closed without definite
       action, leaving the provisional governments in control. In
       fact, matters were simply drifting, and it seemed imperative
       to take some vigorous measures to terminate so abnormal a
       condition of affairs. Finally the project of a European
       congress was suggested. There was but one opinion as to who
       should represent Italy in such an event. … Cavour …
       returned to the head of affairs in January. This event was
       simultaneous with the removal of M. Walewski at Paris and a
       change in the policy of the French government. The emperor no
       longer advised the central Italians to accept the return of
       their rulers. His influence at Rome was exercised to induce
       the Pope to allow his subjects in the Legations to have their
       will. … The scheme of a European congress was abandoned.
       With France at his back to neutralize Austria, Cavour had
       nothing to fear. … He suggested to the emperor that the
       central Italians be allowed to settle their fate by
       plebiscite. This method was to a certain extent a craze with
       the emperor, … and Cavour was not surprised at the
       affirmative reply he received to his proposal. The elections
       took place in March, and by an overwhelming majority the
       people of Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Legations declared
       for annexation to Sardinia. Austria protested, but could do no
       more in the face of England and France. Naples followed the
       Austrian example, while almost simultaneously with the news of
       the elections there arrived at Turin the papal excommunication
       for Victor Emmanuel and his subjects. On the 2d of April the
       king opened the new parliament and addressed himself to the
       representatives of 12,000,000 Italians. The natural enthusiasm
       attending the session was seriously dampened by the royal
       announcement that, subject to the approval of their citizens
       and the ratification of parliament, Nice and Savoy were to be
       returned to France. It was, in fact, the concluding
       installment of the price arranged at Plombières to be paid for
       the French troops in the campaign of the previous year. …
       General Garibaldi, who sat in the parliament for Nice, was
       especially prominent in the angry debates that followed. …
       When the transfer had been ratified he withdrew to a humble
       retreat in the island of Caprera. … But the excitement over
       the loss of Nice and Savoy was soon diminished by the
       startling intelligence which arrived of rebellion in the
       Neapolitan dominions. Naples was mutinous, while in Sicily,
       Palermo and Messina were in open revolt. Garibaldi's time had
       come. Leaving Caprera, he made for Piedmont, and hastily
       organized a band of volunteers to assist in the popular
       movement. On the night of May 6, with about a thousand
       enthusiastic spirits, he embarked from the coast near Genoa in
       two steamers and sailed for Sicily. Cavour in the mean time
       winked at this extraordinary performance. He dispatched
       Admiral Persano with a squadron ostensibly to intercept the
       expedition, but in reality 'to navigate between it and the
       hostile Neapolitan fleet.' On the 11th Garibaldi landed safely
       at Marsala under the sleepy guns of a Neapolitan man-of-war.
       On the 14th he was at Salemi, where he issued the following
       proclamation: 'Garibaldi, commander-in-chief of the national
       forces in Sicily, on the invitation of the principal citizens,
       and on the deliberation of the free communes of the island,
       considering that in times of war it is necessary that the
       civil and military powers should be united in one person,
       assumes in the name of Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, the
       Dictatorship in Sicily.'" On the 26th Garibaldi attacked
       Palermo; on the 6th of June he was in possession of the city
       and citadel; on the 25th of July Messina was surrendered to him.
    {1866}
       "Perhaps the excitement at Turin during these days was second
       only to that which animated the great Sicilian cities. The
       guns of Bomba's fleet at Palermo were no more active than the
       diplomatic artillery which the courts of Central Europe
       trained upon the government at Turin. … Cavour's position at
       this time was a trying, delicate, and from some points of view
       a questionable one. He had publicly expressed regret for
       Garibaldi's expedition, while privately he encouraged it. …
       Cavour's desire to see Garibaldi in Calabria was changed, a
       little later. La Farina was at Palermo in behalf of the
       Sardinian government, to induce Garibaldi to consent to the
       immediate annexation of Sicily to the new Italian kingdom.
       This Garibaldi declined to do, preferring to wait until he
       could lay the entire Neapolitan realm and Rome as well at the
       feet of Victor Emmanuel. This altered the aspect of affairs.
       It was evident that Garibaldi was getting headstrong. It was
       Cavour's constant solicitude to keep the Italian question in
       such a shape as to allow no foreign power a pretext for
       interference. Garibaldi's design against Rome garrisoned by
       French troops would be almost certain to bring on foreign
       complications and ruin the cause of Italian unity." On the
       19th of August, Garibaldi crossed his army from Sicily to the
       mainland and advanced on Naples. "On the evening of September
       6 the king embarked on a Spanish ship, and leaving his
       mutinous navy at anchor in the bay, quit forever those
       beautiful shores which his race had too long defiled. On the
       morning of September 7 Garibaldi was at Salerno; before night
       he had reached Naples, and its teeming thousands had run mad.
       … The Neapolitan fleet went over en masse to Garibaldi, and
       by him was placed under the orders of the Sardinian admiral.
       The Garibaldian troops came swarming into the city, some by
       land and others by sea. … Francis II. had shut himself up in
       the fortress of Gaeta with the remnants of his army, holding
       the line of the Volturno. … At Turin the state of unrest
       continued. Garibaldi's presence at Naples was attended with
       grave perils. Of course his designs upon Rome formed the
       principal danger, but his conspicuous inability as an
       organizer was one of scarcely less gravity. … Sardinian
       troops had become a necessity of the situation. … There was
       no time to lose. There could be no difficulty in finding an
       excuse to enter papal territory. The inhabitants of Umbria and
       the Marches, who had never ceased to appeal for annexation to
       the new kingdom, were suppressed by an army of foreign
       mercenaries that the Pope had mustered beneath his banner. …
       Cavour had interceded in vain with the Vatican to alter its
       course toward its disaffected subjects. At last, on September
       7, the day Garibaldi entered Naples, he sent the royal
       ultimatum to Cardinal Antonelli at Rome. … On the 11th the
       unfavorable reply of Antonelli was received, and the same day
       the Sardinian troops crossed the papal frontier. … Every
       European power except England, which expressed open
       satisfaction, protested against this action. There was an
       imposing flight of ambassadors from Turin, and an ominous
       commotion all along the diplomatic horizon. Cavour had not
       moved, however, without a secret understanding with Napoleon.
       … The Sardinian army advanced rapidly in two columns.
       General Fanti seized Perugia and Spoleto, while Cialdini on
       the east of the Apennines utterly destroyed the main papal
       army under the French general Lamoricière at Castelfidardo
       [September 17]. Lamoricière with a few followers gained
       Ancona, but finding that town covered by the guns of the
       Sardinian fleet, he was compelled to surrender. 'The
       pontifical mercenary corps' became a thing of the past, Cavour
       could turn his whole attention to Naples. He had obtained from
       parliament an enthusiastic permission to receive, if tendered,
       the allegiance of the Two Sicilies. The army was ordered
       across the Neapolitan frontier, and the king left for Ancona
       to take command. In the mean time on October 1 Garibaldi had
       inflicted another severe defeat to the royal Neapolitan army
       on the Volturno. The Sardinian advance was wholly unimpeded.
       … On November 7 the king entered Naples, and on the
       following day was waited upon by a deputation to announce the
       result of the election that Garibaldi had previously decreed.
       'Sire,' said their spokesman, 'The Neapolitan people,
       assembled in Comitia, by an immense majority have proclaimed
       you their king.' … Then followed an event so sublime as to
       be without parallel in these times of selfish ambition.
       Garibaldi bade farewell to his faithful followers, and,
       refusing all rewards, passed again to his quiet home in
       Caprera. … The people of Umbria and the Marches followed the
       lead of Naples in declaring themselves subjects of Victor
       Emmanuel. Except for the patrimony of St. Peter surrounding
       the city of Rome and the Austrian province of Venetia, Italy
       was united under the tricolor. While Garibaldi returned to his
       humble life, Cavour went to Turin to resume his labors. … On
       the 18th of February, 1861, the first national parliament
       representing the north and south met at Turin. Five days
       before, the last stronghold of Francis II. had capitulated,
       and the enthusiasm ran high. The kingdom of Italy was
       proclaimed, and the king confirmed as 'Victor Emmanuel II., by
       the grace of God and the will of the nation King of Italy.'
       … The work was almost done. The scheme that a few years
       before would have provoked a smile in any diplomatic circle in
       Europe had been perfected almost to the capstone. But the man
       who had conceived the plan and carried it through its darkest
       days was, not destined to witness its final consummation.
       Cavour was giving way. On May 29 he was stricken down with a
       violent illness." On June 6 he died. "To Mazzini belongs the
       credit of keeping alive the spirit of patriotism; Garibaldi is
       entitled to the admiration of the world as the pure patriot
       who fired men's souls; but Cavour was greater than either, and
       Mazzini and Garibaldi were but humble instruments in his
       magnificent plan of Italian regeneration."

          H. Murdock,
          The Reconstruction of Europe,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          C. de Mazade,
          Life of Count Cavour,
          chapters 5-7.

          G. Garibaldi,
          Autobiography,
          3d period (volume 2).

          E. Dicey,
          Victor Emmanuel,
          chapters 27-34.

          E. About,
          The Roman Question.

          The Chevalier O'Clery,
          The Making of Italy,
          chapters 7-12.

    {1867}

    ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
       The Roman question and the Venetian question.
       Impatience of the nation.
       Collision of Garibaldi with the government.
       Alliance with Prussia.
       War with Austria.
       Liberation and annexation of Venetia.

       "The new ministry was formed by Baron Ricasoli. … In the
       month of July, Russia and Prussia followed the example of
       England and France, and acknowledged Italian unity. … Baron
       Ricasoli only held office about nine months; not feeling equal
       to the difficulties he had to encounter, he resigned in March,
       1862, and Signor Ratazzi was empowered to form a new ministry.
       … The volunteer troops had become a source of serious
       embarrassment to the government. … It was found disagreeable
       and dangerous to have two standing armies under separate heads
       and a separate discipline, and it was proposed to amalgamate
       the Garibaldians with the royal troops. Endless disagreements
       arose out of this question. … As soon as this question was
       in a manner accommodated, a more serious one arose. The
       central provinces lost all patience in waiting so long for a
       peaceful solution of the Roman question. The leaders of the
       Young Italy party became more warlike in their language, and
       excited the peasantry to riotous proceedings, which the
       government had to put down forcibly, and this disagreeable
       fact helped to make the Ratazzi ministry unpopular.
       Garibaldi's name had been used as an incentive to those
       disturbances, and now the hot-headed general embarked for
       Sicily, to take the command of a troop who were bound for the
       Eternal City, resolved to cut with the sword the Gordian knot
       of the Roman question. The government used energetic measures
       to maintain its dignity, and not allow an irregular warfare to
       be carried on without its sanction. The times were difficult,
       no doubt, and the ministry had a hard road to tread. … The
       Garibaldians were already in the field, and having crossed
       from Sicily, were marching through Calabria with
       ever-increasing forces and the cry of 'Rome or death' on their
       lips. Victor Emmanuel had now no choice left him but to put
       down rebellion by force of arms. General Cialdini's painful
       duty it was to lead the royal troops on this occasion. He
       encountered the Garibaldians at Aspromonte, in Calabria, and
       on their refusing to surrender to the king, a fight ensued in
       which the volunteers were of course defeated, and their
       officers arrested. Garibaldi, with a ball in his foot, from
       the effects of which he has never recovered, was carried a
       state prisoner to Piedmont. … This unhappy episode was a
       bitter grief to Victor Emmanuel. … Aspromonte gave a final
       blow to the Ratazzi ministry. Never very popular, it was
       utterly shaken by the reaction in favour of Garibaldi. …
       After a good deal of worry and consultation, the king decided
       to call Luigi Carlo Farini to office. … Unhappily his health
       obliged him to retire very soon from public life, and he was
       succeeded by Minghetti. On the whole this first year without
       Cavour had been a very trying one to Victor Emmanuel. …
       Meantime the Roman question remained in abeyance—to the great
       detriment of the nation, for it kept Central and Southern
       Italy in a state of fermentation which the government could
       not long hold in check. The Bourbon intrigues at Rome,
       encouraging brigandage in the Two Sicilies, destroyed all
       security of life and property, and impeded foreigners from
       visiting the country. The Emperor of the French, occupying the
       false position of champion of Italian independence and
       protector of the temporal power of the Pope, would not do
       anything, nor let the Italian Government do anything, towards
       settling the momentous question. … Victor Emmanuel, who had
       his eye on Venice all the time, having a fixed impression that
       if it could be recovered he would find less difficulty in
       getting rid of the foreign occupation in Rome, now adopted
       energetic measures to bring about a settlement of this
       Venetian question, urging the English Government to use its
       influence with Austria to induce her to accept some compromise
       and surrender the Italian province peaceably. … Meantime the
       Italian Government continued to invite the French to withdraw
       their forces from the Roman States, and leave the Pope face to
       face with his own subjects without the aid of foreign
       bayonets. This the emperor, fearing to offend the papal party,
       could not make up his mind to do. But to make the road to Rome
       easier for the Italians, he proposed a transfer of the capital
       from Turin to some more southern town, Florence or Naples—he
       did not care which. The French minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
       said:—'Of course in the end you will go to Rome. But it is
       important that between our evacuation and your going there,
       such an interval of time and such a series of events should
       elapse as to prevent people establishing any connection
       between the two facts. France must not have any
       responsibility.' … The king accepted the conditions, which
       provided that the French were to evacuate Rome in two years,
       and fixed on Florence as the residence of the court. … On
       November 18, 1860, the first Parliament was opened in
       Florence. … The quarrel between Austria and Prussia [see
       GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866] was growing all this time, and Italy
       proposed an alliance defensive and offensive with the latter
       power. … The treaty was concluded April 8, 1866. When this
       fact became known, Austria, on the brink of war with Prussia,
       began to think that she must rid herself in some way of the
       worry of the Italians on her southern frontier, in order to be
       free to combat her powerful northern enemy. The cabinet of
       Vienna did not apply directly to the cabinet of Florence, but
       to that arbiter of the destinies of nations, Napoleon III.,
       proposing to cede Venetia on condition that the Italian
       government should detach itself from the Prussian alliance.
       … After an ineffectual attempt to accommodate matters by a
       congress, war was declared against Austria, on June 20, 1866,
       and La Marmora, having appointed Ricasoli as his deputy at the
       head of the council, led the army northwards. … Victor
       Emmanuel appointed his cousin regent, and carried his sons
       along with him to the seat of war. … The forces of Austria
       were led by the able and experienced commander, the Archduke
       Albert, who had distinguished himself at Novara. On the
       ill-omened field of Custozza, where the Italians had been
       defeated in 1849, the opposing armies met [June 24]; and both
       being in good condition, well disciplined and brave, there was
       fought a prolonged and bloody battle, in which the Italians
       were worsted, but not routed. … On July 20 the Italian navy
       suffered an overwhelming defeat at Lissa in the Adriatic, and
       these two great misfortunes plunged Victor Emmanuel into the
       deepest grief. He felt disabled from continuing the war: all
       the sacrifice of life had been in vain: national unity was as
       far off as ever. … Meantime the Prussian arms were
       everywhere victorious over Austria, and about ten days after
       the battle of Custozza it was announced in the Moniteur that
       Austria had asked the Emperor Napoleon's mediation, offering
       to cede him Venice, and that he was making over that province
       to the King of Italy.
    {1868}
       Italy could not accept it without the consent of her ally
       Prussia; and while negotiations were going forward on the
       subject, the brief seven weeks' campaign was brought to a
       conclusion by the great victory of Sadowa, and on July 26 the
       preliminaries of peace were signed by the Austrian and
       Prussian plenipotentiaries. … Venice was restored to Italy
       by the Emperor of France, with the approval of Prussia. There
       was a sting in the thought that it was not wrung from the
       talons of the Austrian eagle by the valour of Italian arms,
       but by the force of diplomacy; still it was a delightful fact
       that Venice was free, with the tricolour waving on St. Mark's.
       The Italian soil was delivered from foreign occupation. … As
       soon as the treaty was signed at Vienna, October 2, the
       Venetian Assemblies unanimously elected Victor Emmanuel with
       acclamations, and begged for immediate annexation to the
       Kingdom of Italy. On November 4, in the city of Turin, Victor
       Emmanuel received the deputation which came to proffer him the
       homage of the inhabitants of Venetia. … On November 7 Victor
       Emmanuel made a solemn entry into the most beautiful, and,
       after Rome, the most interesting city of the Italian
       peninsula. … Hot upon the settlement of the Venetian
       question, came the discussion of that of Rome, which after the
       evacuation of the French troops [November, 1866] seemed more
       complicated than ever. The Catholic powers were now anxious to
       accommodate the quarrel between Italy and the Pope, and they
       offered to guarantee him his income and his independence if he
       would reconcile himself to the national will. But Pius IX. was
       immovable in his determination to oppose it to the last."

          G. S. Godkin,
          Life of Victor Emmanuel II.,
          chapters 23-25 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Probyn,
          Italy from 1815 to 1890,
          chapter 11.

          G. Garibaldi,
          Autobiography,
          4th period, chapter 1 (volume 2),
          and volume 3, chapter 8.

    ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.
       Settlement of the Roman question.
       Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.
       Rome in the possession of the king of Italy.

       Progress made by diplomacy in the settlement of the Roman
       question "was too slow for Garibaldi. He had once more fallen
       under the influence of the extreme republicans, and in 1867 he
       declared that he would delay no longer in planting the
       republican banner on the Vatican. Between these hot-headed and
       fanatical republicans on the one side, the Italian
       Ultramontanes on another, and the French Emperor on the third,
       the position of Victor Emmanuel was anything but enviable. In
       the autumn of 1867 Garibaldi was suddenly arrested by the
       Government, but released on condition that he would remain
       quietly at Caprera. But meanwhile the volunteers under Menotti
       Garibaldi (the great chief's son) had advanced into the Papal
       States. The old warrior was burning to be with them. On the
       14th of October he effected his escape from Caprera, and
       managed eventually to join his son in the Romagna. Together
       they advanced on Rome, and won, after tremendous fighting, the
       great victory at Monte Rotundo. Meanwhile an army of
       occupation sent by the Government from Florence had crossed
       the Roman frontier, and a French force had landed on the
       coast. Garibaldi's position was already critical, but his
       resolution was unbroken. 'The Government of Florence,' he
       said, in a proclamation to the volunteers, 'has invaded the
       Roman territory, already won by us with precious blood from
       the enemies of Italy; we ought to receive our brothers in arms
       with love, and aid them in driving out of Rome the mercenary
       sustainers of tyranny; but if base deeds, the continuation of
       the vile convention of September, in mean consort with
       Jesuitism, shall urge us to lay down our arms in obedience to
       the order of the 2d December, then will I let the world know
       that I alone, a Roman general, with full power, elected by the
       universal suffrage of the only legal Government in Rome, that
       of the republic, have the right to maintain myself in arms in
       this the territory subject to my jurisdiction; and then, if
       any of these my volunteers, champions of liberty and Italian
       unity, wish to have Rome as the capital of Italy, fulfilling
       the vote of parliament and the nation, they must not put down
       their arms until Italy shall have acquired liberty of
       conscience and worship, built upon the ruin of Jesuitism, and
       until the soldiers of tyrants shall be banished from our
       land.' The position taken up by Garibaldi is perfectly
       intelligible. Rome we must have, if possible, by legal
       process, in conjunction with the royal arms'; but if they will
       stand aside, even if they will oppose, none the less Rome must
       be annexed to Italy. Unfortunately Garibaldi had left out of
       account the French force despatched by Napoleon III. to defend
       the Temporal dominions of the Pope, a force which even at this
       moment was advancing to the attack. The two armies met near
       the little village of Mentana, ill matched in every respect.
       The volunteers, numerous indeed but ill disciplined and badly
       armed, brought together, held together simply by the magic of
       a name, the French, admirably disciplined, armed with the
       fatal chassepots, fighting the battle of their ancient Church.
       The Garibaldians were terribly defeated. Victor Emmanuel
       grieved bitterly, like a true, warm-hearted father for the
       fate of his misguided but generous-hearted sons. … To the
       Emperor of the French he wrote an ardent appeal begging him to
       break with the Clericals and put himself at the head of the
       Liberal party in Europe, at the same time warning him that the
       old feeling of gratitude towards the French in Italy had quite
       disappeared. 'The late events have suffocated every
       remembrance of gratitude in the heart of Italy. It is no
       longer in the power of the Government to maintain the alliance
       with France. The chassepot gun at Mentana has given it a
       mortal blow.' At the same time the rebels were visited with
       condign punishment. Garibaldi himself was arrested, but after
       a brief imprisonment at Varignano was permitted to retire once
       more to Caprera. A prisoner so big as Garibaldi is always an
       embarrassment to gaolers. But the last act in the great drama
       … was near at hand. In 1870 the Franco-German War broke out.
       The contest, involving as it did the most momentous
       consequences, was as brief as it was decisive. The French, of
       course, could no longer maintain their position as champions
       of the Temporal power. Once more, therefore, the King of Italy
       attempted, with all the earnestness and with all the
       tenderness at his command, to induce the Pope to come to terms
       and accept the position, at once dignified and independent,
       which the Italian Government was anxious to secure to him. …
    {1869}
       But the Pope still unflinchingly adhered to the position he
       had taken up. … A feint of resistance was made, but on the
       20th of September (1870) the royal troops entered Rome, and
       the Tricolour was mounted on the palace of the Capitol. So
       soon as might be a plebiscite was taken. The numbers are
       significant—for the King, 40,788, for the Pope, 46. But
       though the work was thus accomplished in the autumn of 1870,
       it was not until 2d June 1871 that the King made his triumphal
       entry into the capital of Italy."

          J. A. R. Marriott,
          The Makers of Modern Italy,
          pages 72-76.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Garibaldi,
          Autobiography,
          volume 3, chapters 8-9.

          G. S. Godkin,
          Life of Victor Emmanuel,
          chapter 32 (volume 2).

    ITALY: A. D. 1870-1894.
       The tasks and burdens of the United Nation.
       Military and colonial ambitions.
       The Triple Alliance.

       "Italy now [In 1870] stood before the world as a nation of
       twenty-five million inhabitants, her frontiers well defined,
       her needs very evident. Nevertheless, if her national
       existence was to be more than a name, she must have discipline
       in self-government, and she must as quickly as possible
       acquire the tools and methods of the civilization prevailing
       among those nations into whose company her victories had
       raised her. Two thirds of her people lagged behind the Western
       world not only in material inventions, but in education and
       civic training. Railroads and telegraphs, the wider
       application of steam to industries, schools, courts, the
       police, had all to be provided, and provided quickly.
       Improvements which England and France had added gradually and
       paid for gradually, Italy had to organize and pay for in a few
       years. Hence a levying of heavy taxes, and exorbitant
       borrowing from the future in the public debt. Not only this,
       but ancient traditions, the memories of feuds between town and
       town, had to be obliterated; the people had to be made truly
       one people, so that Venetians, or Neapolitans, or Sicilians
       should each feel that they were first of all Italians.
       National uniformity must supplant provincial peculiarity;
       there must be one language, one code of laws, one common
       interest; in a word, the new nation must be Italianized. The
       ease and rapidity with which the Italians have progressed in
       all these respects have no parallel in modern times. Though
       immense the undertaking, they have, in performing it, revealed
       an adaptability to new conditions, a power of transformation
       which are among the most remarkable characteristics of their
       race, and the strongest proofs that ruin will not now engulf
       them. Only a race incapable of readjusting itself need
       despair. Happy had Italy been if, undistracted by temptation,
       she had pursued the plain course before her; still happy, had
       she resisted such temptation. But nations, like individuals,
       are not made all of one piece: they, too, acknowledge the
       better reason, but follow the worse; they, too, through pride
       or vanity or passion, often forfeit the winnings from years of
       toil. … Italy was recognized as a great power by her
       neighbors, and she willingly persuaded herself that it was her
       duty to do what they did. In this civilized age, the first
       requisite of a great power is a large standing army. … A
       large standing army being the first condition of ranking among
       the great powers, Italy set about preparing one. … Perhaps
       more than any other European nation she was excusable in
       desiring to show that her citizens could become soldiers, for
       she had been taunted time out of mind with her effeminacy, her
       cowardice. It might be argued, too, that she received a larger
       dividend in indirect compensation for her capital invested in
       the army than her neighbors received from theirs. Uniform
       military service helped to blot out provincial lines and to
       Italianize all sections; it also furnished rudimentary
       education to the vast body of illiterate conscripts. These
       ends might have been reached at far less cost by direct and
       natural means; but this fact should not lessen the credit due
       to the Italian military system for furthering them. Tradition,
       example, national sensitiveness, all conspired in this way to
       persuade Italy to saddle an immense army on her back. … One
       evidence of being a 'great power,' according to the political
       standard of the time, consists in ability to establish
       colonies, or at least a protectorate, in distant lands;
       therefore Italian Jingoes goaded their government on to plant
       the Italian flag in Africa. France was already mistress of
       Algiers; Spain held a lien on Morocco; Italy could accordingly
       do no less than spread her influence over Tunis. For a few
       years Italy complacently imagined that she was as good as her
       rivals in the possession of a foreign dependency. Then a
       sudden recrudescence of Jingoism in France caused the French
       to occupy Tunis. The Italians were very angry; but when they
       sounded the situation, they realized that it would be folly to
       go to war over it. … Not warned by this experience, Italy, a
       few years later, plunged yet more deeply into the uncertain
       policy of colonization. England and France having fallen out
       over the control of Egypt, then England, having virtually made
       the Khedive her vassal, suggested that it would be a very fine
       thing for Italy to establish a colony far down on the coast of
       the Red Sea, whence she could command the trade of Abyssinia.
       Italian Jingoes jumped at the suggestion, and for ten years
       the red-white-and-green flag has waved over Massaua. But the
       good that Italy has derived from this acquisition has yet to
       appear. … Equally slow have they been to learn that their
       partnership in the Triple Alliance [see TRIPLE ALLIANCE] has
       entailed upon them sacrifices out of all proportion to the
       benefits. To associate on apparently even terms with Germany
       and Austria was doubtless gratifying to national vanity, …
       but who can show that Italy has been more secure from attack
       since she entered that league than she was before? … For the
       sake … of a delusive honor,—the honor of posing as the
       partner of the arbiters of Europe,—Italy has, since 1882,
       seen her army and her debt increase, and her resources
       proportionately diminish. None of her ministers has had the
       courage to suggest quitting a ruinous policy; on the contrary,
       they have sought hither and thither to find means to
       perpetuate it without actually breaking the country's back.
       … Yet not on this account shall we despair of a country
       which, in spite of folly, has achieved much against great
       odds, and which has shown a wonderful capacity for sloughing
       off her past. Hardship itself, though it be the penalty of
       error, may, by restricting her ability to go astray, lead her
       back to the path of reason."

          W. R. Thayer,
          Some Causes of the Italian Crisis
          (Atlantic, April, 1894).

          See, also, IRREDENTISTS.

    {1670}

    ITHACA.

       One of the seven Ionian islands, small and unimportant, but
       interesting as being the Homeric island-kingdom of
       Ulysses—the principal scene of the story of the Odyssey. The
       island has been more or less explored, with a view to
       identifying the localities mentioned in the epic, by Sir
       William Gell, by Colonel Leake, and by Dr. Schliemann. Some
       account of the latter's work and its results is given in the
       introduction to his "Ilios."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 3, note I (volume 1).

    ITHOME.

          See SPARTA: B. C. 743-510;
          also, MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

    ITOCOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

    ITONOMOS, The.

          See BOLIVIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
          also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    ITURBIDE, Empire of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

    ITUZAINGO, Battle of (1827).

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

    IUKA, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

    IVAN I.,
       Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1328-1340.

       Ivan II., Grand Prince of Moscow, 1352-1359.

       Ivan III. (called The Great), the first Czar of Muscovy, of
       Russia, 1462-1505.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

       Ivan IV. (called The Terrible), Czar of Russia, 1533-1584.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

       Ivan V., Czar of Russia, 1682-1689.

       Ivan VI., Czar of Russia, 1740-1741.

    IVERNI, The.

       See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

    IVRY, Battle of (1590).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.

    IVY LANE CLUB, The.

          See CLUBS, DR. JOHNSON'S.

    J.

    JACK CADE'S REBELLION.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

    JACK'S LAND.

          See NO MAN'S LAND (ENGLAND).

    JACKSON, ANDREW.
       Campaign against the Creek Indians.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    JACKSON, ANDREW.
       Victory at New Orleans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

    JACKSON, ANDREW.
       Campaign in Florida.

             See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

    JACKSON, ANDREW.
       Presidential election and administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828, to 1837.

    JACKSON, STONEWALL (General Thomas J.)
       At the first Battle of Bull Run.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

    JACKSON, STONEWALL
       First campaign in the Shenandoah.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

    JACKSON, STONEWALL
       Second campaign in the Shenandoah.

             See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
        A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    JACKSON, STONEWALL
       Peninsular campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    JACKSON, STONEWALL
       Last flank movement.
       Death.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

    JACKSON, Mississippi: A. D. 1863.
       Capture and recapture by the Union forces.
       Sack and ruin.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);
          and (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

    JACOBIN CLUBS.
    JACOBINS, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

    JACOBITE CHURCH, The.

       The great religious dispute of the 5th century, concerning the
       single or the double nature of Christ, as God and as man,
       left, in the end, two extreme parties, the Monophysites and
       the Nestorians, exposed alike to the persecutions of the
       orthodox church, as established in its faith by the Council of
       Chalcedon, by the Roman Pope and by the emperors Justin and
       Justinian. The Monophysite party, strongest in Syria, was
       threatened with extinction; but a monk named James, or
       Jacobus, Baradæus—"Al Baradai," "the man in rags,"—imparted
       new life to it by his zeal and activity, and its members
       acquired from him the name of Jacobites. Amida (now Diarbekir)
       on the Tigris became the seat of the Jacobite patriarchs and
       remains so to this day. Abulpharagius, the oriental historian
       of the 13th century, was their most distinguished scholar, and
       held the office of Mafrian or vice-patriarch, so to speak, of
       the East. Their communities are mostly confined at present to
       the region of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and number less
       than 200,000 souls.

          H. F. Tozer,
          The Church and the Eastern Empire,
          chapter 5.

          See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

    JACOBITES.

       After the revolution of 1688 in England, which expelled James
       II. from the throne, his partisans, who wished to restore him,
       were called Jacobites, an appellation derived from the Latin
       form of his name—Jacobus. The name adhered after James' death
       to the party which maintained the rights of his son and
       grandson, James Stuart and Charles Edward, the "Old
       Pretender" and the "Young Pretender," as they were
       respectively called.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

       The Jacobites rose twice in rebellion.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715;
          and 1745-1746.

    JACQUERIE, The Insurrection of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

       ----------JAFFA: Start--------

    JAFFA (ANCIENT JOPPA): A. D. 1196-1197.
       Taken and retaken by the German Crusaders.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.

    JAFFA: A. D. 1799.
       Capture by Bonaparte.
       Massacre of prisoners.
       Reported poisoning of the sick.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

       ----------JAFFA: End--------

    JAGELLONS, The dynasty of the.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

    JAGIR.

       "A jagir [in India] is, literally, land given by a government
       as a reward for services rendered."

          G. B. Malleson,
          Lord Clive,
          page 123, foot-note.

    JAHANGIR (Salim),
       Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1605-1627.

    JAINISM.
    JAINS.

          See INDIA: B. C. 312

    JAITCHE, DEFENSE OF (1527).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.).

    JALALÆAN ERA.

          See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

    {1871}

    JALULA, Battle of.

       One of the battles in which the Arabs, under the first
       successors of Mahomet, conquered the Persian empire. Fought A.
       D. 637.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 26.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

       ----------JAMAICA: Start--------

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1494.
       Discovery by Columbus.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1509.
       Granted to Ojeda and Nicuesa.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1655
       The English conquest and colonization.

       In the spring of 1655, having determined upon an alliance with
       France and war with Spain, Cromwell fitted out an expedition
       under admirals Venables and Pen, secretly commissioned to
       attack Cuba and St. Domingo. Frustrated in an attempt against
       the latter island, the expedition made a descent on the island
       of Jamaica with better success. "This great gain was yet held
       insufficient to balance the first defeat; and on the return of
       Pen and Venables they were both committed to the Tower. I may
       pause for an instant here to notice a sound example of
       Cromwell's far-seeing sagacity. Though men scouted in that day
       the acquisition of Jamaica, he saw its value in itself, and
       its importance in relation to future attempts on the continent
       of America. Exerting the inhuman power of a
       despot—occasionally, as hurricanes and other horrors,
       necessary for the purification of the world—he ordered his
       son Henry to seize on 1,000 young girls in Ireland and send
       them over to Jamaica, for the purpose of increasing population
       there. A year later, and while the Italian Sagredo was in
       London, he issued an order that all females of disorderly
       lives should be arrested and shipped for Barbadoes for the
       like purpose. Twelve hundred were accordingly sent in three
       ships."

          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Penn,
          Memorials of Sir Wm. Penn, Admiral,
          volume 2, page 124, and appendix H.

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
       Development of the British colony.
       The Buccaneers.
       The Maroon wars.

       "Cromwell set himself to maintain and develop his new
       conquest. He issued a proclamation encouraging trade and
       settlement in the island by exemption from taxes. In order to
       'people and plant' it, he ordered an equal number of young men
       and women to be sent over from Ireland, he instructed the
       Scotch government to apprehend and transport the idle and
       vagrant, and he sent agents to the New England colonies and
       the other West Indian islands in order to attract settlers.
       After the first three or four years this policy of encouraging
       emigration, continued in spite of the Protector's death, bore
       due fruit, and Jamaica became to a singular extent a
       receptacle for the most varied types of settlers, for freemen
       as well as for political offenders or criminals from Newgate,
       and for immigrants from the colonies as well as from the
       mother country. … The death of Cromwell brought over
       adherents of the Parliamentary party, ill content with the
       restoration of the Stuarts; the evacuation of Surinam in
       favour of the Dutch brought in a contingent of planters in
       1675; the survivors of the ill-fated Scotch colony at Darien
       came over in 1699; and the Rye House Plot, Sedgmoor, and the
       risings of 1715 and 1745 all contributed to the population of
       the island. Most of all, however, the buccaneers made Jamaica
       great and prosperous. … Situated as the island was, well
       inside the ring of the Spanish possessions, the English
       occupation of Jamaica was a godsend to the buccaneers, while
       their privateering trade was exactly suited to the restless
       soldiers who formed the large bulk of the early colonists. So
       Port Royal became in a few years a great emporium of
       ill-gotten wealth, and the man who sacked Panama became Sir
       Henry Morgan, Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica. … In 1661
       Charles II. sanctioned the beginnings of civil government. …
       Municipal institutions were introduced, judges and magistrates
       were appointed, land grants were issued, and the island began
       to take the form and substance of an English colony. The
       constitution thenceforward consisted of a Governor, a
       nominated Council, and an elected Assembly; and the first
       Assembly, consisting of 30 persons, met in January, 1664. …
       It was not long before the representative body began to assert
       its independence by opposition to the Crown, and in 1678 the
       Home government invited conflict by trying to apply to Jamaica
       the system which had been introduced into Ireland by the
       notorious Poynings' law. Under this system no Assembly could
       be summoned for legislative purposes except under special
       directions from home, and its functions would have been
       limited to registering consent to laws which had already been
       put into approved shape in England." Conflict over this,
       attempt to deal with Jamaica as "a conquered and tributary
       dependency" did not end until 1728, when the colonists bought
       relief from it by settling on the Crown an "irrevocable
       revenue" of £8,000 per annum. "About the time when the
       constitutional difficulty was settled, the Maroon question was
       pressing itself more and more upon the attention of the
       colonial government. The penalty which Jamaica paid for being
       a large and mountainous island was, that it harboured in its
       forests and ravines a body of men who, throughout its history
       down to the present century, were a source of anxiety and
       danger. The original Maroons, or mountaineers, for that is the
       real meaning of the term, were … the slaves of Spaniards who
       retreated into the interior when the English took the island,
       and sallied out from time to time to harass the invaders and
       cut off stragglers and detached parties. … Maroon or Maron
       is an abbreviation of Cimaron, and is derived from the Spanish
       or Portuguese 'Cima,' or mountain top. Skeat points out that
       the word is probably of Portuguese origin, the 'C' having been
       pronounced as 'S.' Benzoni (edited by the Hakluyt Society),
       who wrote about 1565, speaks of 'Cimaroui' as being the
       Spanish name for outlawed slaves in Hispaniola. … It is
       probable that the danger would have been greater if the
       outlaws had been a united band, but there were divisions of
       race and origin among them. The Maroons proper, the slaves of
       the Spaniards and their descendants, were mainly in the east
       of the island among the Blue Mountains, while the mountains of
       the central district were the refuge of runaways from English
       masters, including Africans of different races, as well as
       Madagascars or Malays. Towards the end of the seventeenth
       century the newer fugitives had found in a negro named Cudjoe
       an able and determined leader, and thenceforward the
       resistance to the government became more organised and
       systematic. …
    {1872}
       Finally, in 1738, Governor Trelawny made overtures of peace to
       the rebels, which were accepted. … By this treaty the
       freedom of the negroes was guaranteed, special reserves were
       assigned to them, they were left under the rule of their own
       captains assisted by white superintendents, but were bound
       over to help the government against foreign invasion from
       without and slave rebellions from within. A similar treaty was
       made with the eastern Maroons, and the whole of these blacks,
       some 600 in number, were established in five settlements. …
       Under these conditions the Maroons gave little trouble till
       the end of the 18th century. … The last Maroon war occurred
       in 1795." When the insurgent Maroons surrendered, the next
       year, they were, in violation of the terms made with them,
       transported to Nova Scotia, and afterwards to the warmer
       climate of Sierra Leone. "Thus ended the last Maroon
       rebellion; but … it affected only one section of these negro
       freemen, and even their descendants returned in many cases to
       Jamaica at a later date."

          C. P. Lucas,
          Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
          volume 2, section 2, chapter 3, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Bridges,
          Annals of Jamaica,
          volume 1, and volume 2, chapters 1-16.

          R. C. Dallas,
          History of the Maroons.

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1689-1762.
       The English slave trade.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.
       Destructive Earthquake.

       "An earthquake of terrible violence laid waste in less than
       three minutes the flourishing colony of Jamaica. Whole
       plantations changed their place. Whole villages were swallowed
       up. Port Royal, the fairest and wealthiest city which the
       English had yet built in the New World, renowned for its
       quays, for its warehouses, and for its stately streets, which
       were said to rival Cheapside, was turned into a mass of ruins.
       Fifteen hundred of the inhabitants were buried under their own
       dwellings."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 19 (volume 4).

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1834-1838.
       Emancipation of Slaves.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1834-1838.

    JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.
       Governor Eyre's suppression of Insurrection.

       In October, 1865, there occurred an insurrection among the
       colored people of one district of Jamaica, the suppression of
       which throws "a not altogether pleasant light upon English
       methods, when applied to the government of a subject race. …
       The disturbances were confined to the district and parish of
       St. Thomas in the East. There were local grievances arising
       from a dispute between Mr. Gordon, a native [colored]
       proprietor, and Baron Ketelholdt, the custos of the parish.
       Mr. Gordon, a dissenter, and apparently a reformer of abuses
       and unpopular among his fellows, had been deprived of his
       place among the magistrates, and prevented from filling the
       office of churchwarden to which he was elected. The expenses
       of the suits against him had been defrayed from the public
       purse. The native Baptists, the sect to which he belonged,
       were angry with what they regarded as at once an act of
       persecution and a misappropriation of the public money.
       Indignation meetings had been held. … Behind this quarrel,
       which would not of itself have produced much result, there lay
       more general grievances. … There was a real grievance in the
       difficulty of obtaining redress through law administered
       entirely by landlords; and as a natural consequence there had
       grown up a strong mistrust of the law itself, and a complete
       alienation between the employer and the employed. To this was
       added a feeling on the part of the class above the ordinary
       labourer, known as the free settlers, that they were unduly
       rented, and obliged to pay rent for land which they should
       have held free; and there was a very general though vague
       expectation that in some way or other the occupiers would be
       freed from the payment of rent. The insurrection broke out in
       October;" a small riot, at first, at Morant Bay, in which a
       policeman was beaten; then an attempt to arrest one of the
       alleged rioters, a colored preacher, Paul Bogle by name, and a
       formidable resistance to the attempt by 400 of his friends.
       "On the next day, when the Magistrates and Vestry were
       assembled in the Court-House at Morant Bay, a crowd of
       insurgents made their appearance, the volunteers were called
       out, and the Riot Act read; and after a skirmish the
       Court-House was taken and burnt, 18 of the defenders killed
       and 30 wounded. The jail was broken open and several stores
       sacked. There was some evidence that the rising was
       premeditated, and that a good deal of drilling had been going
       on among the blacks under the command of Bogle. From Morant
       Bay armed parties of the insurgents passed inland through the
       country attacking the plantations, driving the inhabitants to
       take refuge in the bush, and putting some of the whites to
       death. The Governor of the Island at the time was Mr. Eyre
       [former explorer of Australia]. He at once summoned his Privy
       Council, and with their advice declared martial law over the
       county of Surrey, With the exception of the town of Kingston.
       Bodies of troops were also at once despatched to surround the
       insurgent district. … 439 persons fell victims to summary
       punishment, and not less than 1,000 dwellings were burnt;
       besides which, it would appear that at least 600 men and women
       were subjected to flogging, in some instances with
       circumstances of unusual cruelty. But the event which chiefly
       fixed the attention of the public in England was the summary
       conviction and execution of Mr. Gordon. He was undoubtedly a
       troublesome person, and there were circumstances raising a
       suspicion that he possessed a guilty knowledge of the intended
       insurrection. They were however far too slight to have secured
       his conviction before a Court of Law. But Governor Eyre caused
       him to be arrested in Kingston, where martial law did not
       exist, hurried on board ship and carried to Morant Bay, within
       the proclaimed district. He was there tried by a
       court-martial, consisting of three young officers," was
       sentenced to death, and immediately hanged.

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England: period 4,
          pages 413-415.

       "When the story reached England, in clear and trustworthy
       form, two antagonistic parties were instantly formed. The
       extreme on the one side glorified Governor Eyre, and held that
       by his prompt action he had saved the white population of
       Jamaica from all the horrors of triumphant negro insurrection.
       The extreme on the other side denounced him as a mere fiend.
       The majority on both sides were more reasonable; but the
       difference between them was only less wide. An association
       called the Jamaica Committee was formed for the avowed purpose
       of seeing that justice was done. It comprised some of the most
       illustrious Englishmen. …
    {1873}
       Another association was founded, on the opposite side, for the
       purpose of sustaining Governor Eyre; and it must be owned that
       it too had great names. Mr. Mill may be said to have led the
       one side, and Mr. Carlyle the other. The natural bent of each
       man's genius and temper turned him to the side of the Jamaica
       negroes, or of the Jamaica Governor. Mr. Tennyson, Mr.
       Kingsley, Mr. Ruskin, followed Mr. Carlyle; we know now that
       Mr. Dickens was of the same way of thinking. Mr. Herbert
       Spencer, Professor Huxley, Mr. Goldwin Smith, were in
       agreement with Mr. Mill. … No one needs to be told that Mr.
       Bright took the side of the oppressed, and Mr. Disraeli that
       of authority." A Commission of Inquiry sent out to investigate
       the whole matter, reported in April, 1866, commending the
       vigorous promptitude with which Governor Eyre had dealt with
       the disturbances at the beginning, but condemning the
       brutalities which followed, under cover of martial law, and
       especially the infamous execution of Gordon. The Jamaica
       Committee made repeated efforts to bring Governor Eyre's
       conduct to judicial trial; but without success. "The bills of
       indictment never got beyond the grand jury stage. The grand
       jury always threw them out. On one memorable occasion the
       attempt gave the Lord Chief Justice [Cockburn] of England an
       opportunity of delivering … to the grand jury … a charge
       entitled to the rank of a historical declaration of the law of
       England, and the limits of the military power even in cases of
       insurrection."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 49 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Smith,
          Life and Speeches of John Bright,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          W. F. Finlason,
          History of the Jamaica Case.

       ----------JAMAICA: End----------

    JAMES I.,
       King of Aragon, A. D. 1213-1276.

       James I., King of England, A. D. 1603-1625
       (he being, also, James VI., King of Scotland, 1567-1625).

       James I., King of Scotland, 1406-1437.

       James II., King of Aragon, 1291-1327;
       King of Sicily, 1285-1295.

       James II:, King of England, 1685-1689.

       James II., King of Scotland, 1437-1460.

       James III., King of Scotland, 1460-1488.

       James IV., King of Scotland, 1488-1513.

       James V., King of Scotland, 1513-1542.

    JAMES ISLAND, Battle on.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    JAMESTOWN, Virginia: A. D. 1607-1610.
       The founding of the colony.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607; and 1607-1610.

    JAMNIA, Battle of.

       A defeat by Gorgias, the Syrian general, of part of the army
       of Judas Maccabæus which he left under his generals Joseph and
       Azarius, B. C. 164.

          Josephus,
          Antiquity of the Jews,
          book 12, chapter 8.

    JAMNIA, The School of.

       A famous school of Jewish theology, established by Jochanan,
       who escaped from Jerusalem during the siege by Titus.

          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 2, page 327.

    JANICULUM, The.

          See LATIUM, and VATICAN.

    JANISSARIES, Creation and destruction of the.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359; and 1826.

    JANKOWITZ, Battle of (1645).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    JANSENISTS, The.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

    JANUS, The Temple of.

          See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

       ----------JAPAN: Start----------

    JAPAN:
       Sketch of history to 1869.

       "To the eye of the critical investigator, Japanese history,
       properly so-called, opens only in the latter part of the 5th
       or the beginning of the 6th century after Christ, when the
       gradual spread of Chinese culture, filtering in through Korea,
       had sufficiently dispelled the gloom of original barbarism to
       allow of the keeping of records. The whole question of the
       credibility of the early history of Japan has been carefully
       gone into during the last ten years by Aston and others, with
       the result that the first date pronounced trustworthy is A. D.
       461, and it is discovered that even the annals of the 6th
       century are to be received with caution. We have ourselves no
       doubt of the justice of this negative criticism, and can only
       stand in amazement at the simplicity of most European writers,
       who have accepted without sifting them the uncritical
       statements of the Japanese annalists. … Japanese art and
       literature contain frequent allusions to the early history
       (so-called) of the country … as preserved in the works
       entitled Kojiki and Nihongi, both dating from the 8th century
       after Christ. … We include the mythology under the same
       heading, for the reason that it is absolutely impossible to
       separate the two. Why, indeed, attempt to do so, where both
       are equally fabulous? … Arrived at A. D. 600, we stand on
       terra firma. … About that time occurred the greatest event
       of Japanese history, the conversion of the nation to Buddhism
       (approximately A. D. 552-621). So far as can be gathered from
       the accounts of the early Chinese travellers, Chinese
       civilisation had slowly—very slowly—been gaining ground in
       the archipelago ever since the 3rd century after Christ. But
       when the Buddhist missionaries crossed the water, all Chinese
       institutions followed them and came in with a rush.
       Mathematical instruments and calendars were introduced; books
       began to be written (the earliest that has survived, and
       indeed nearly the earliest of all, is the already mentioned
       Kojiki, dating from A. D. 712); the custom of abdicating the
       throne in order to spend old age in prayer was adopted—a
       custom which, more than anything else, led to the effacement
       of the Mikado's authority during the Middle Ages. Sweeping
       changes in political arrangements began to be made in the year
       645, and before the end of the 8th century, the government had
       been entirely remodelled on the Chinese centralised
       bureaucratic plan, with a regular system of ministers
       responsible to the sovereign, who, as 'Son of Heaven,' was
       theoretically absolute. In practice this absolutism lasted but
       a short time, because the entourage and mode of life of the
       Mikados were not such as to make of them able rulers. They
       passed their time surrounded only by women and priests,
       oscillating between indolence and debauchery, between
       poetastering and gorgeous temple services. This was the
       brilliant age of Japanese classical literature, which lived
       and moved and had its being in the atmosphere of an effeminate
       court. The Fujiwara family engrossed the power of the state
       during this early epoch (A. D. 670-1050). While their sons
       held all the great posts of government, the daughters were
       married to puppet emperors. The next change resulted from the
       impatience of the always manly and warlike Japanese gentry at
       the sight of this sort of petticoat government.
    {1874}
       The great clans of Taira and Minamoto arose, and struggled for
       and alternately held the reins of power during the second half
       of the 11th and the whole of the 12th century. … By the
       final overthrow of the Taira family at the sea fight of
       Dan-no-Ura in A. D. 1185, Yoritomo, the chief of the
       Minamotos, rose to supreme power, and obtained from the Court
       at Kyoto the title of Shogun [converted by western tongues
       into Tycoon], literally 'Generalissimo,' which had till then
       been applied in its proper meaning to those generals who were
       sent from time to time to subdue the Ainos or rebellious
       provincials, but which thenceforth took to itself a special
       sense, somewhat as the word Imperator (also meaning originally
       'general') did in Rome. The coincidence is striking. So is the
       contrast. For, as Imperial Rome never ceased to be
       theoretically a republic, Japan contrariwise, though
       practically and indeed avowedly ruled by the Shoguns from A.
       D. 1190 to 1867, always retained the Mikado as theoretical
       head of the state, descendant of the Sun-Goddess, fountain of
       all honour. There never were two emperors, acknowledged as
       such, one spiritual and one secular, as has been so often
       asserted by European writers. There never was but one
       emperor—an emperor powerless it is true, seen only by the
       women who attended him, often a mere infant in arms, who was
       discarded on reaching adolescence for another infant in arms.
       Still, he was the theoretical head of the state, whose
       authority was merely delegated to the Shogun as, so to say,
       Mayor of the Palace. By a curious parallelism of destiny, the
       Shogunate itself more than once showed signs of fading away
       from substance into shadow. Yoritomo's descendants did not
       prove worthy of him, and for more than a century (A. D.
       1205-1333) the real authority was wielded by the so-called
       'Regents' of the Hojo family. … Their rule was made
       memorable by the repulse of the Mongol fleet sent by Kublai
       Khan with the purpose of adding Japan to his gigantic
       dominions. This was at the end of the 13th century, since
       which time Japan has never been attacked from without. During
       the 14th century, even the dowager-like calm of the Court of
       Kyoto was broken by internecine strife. Two branches of the
       Imperial house, supported each by different feudal chiefs,
       disputed the crown. One was called the Hokucho, or 'Northern
       Court,' the other the Nancho, or 'Southern Court.' After
       lasting some sixty years, this contest terminated in A. D.
       1392 by the triumph of the Northern dynasty, whose cause the
       powerful Ashikaga family had espoused. From 1338 to 1565, the
       Ashikagas ruled Japan as Shoguns. … Meanwhile Japan had been
       discovered by the Portuguese (A. D. 1542); and the imprudent
       conduct of the Portuguese and Spanish friars (bateren, as they
       were called—a corruption of the word padre) made of the
       Christian religion an additional source of discord. Japan fell
       into utter anarchy. Each baron in his fastness was a law unto
       himself. Then, in the latter half of the 16th century, there
       arose successively three great men—Ota Nobunaga, the Taiko
       Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. The first of these conceived
       the idea of centralising all the authority of the state in a
       single person; the second, Hideyoshi, who has been called the
       Napoleon of Japan, actually put the idea into practice, and
       joined the conquest of Korea (A. D. 1592-1598) to his domestic
       triumphs. Death overtook him in 1598, while he was revolving
       no less a scheme than the conquest of China. Ieyasu, setting
       Hideyoshi's youthful son aside, stepped into the vacant place.
       An able general, unsurpassed as a diplomat and administrator,
       he first quelled all the turbulent barons, then bestowed a
       considerable portion of their lands on his own kinsmen and
       dependents, and either broke or balanced, by a judicious
       distribution of other fiefs over different provinces of the
       Empire, the might of those greater feudal lords, such as
       Satsuma and Choshu, whom it was impossible to put altogether
       out of the way. The Court of Kyoto was treated by him
       respectfully, and investiture as Shogun for himself and his
       heirs duly obtained from the Mikado. In order further to break
       the might of the daimyos, Ieyasu compelled them to live at
       Yedo, which he had chosen for his capital in 1590, during six
       months of the year, and to leave their wives and families
       there as hostages during the other half. What Ieyasu sketched
       out, the third Shogun of his line, Iemitsu, perfected. From
       that time forward, 'Old Japan,' as we know it from the Dutch
       accounts, from art, from the stage, was crystallised for two
       hundred and fifty years. … Unchangeable to the outward eye
       of contemporaries, Japan had not passed a hundred years under
       the Tokugawa régime before the seeds of the disease which
       finally killed that regime were sown. Strangely enough, the
       instrument of destruction was historical research. Ieyasu
       himself had been a great patron of literature. His grandson,
       the second Prince of Mito, inherited his taste. Under the
       auspices of this Japanese Maecenas, a school of literati arose
       to whom the antiquities of their country were all in
       all—Japanese poetry and romance as against the Chinese
       Classics; the native religion, Shinto, as against the foreign
       religion, Buddhism; hence, by an inevitable extension, the
       ancient legitimate dynasty of the Mikados, as against the
       upstart Shoguns. … When Commodore Perry came with his big
       guns (A. D. 1853-4), he found a government already tottering
       to its fall, many who cared little for the Mikado's abstract
       rights, caring a great deal for the chance of aggrandising
       their own families at the Shogun's expense. The Shogun yielded
       to the demands of Perry and of the representatives of the
       other foreign powers—England, France, Russia—who followed in
       Perry's train, and consented to open Yokohama, Hakodate, and
       certain other ports to foreign trade and residence (1857-9).
       He even sent embassies to the United States and to Europe in
       1860 and 1861. The knowledge of the outer world possessed by
       the Court of Yedo, though not extensive, was sufficient to
       assure the Shogun and his advisers that it was vain to refuse
       what the Western powers claimed. The Court of Kyoto had had no
       means of acquiring even this modicum of worldly wisdom.
       According to its view, Japan, 'the land of the gods,' should
       never be polluted by outsiders, the ports should be closed
       again, and the 'barbarians' expelled at any hazard. What
       specially tended to complicate matters at this crisis was the
       independent action of certain daimyos. One of them, the Prince
       of Choshu, acting, as is believed, under secret instructions
       from the Court of Kyoto, fired on ships belonging to Great
       Britain, France, Holland, and the United States—this, too, at
       the very moment (1863) when the Shogun's government … was
       doing its utmost to effect by diplomacy the departure of the
       foreigners whom it had been driven to admit a few years before.
    {1875}
       The consequence of this act was what is called 'the
       Shimonoseki Affair,' namely, the bombardment of Shimonoseki,
       Choshu's chief sea-port, by the combined fleets of the powers
       that had been insulted, and the exaction of an indemnity of
       $3,000,000. Though doubtless no feather, this broke the
       Shogunate's back. The Shogun Iemochi attempted to punish
       Choshu for the humiliation which he had brought on Japan, but
       failed, was himself defeated by the latter's troops, and died.
       Hitotsubashi, the last of his line, succeeded him. But the
       Court of Kyoto, prompted by the great daimyos of Choshu and
       Satsuma, suddenly decided on the abolition of the Shogunate.
       The Shogun submitted to the decree, and those of his followers
       who did not were routed—first at Fushimi near Kyoto (17th
       January, 1868), then at Ueno in Yedo (4th July, 1868), then in
       Aizu (6th November, 1868), and lastly at Hakodate (27th June,
       1869), where some of them had endeavoured to set up an
       independent republic. The government of the country was
       reorganised during 1867-8, nominally on the basis of a pure
       absolutism, with the Mikado as sole wielder of all authority
       both legislative and executive. Thus the literary party had
       triumphed. All their dreams were realised. They were
       henceforth to have Japan for the Japanese. … From this dream
       they were soon roughly wakened. The shrewd clansmen of Satsuma
       find Choshu, who had humoured the ignorance of the Court and
       the fads of the scholars only as long as their common enemy,
       the Shogunate, remained in existence, now turned round, and
       declared in favour, not merely of foreign intercourse, but of
       the Europeanisation of their own country. History has never
       witnessed a more sudden 'volte-face.' History has never
       witnessed a wiser one."

          B. H. Chamberlain,
          Things Japanese,
          pages 143-160.

          ALSO IN:
          F. O. Adams,
          History of Japan.

          Sir E. J. Reed,
          Japan,
          volume 1, chapters 2-16.

          W. E. Griffis,
          The Mikado's Empire,
          book 1.

          R. Hildreth,
          Japan, as it was and is.

    JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.
       Jesuit Missions.
       The Century of Christianity.
       Its introduction and extirpation

       Francis Xavier, "the Apostle of the Indies, was both the
       leader and director of a widely spread missionary movement,
       conducted by a rapidly increasing staff, not only of Jesuits,
       but also of priests and missionaries of other orders, as well
       as of native preachers and catechists. Xavier reserved for
       himself the arduous task of travelling to regions as yet
       unvisited by any preachers of Christianity; and his bold and
       impatient imagination was carried away by the idea of bearing
       the Cross to the countries of the farthest East. The islands
       of Japan, already known to Europe through the travels of Marco
       Polo, had been reached by the Portuguese only eight years
       before, namely, in 1541, and Xavier, while at Malacca, had
       conversed with navigators and traders who had visited that
       remote coast. A Japanese, named Angero (Hansiro), pursued for
       homicide, had fled to Malacca in a Portuguese ship. He
       professed a real or feigned desire to be baptized, and was
       presented to Xavier at Malacca, who sent him to Goa. There he
       learned Portuguese quickly, and was baptized under the name of
       Paul of the Holy Faith. … Having carefully arranged the
       affairs of the Seminary of the Holy Faith at Goa and the
       entire machinery of the mission, Francis Xavier took ship for
       Malacca on the 14th April, 1549. On the 24th of June he sailed
       for Japan, along with Angero and his two companions, in a
       Chinese junk belonging to a famous pirate, an ally of the
       Portuguese, who left in their hands hostages for the safety of
       the apostle on the voyage. After a dangerous voyage they
       reached Kagosima, the native town of Angero, under whose
       auspices Xavier was well received by the governor,
       magistrates, and other distinguished people. The apostle was
       unable to commence his mission at once, though, according to
       his biographers, he possessed the gift of tongues. 'We are
       here,' he writes, 'like so many statues. They speak to us, and
       make signs to us, and we remain mute. We have again become
       children, and all our present occupation is to learn the
       elements of the Japanese grammar.' His first impressions of
       Japan were very favourable. … Xavier left Japan on the 20th
       November, 1551, after a stay of two years and four months. In
       his controversies with the Japanese, Xavier had been
       continually met with the objection—how could the Scripture
       history be true when it had escaped the notice of the learned
       men of China? It was Chinese sages who had taught philosophy
       and history to the Japanese, and Chinese missionaries who had
       converted them to Buddhism. To China, then, would he go to
       strike a blow at the root of that mighty superstition.
       Accordingly he sailed from Goa about the middle of April,
       1552. … Being a prey to continual anxiety to reach the new
       scene of his labours, Xavier fell ill, apparently of remittent
       fever, and died on the 2nd of December, 1552. … The result
       of Xavier's labours was the formation of a mission which, from
       Goa as a centre, radiated over much of the coast of Asia from
       Ormuz to Japan. … The two missionaries, whom Xavier had left
       at Japan, were soon after joined by three others: and in 1556
       they were visited by the Provincial of the Order in the
       Indies, Melchior Nunez, who paid much attention to the
       Japanese mission and selected for it the best missionaries, as
       Xavier had recommended. … The Jesuits attached themselves to
       the fortunes of the King of Bungo, a restless and ambitious
       prince, who in the end added four little kingdoms to his own,
       and thus became master of a large part of the island of
       Kiusiu. In his dominions Christianity made such progress that
       the number of converts began to be counted by thousands. …
       The missionaries perseveringly sought to spread their religion
       by preaching, public discussion, the circulation of
       controversial writings, the instruction of the youth, the
       casting out of devils, the performance of those mystery plays
       so common in that age, by the institution of 'confréries' like
       those of Avignon, and, above all, by the well-timed
       administration of alms. Nor need we be surprised to learn that
       their first converts were principally the blind, the infirm,
       and old men one foot in the grave. There are, however, many
       proofs in their letters that they were able both to attract
       proselytes of a better class and to inspire them with an
       enthusiasm which promised well for the growth of the mission.
       In those early days the example of Xavier was still fresh; and
       his immediate successors seem to have inherited his energetic
       and self-denying disposition, though none of them could equal
       the great mental and moral qualities of the Apostle of the
       Indies. They kept at the same time a watchful eye upon the
       political events that were going on around them, and soon
       began to bear a part in them. The hostility between them and
       the Bonzes became more and more bitter."

          The Hundred Years of Christianity in Japan
          (Quarterly Review, April, 1871).

    {1876}

       "In several of the provinces of Kyushu the princes had become
       converts and had freely used their influence, and sometimes
       their authority, to extend Christianity among their subjects.
       In Kyoto and Yamaguchi, in Osaka and Sakai, as well as in
       Kyusbu, the Jesuit fathers had founded flourishing churches
       and exerted a wide influence. They had established colleges
       where the candidates for the church could be educated and
       trained. They had organized hospitals and asylums at Nagasaki
       and elsewhere, where those needing aid could be received and
       treated. It is true hat the progress of the work had met with
       a severe setback in A. D. 1587, when Taiko Sam a issued an
       edict expelling all foreign religious teachers from Japan. In
       pursuance of this edict nine foreigners who had evaded
       expulsion were burnt at Nagasaki. The reason for this decisive
       action on the part of Taiko Sama is usually attributed to the
       suspicion which had been awakened in him by the loose and
       unguarded talk of a Portuguese sea captain. But other causes
       undoubtedly contributed to produce in him this intolerant
       frame of mind. … In several of the provinces of Japan where
       the Jesuits had attained the ascendancy, the most forcible
       measures had been taken by the Christian princes to compel all
       their subjects to follow their own example and adopt the
       Christian faith. Takeyama, whom the Jesuit fathers designate
       as Justo Ucondono, carried out in his territory at Akashi a
       system of bitter persecution. He gave his subjects the option
       of becoming Christians or leaving his territory. Konishi
       Yukinaga, who received part of the province of Higo as his
       fief after the Korean war, enforced with great persistency the
       acceptance of the Christian faith, and robbed the Buddhist
       priests of their temples and their lands. The princes of Omura
       and Arima, and to a certain extent the princes of Bungo,
       followed the advice of the Jesuit fathers in using their
       authority to advance the cause of Christianity. The fathers
       could scarcely complain of having the system of intolerance
       practised upon them, which, when circumstances were favorable,
       they had advised to be applied to their opponents. … During
       the first years of Ieyasu's supremacy the Christians were not
       disturbed. … He issued in 1606 what may be called a warning
       proclamation, announcing that he had learned with pain that,
       contrary to Taiko Sama's edict, many had embraced the
       Christian religion. He warned all officers of his court to see
       that the edict was strictly enforced, He declared that it was
       for the good of the state that none should embrace the new
       doctrine; and that such as had already done so must change
       immediately. … In the meantime both the English and Dutch
       had appeared on the scene. … Their object was solely trade,
       and as the Portuguese monopoly hitherto had been mainly
       secured by the Jesuit fathers, it was natural for the
       new-comers to represent the motive of these fathers in an
       unfavorable and suspicious light. 'Indeed,' as Hildreth says,
       'they had only to confirm the truth of what the Portuguese and
       Spanish said of each other to excite in the minds of the
       Japanese rulers the gravest distrust as to the designs of the
       priests of both nations.' Whether it is true as charged that
       the minds of the Japanese rulers had been poisoned against the
       Jesuit fathers by misrepresentation and falsehood, it may be
       impossible to determine definitely; but it is fair to infer
       that the cruel and intolerant policy of the Spanish and
       Portuguese would be fully set forth and the danger to the
       Japanese empire from the machinations of the foreign religious
       teachers held up in the worst light. … Ieyasu, evidently
       having made up his mind that for the safety of the empire
       Christianity must be extirpated, in 1614 issued an edict that
       the members of all religious orders, whether European or
       Japanese, should be sent out of the country: that the churches
       which had been erected in various localities should be pulled
       down, and that the native adherents of the faith should be
       compelled to renounce it. In part execution of this edict all
       the members of the Society of Jesus, native and foreign, were
       ordered to be sent to Nagasaki. Native Christians were sent to
       Tsugaru, the northern extremity of the Main island. … In
       accordance with this edict, as many as 300 persons are said to
       have been shipped from Japan October 25, 1614. All the
       resident Jesuits were included in this number, excepting
       eighteen fathers and nine brothers, who concealed themselves
       and thus escaped the search. Following his deportation of
       converts the most persistent efforts continued to be made to
       force the native Christians to renounce their faith. The
       accounts given, both by the foreign and by the Japanese
       writers, of the persecutions which now broke upon the heads of
       the Christians are beyond description horrible. … Rewards
       were offered for information involving Christians of every
       position and rank, even of parents against their children and
       of children against their parents. … The persecution began
       in its worst form about 1616. This was the year in which
       Ieyasu died, but his son and successor carried out the
       terrible programme with heartless thoroughness. It has never
       been surpassed for cruelty and brutality on the part of the
       persecutors, or for courage and constancy on the part of those
       who suffered. … Mr. Gubbins … says: 'We read of Christians
       being executed in a barbarous manner in sight of each other,
       of their being hurled from the tops of precipices, of their
       being buried alive, of their being torn asunder by oxen, of
       their being tied up in rice-bags, which were heaped up
       together, and of the pile thus formed being set on fire.
       Others were tortured before death by the insertion of sharp
       spikes under the nails of their hands and feet, while some
       poor wretches by a refinement of horrid cruelty were shut up
       in cages and there left to starve with food before their eyes.
       Let it not be supposed that we have drawn on the Jesuit
       accounts solely for this information. An examination of the
       Japanese records will show that the case is not overstated.'"

          D. Murray,
          Story of Japan,
          chapter 11.

       "The persecutions went on, the discovery of Christians
       occasionally occurring for several years, but in 1686 'the few
       remaining had learnt how to conceal their belief and the
       practice of their religion so well, that the Council issued a
       circular to the chief Daimios of the south and west, stating
       that none of the Kirishitan sect had been discovered of late
       years, owing perhaps to laziness on the part of those whose
       duty it was to search for them, and enjoining vigilance'
       (Satow). Traces of the Christian religion and people lingered
       in the country down to our own time."

          Sir E. J. Reed,
          Japan,
          page 301.

    {1877}

    JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.
       Opening the ports to foreigners.
       The treaty with the United States and the other treaties which
       followed.

       "It is estimated that about the middle of the present century,
       American capital to the amount of seventeen million dollars
       was invested in the whaling industry in the seas of Japan and
       China. We thus see that it was not a mere outburst of French
       enthusiasm when M. Michelet paid this high tribute to the
       service of the whale to civilization: 'Who opened to men the
       great distant navigation? Who revealed the ocean and marked
       out its zones and its liquid highways? Who discovered the
       secrets of the globe? The Whale and the Whaler.' … There
       were causes other than the mere safety of whalers which led to
       the inception of the American expedition to Japan. On the one
       hand, the rise of industrial and commercial commonwealths on
       the Pacific, the discovery of gold in California, the
       increasing trade with China, the development of steam
       navigation—necessitating coal depots and ports for shelter,
       the opening of highways across the Isthmus of Central America,
       the missionary enterprises on the Asiatic continent, the rise
       of the Hawaiian Islands,—on the other hand, the knowledge of
       foreign nations among the ruling class in Japan, the news of
       the British victory in China, the progress of European
       settlements in the Pacific, the dissemination of western
       science among a progressive class of scholars, the advice from
       the Dutch government to discontinue the antiquated policy of
       exclusion—all these testified that the fulness of time for
       Japan to turn a new page in her history was at hand. … About
       this time, a newspaper article concerning some Japanese waifs
       who had been picked up at sea by the barque Auckland—Captain
       Jennings—and brought to San Francisco, attracted the
       attention of Commodore Aulick. He submitted a proposal to the
       government that it should take advantage of this incident to
       open commercial relations with the Empire, or at least to
       manifest the friendly feelings of the country. This proposal
       was made on the 9th of May, 1851. Daniel Webster was then
       Secretary of State, and in him Aulick found a ready friend.
       … Clothed with full power to negotiate and sign treaties,
       and furnished with a letter from President Fillmore to the
       Emperor, Commodore Aulick was on the eve of departure when for
       some reason he was prevented. Thus the project which began at
       his suggestion was obstructed when it was about to be
       accomplished, and another man, perhaps better fitted for the
       undertaking, entered into his labors. … Commodore [Matthew
       Calbraith] Perry shared the belief in the expediency of
       sending a special mission for the purpose. When Commodore
       Aulick was recalled, Perry proposed to the U. S. Government an
       immediate expedition. The proposal was accepted, and an
       expedition on the most liberal scale was resolved upon. He was
       invested with extraordinary powers, naval and diplomatic. The
       East India and China Seas and Japan were the official
       designation of the field of service, but the real object in
       view was the establishment of a coal depot in Japan. The
       public announcement of the resolution was followed by
       applications from all quarters of Christendom for permission
       to accompany the expedition; all these were, however, refused
       on prudential grounds. … Impatient of the delay caused by
       the tardy preparations of his vessels, Perry sailed from
       Norfolk on the 24th of November, 1852, with one ship, the
       Mississippi, leaving the rest to follow as soon as ready. …
       The Mississippi … touching at, several ports on her way,
       reached Loo Choo in May, where the squadron united. … In the
       afternoon of the 8th of July, 1853, the squadron entered the
       Bay of Yedo in martial order, and about 5 o'clock in the
       evening was anchored off the town of Uraga. No sooner had 'the
       black ships of the evil mien' made their entry into the Bay,
       than the signal guns were fired, followed by the discharge of
       rockets; then were seen on the shore companies of soldiers
       moving from garrison to garrison. The popular commotion in
       Yedo at the news of 'a foreign invasion' was beyond
       description. The whole city was in an uproar. In all
       directions were seen mothers flying with children in their
       arms, and men with mothers on their backs. Rumors of an
       immediate action, exaggerated each time they were communicated
       from mouth to mouth, added horror to the horror-stricken. …
       As the squadron dropped anchor, it was surrounded by junks and
       boats of all sorts, but there was no hostile sign shown. A
       document in French was handed on board, which proved to be a
       warning to any foreign vessel not to come nearer. The next day
       was spent in informal conference between the local officials
       of Uraga and the subordinate officers of the squadron. It was
       Commodore Perry's policy to behave with as much reserve and
       exclusiveness as the Japanese diplomats had done and would do.
       He would neither see, nor talk with, any except the highest
       dignitary of the realm. Meanwhile, the governor of Uraga came
       on board and was received by captains and lieutenants. He
       declared that the laws forbade any foreign communication to be
       held elsewhere than Nagasaki; but to Nagasaki the squadron
       would never go. The vexed governor would send to Yedo for
       further instructions, and the 12th was fixed as a day for
       another conference. Any exchange of thought was either in the
       Dutch language, for which interpreters were provided on both
       sides, or in Chinese, through Dr. S. Wells Williams, and
       afterward in Japanese, through Manjiro Nakahama. … On the
       12th, the Governor of Uraga again appeared on board and
       insisted on the squadron's leaving the Yedo Bay for Nagasaki,
       where the President's letter would be duly received through
       the Dutch or the Chinese. This the Commodore firmly refused to
       do. It was therefore decided at the court of Yedo that the
       letter be received at Kurihama, a few miles from the town of
       Uraga. This procedure was, in the language of the
       commissioners, 'in opposition to the Japanese law;' but, on
       the ground that 'the Admiral, in his quality as Ambassador of
       the President, would be insulted by any other course,' the
       original of Mr. Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor,
       enclosed in a golden box of one thousand dollars in value, was
       delivered on the 14th of July to the commissioners appointed
       by the Shogun. …
    {1878}
       Fortunately for Japan, the disturbed state of affairs in
       China made it prudent for Perry to repair to the ports of that
       country, which he did as though he had consulted solely the
       diplomatic convenience of our country. He left word that he
       would come the ensuing spring for our answer. … It was the
       Taiping Rebellion which called for Perry's presence in China.
       The American merchants had large interests at stake
       there—their property in Shanghai alone amounting, it is said,
       to $1,200,000. … While in China, Commodore Perry found that
       the Russian and French admirals, who were staying in Shanghai,
       contemplated a near visit to Japan. That he might not give any
       advantage to them, he left Macao earlier than he had intended,
       and, on the 13th of February, found himself again in the Bay
       of Yedo, with a stately fleet of eight ships. As the place
       where the conference had been held at the previous visit was
       out of the reach of gun-shot from the anchorage, Perry
       expressed a desire of holding negotiations in Yedo, a request
       impossible for the Japanese to comply with. After some
       hesitation, the suburb Kanagawa was mutually agreed upon as a
       suitable site, and there a temporary building was accordingly
       erected for the transaction of the business. On the 8th of
       May, Commodore Perry, arrayed in the paraphernalia befitting
       his rank, was ushered into the house. The reply of the Shogun
       to the President's letter was now given—the purport of which
       was, decidedly in word but reluctantly in spirit, in favor of
       friendly intercourse. Conferences were repeated in the middle
       and latter part of the month, and after many evasions and
       equivocations, deliberations and delays, invitations to
       banquets and exchanges of presents, at last, on Friday, the
       31st of May, the formal treaty was signed; a synopsis of which
       is here presented:

       1. Peace and friendship.
       2. Ports of Shimoda and Hakodate open to American ships,
       and necessary provisions to be supplied them.
       3. Relief to shipwrecked people; expenses thereof not to be
       refunded.
       4. Americans to be free as in other countries, but amenable to
       just laws.
       5. Americans at Shimoda and Hakodate not to be subject to
       restrictions; free to go about within defined limits.
       6. Careful deliberation in transacting business which affects
       the welfare of either party.
       7. Trade in open ports subject to local regulations.
       8. Wood, water, provisions, coal, etc., to be procured through
       Japanese officers only.
       9. Most-favored nation clause.
       10. U. S. ships restricted to ports of Shimoda and Hakodate,
       except when forced by stress of weather.
       11. U. S. Consuls or agents to reside at Shimoda.
       12. Ratifications to be exchanged within eighteen months. …

       His labors at an end, Perry bade the last farewell to Japan
       and started on his home-bound voyage. This was in June, 1854.
       … No sooner had Perry left, carrying off the trophy of
       peaceful victory—the treaty (though the Yedo government was
       in no enjoyment of peaceful rest), than the Russian Admiral
       Pontiatine appeared in Nagasaki. He urged that the same
       privileges be granted his country as were allowed the
       Americans. … Soon, the English Rear Admiral, Sir James
       Stirling, arrives at the same harbor, very kindly to notify
       the government that there may be some fighting in Japanese
       waters between Russians and his countrymen. … The British
       convention was signed October 14, 1854, and followed, in 1858,
       by the Elgin treaty. The treaty with Russia was signed January
       26, 1855; Netherlands, 9th of November the same year; France,
       October 9, 1858; Portugal, 3rd of August, 1860; German Customs
       Union, 25th of January, 1861. The other nations which followed
       the United States were Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium,
       Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Peru, Hawaii,
       China, Corea and Siam; lastly Mexico, with whom we concluded a
       treaty on terms of perfect equality (November 30, 1888)."

          Inazo (Ota) Nitobe,
          The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          F. L. Hawks,
          Narrative of the Expedition under Commander Perry.

          W. E. Griffis,
          Matthew Calbraith Perry,
          chapters 27-33.

    JAPAN: A. D. 1869-1890.
       Constitutional development.

       "In 1869 was convened the Kogisho or 'Parliament,' as Sir
       Harry Parkes translates it in his despatch to the Earl of
       Clarendon. … The Kogisho was composed mostly of the
       retainers of the Daimios, for the latter, having no experience
       of the earnest business of life, 'were not eager to devote
       themselves to the labors of an onerous and voluntary office.'
       … The object of the Kogisho was to enable the government to
       sound public opinion on the various topics of the day, and to
       obtain the assistance of the country in the work of
       legislation by ascertaining whether the projects of the
       government were likely to be favorably received. The Kogisho,
       like the Councils of Kuges and Daimios, was nothing but an
       experiment, a mere germ of a deliberative assembly, which only
       time and experience could bring to maturity. … It was a
       quiet, peaceful, obedient debating society. It has left the
       record of its abortive undertakings in the 'Kogisho Nishi' or
       journal of 'Parliament.' The Kogisho was dissolved in the year
       of its birth. And the indifference of the public about its
       dissolution proves how small an influence it really had. But a
       greater event than the dissolution of the Kogisho was pending
       before the public gaze. This was the abolition of feudalism.
       … The measure to abolish feudalism was much discussed in the
       Kogisho before its dissolution. … In the following noted
       memorial, after reviewing the political history of Japan
       during the past few hundred years, these Daimios said: 'Now
       the great Government has been newly restored and the Emperor
       himself undertakes the direction of affairs. This is, indeed,
       a rare and mighty event. We have the name (of an Imperial
       Government), we must also have the fact. Our first duty is to
       illustrate our faithfulness and to prove our loyalty. … The
       place where we live is the Emperor's land and the food which
       we eat is grown by the Emperor's men. How can we make it our
       own? We now reverently offer up the list of our possessions
       and men, with the prayer that the Emperor will take good
       measures for rewarding those to whom reward is due and for
       taking from those to whom punishment is due. Let the imperial
       orders be issued for altering and remodelling the territories
       of the various clans. Let the civil and penal codes, the
       military laws down to the rules for uniform and the
       construction of engines of war, all proceed from the Emperor;
       let all the affairs of the empire, great and small, be
       referred to him.' This memorial was signed by the Daimios of
       Kago, Hizen, Satsuma, Choshiu, Tosa, and some other Daimios of
       the west.
    {1879}
       But the real author of the memorial is believed to have been
       Kido, the brain of the Restoration. Thus were the fiefs of the
       most powerful and most wealthy Daimios voluntarily offered to
       the Emperor. The other Daimios soon followed the example of
       their colleagues. And the feudalism which had existed in Japan
       for over eight centuries was abolished by the following
       laconic imperial decree of August, 1871: 'The clans are
       abolished, and prefectures are established in their places.'
       … While the government at home was thus tearing down the old
       framework of state, the Iwakura Embassy in foreign lands was
       gathering materials for the new. This was significant,
       inasmuch as five of the best statesmen of the time, with their
       staff of forty-four able men, came into association for over a
       year with western peoples, and beheld in operation their
       social, political and religious institutions. … In 1873,
       Count Itagaki with his friends had sent in a memorial to the
       government praying for the establishment of a representative
       assembly, but they had not been heeded by the government. In
       July, 1877, Count Itagaki with his Ri-shi-sha again addressed
       a memorial to the Emperor, 'praying for a change in the form
       of government, and setting forth the reasons which, in the
       opinion of the members of the society, rendered such a change
       necessary.' These reasons were nine in number and were
       developed at great length. … The civil war being ended, in
       1878, the year which marks a decade from the establishment of
       the new regime, the government, persuaded that the time for
       popular institutions was fast approaching, not alone through
       representations of the Tosa memorialists, but through many
       other signs of the times, decided to take a step in the
       direction of establishing a national assembly. But the
       government acted cautiously. Thinking that to bring together
       hundreds of members unaccustomed to parliamentary debate and
       its excitement, and to allow them a hand in the administration
       of affairs of the state, might be attended with serious
       dangers, as a preparation for the national assembly the
       government established first local assemblies. Certainly this
       was a wise course. These local assemblies have not only been
       good training schools for popular government, but also proved
       reasonably successful. … The qualifications for electors
       (males only) are: an age of twenty years, registration, and
       payment of a land tax of $5. Voting is by ballot, but the
       names of the voters are to be written by themselves on the
       voting papers. There are now 2,172 members who sit in these
       local assemblies. … The gulf between absolute government and
       popular government was thus widened more and more by the
       institution of local government. The popular tide raised by
       these local assemblies was swelling in volume year by year.
       New waves were set in motion by the younger generation of
       thinkers. Toward the close of the year 1881 the flood rose so
       high that the government thought it wise not to resist longer.
       His Imperial Majesty, hearing the petitions of the people,
       graciously confirmed and expanded his promise of 1868 by the
       famous proclamation of October 12, 1881: 'We have long had it
       in view to gradually establish a constitutional form of
       government. … It was with this object in view that in the
       eighth year of Meiji (1875) we established the Senate, and in
       the eleventh year of Meiji (1878) authorized the formation of
       local assemblies. … We therefore hereby declare that we
       shall, in the twenty-third year of Meiji (1890) establish a
       parliament, in order to carry into full effect the
       determination we have announced; and we charge our faithful
       subjects bearing our commissions to make, in the meantime, all
       necessary preparations to that end.'"

          T. Iyenaga,
          The Constitutional Development of Japan, 1853-1881
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th Series, number 9).

          See CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

    JAPAN: A. D. 1871-1872.

       Organization of National Education.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: ASIA.

       ----------JAPAN: End----------

    JAQUELINE OF HOLLAND AND HAINAULT,
       The Despoiling of.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

    JAQUES-GILMORE PEACE MISSION.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

    JARL.

          See EARL; and ETHEL.

    JARNAC, Battle of (1569).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    JASPER, Sergeant, The exploit of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

    JASSY, Treaty of (1792).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    JATTS OR JAUTS.

          See GYPSIES.

    JAVA: A. D. 1811-1813.
       Taken from the Dutch by the English.
       Restored to Holland.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    JAVAN.

       The Hebrew form of the Greek race-name Ionian; "but in the Old
       Testament it is generally applied to the island of Cyprus,
       which is called the Island of Yavnan, or the Ionians, on the
       Assyrian monuments."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 2.

    JAXARTES, The.

       The ancient name of the river now called the Sir, or Sihun,
       which empties into the Sea of Aral.

    JAY, John,
       In the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER); and NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

       In diplomatic service.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

       And the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

       Chief justice of the Supreme Court.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

       And the second Treaty with Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

    JAYHAWKERS AND RED LEGS.

       During the conflict of 1854-1859 in Kansas, certain
       "Free-state men in the Southeast, comparatively isolated,
       having little communication with [the town of] Lawrence, and
       consequently almost wholly without check, developed a
       successful if not very praiseworthy system of retaliation.
       Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery
       outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into
       the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the
       name—whatever its origin may be—of jayhawkers."

          L. W. Spring,
          Kansas, page 240.

       "The complaints in former years of Border Ruffian forays from
       Missouri into Kansas [see KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859], were, as
       soon as the civil war began, paid with interest by a continual
       accusation of incursions of Kansas 'Jayhawkers' and 'Red Legs'
       into Missouri."

          J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
          Abraham Lincoln,
          volume 6, page 370.

    JAYME.

          See JAMES.

    {1880}

    JAZYGES, OR IAZYGES.

          See LIMIGANTES.

    JEAN.

          See JOHN.

    JEANNE I., Queen of Navarre, A. D. 1274-1305.

       Jeanne II., Queen of Navarre, 1328-1349.

       Jeanne D'Albret, Queen of Navarre, and the Reformation in
       France.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

    JEBUSITES, The.

       The Canaanite inhabitants of the city of Jebus, or ancient
       Jerusalem, which they held against the Israelites until David
       took the place by storm and made it the capital of his
       kingdom.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 3, section 1 (volume 3).

          See JERUSALEM.

    JECKER CLAIMS, The.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

    JEFFERSON, Thomas:
       Authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

       In the Cabinet of President Washington.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1793.

       Leadership of the Anti-Federalist or Republican Party.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; and 1798.

       Presidential administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800, to 1806-1807.

    JEFFERSON, Provisional Territory of.

          See COLORADO: A. D.1806-1876.

    JEFFREYS, and the "Bloody Assizes."

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.

    JEHAD.

          See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

    JELLALABAD, Defense of (1842).

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

    JEM, OR DJEM, Prince, The story of.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    JEMAPPES, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    JEMMINGEN, Battle of (1568).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

    JENA, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

    JENGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

    JENKINS' EAR, The War of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

    JENKINS' FERRY, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS—MISSOURI).

    JENNY GEDDES' STOOL.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

    JERBA, OR GELVES, The disaster at.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

    JERSEY AND GUERNSEY, The Isles of.

       "Jersey, Guernsey, and their fellows are simply that part of
       the Norman duchy which clave to its dukes when the rest fell
       away. Their people are those Normans who remained Normans
       while the rest stooped to become Frenchmen. The Queen of Great
       Britain has a perfect right, if she will, to call herself
       Duchess of the Normans, a title which, in my ears at least,
       sounds better than that of Empress of India."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Practical Bearings of General European History
          (Lectures to American Audiences), lecture 4.

          ALSO IN:
          D. T. Ansted and R. G. Latham,
          The Channel Islands.

    JERSEY PRISON SHIP, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
          PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

    JERSEYS, The.
       East and West New Jersey.

          See NEW JERSEY.

       ----------JERUSALEM: Start----------

    JERUSALEM:
       Early history.

       "The first site of Jerusalem was the hill now erroneously
       called Sion, and which we shall designate … as Pseudo-Sion,
       the plateau of rock at the southwest, surrounded on all sides
       by ravines, viz., by the Valley of Hinnom on the west and
       south, and by the Tyropœon, or Cheesemakers' Valley, on the
       north and east. Parallel to this lay the real Sion, the less
       elevated eastern hill, shut in on the west by the Tyropœon
       Valley, which divided it from Pseudo-Sion, and on the east by
       the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and ending southward in a
       wedge-like point opposite to the south-east corner of
       Pseudo-Sion. The town on the western-most of these two ridges
       was known first as Jebus, and afterwards as the High Town, or
       Upper Market; and the accretion to it on the eastern hill was
       anciently called Salem, and subsequently the Low Town and
       Acra. In the days of lawless violence, the first object was
       safety; and, as the eastern hill was by nature exposed on the
       north, it was there protected artificially by a citadel and
       fosse. The High Town and Low Town were originally two distinct
       cities, occupied by the Amorites and Hittites, whence the
       taunt of the prophet to Jerusalem: 'Thy birth and thy nativity
       is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy
       mother a Hittite.' Hence, also, the dualistic form of the name
       Jerusalem in Hebrew, signifying 'Twin-Jerusalem.' Indeed the
       opinion has been broached that Jerusalem is the compound of
       the two names, Jebus and Salem, softened 'euphoniæ gratiâ'
       into Jerusalem. It is remarkable that to the very last the
       quarter lying between the High Town and Low Town, though in
       the very heart of the city when the different parts were
       united into one compact body, was called the Suburb. The first
       notice of Jerusalem is in the time of Abraham. The king of
       Shinar and his confederates captured Sodom and Gomorrah, and
       carried away Lot, Abraham's brother's son; when Abraham,
       collecting his trainbands, followed after the enemy and
       rescued Lot; and on his return 'at the valley of Shaveh, which
       is the king's vale, Melchizedek, king of Salem—the priest of
       the Most High God—blessed Abram.' The king's vale was the
       Valley of Jehoshaphat: and Salem was identical with the
       eastern hill, the real Zion as we learn from the Psalms, 'In
       Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion;'
       where Salem and Zion are evidently used as synonymous. Whether
       Moriah, on which Abram offered his sacrifice, was the very
       mount on which the Temple was afterwards built, must be left
       to conjecture. But when the Second Book of Chronicles was
       written, the Jews had at least a tradition to that effect, for
       we read that 'Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at
       Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.' On the exodus of the Israelites
       from Egypt, we find distinct mention made of Jerusalem by that
       very name; for after Joshua's death, 'the children of Judah
       fought against Jerusalem, and took it … and set the city on
       fire.' But Josephus is probably right in understanding this to
       apply to the Low Town only, i. e., the eastern hill, or Sion,
       as opposed to the western hill, the High Town, or Pseudo-Sion.
       The men of Judah had only a temporary occupation even of the
       Low Town, for it was not until the time of David that
       Jerusalem was brought permanently under the dominion of the
       Israelites."

          T. Lewin,
          Jerusalem,
          chapter 1.

    {1881}

    JERUSALEM:
       Conquest and occupation by David.

       "David had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the
       tribe of Judah alone.

          See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

       He was now solemnly installed as king by the elders of all
       Israel, and 'made a league with them before Jehovah in
       Hebron.' This was equivalent to what we now call a 'coronation
       oath,' and denoted that he was a constitutional, not an
       arbitrary monarch. The Israelites had no intention to resign
       their liberties, but in the sequel it will appear, that, with
       paid foreign troops at his side, even a most religious king
       could be nothing but a despot. Concerning David's military
       proceedings during his reign at Hebron, we know nothing in
       detail, though we read of Joab bringing in a large spoil,
       probably from his old enemies the Amalekites. David had an
       army to feed, to exercise, and to keep out of mischief; but it
       is probable that the war against Abner generally occupied it
       sufficiently. Now however he determined to signalize his new
       power by a great exploit. The strength of Jerusalem had been
       sufficiently proved by the long secure dwelling of Jebusites
       in it, surrounded by a Hebraized population. Hebron was no
       longer a suitable place for the centre of David's
       administration; but Jerusalem, on the frontier of Benjamin and
       Judah, without separating him from his own tribe, gave him a
       ready access to the plains of Jericho below, and thereby to
       the eastern districts; and although by no means a central
       position, it was less remote from Ephraim than Hebron. Of this
       Jebusite town he therefore determined to possess himself. …
       The Jebusites were so confident of their safety, as to send to
       David an enigmatical message of defiance; which may be
       explained,—that a lame and blind garrison was sufficient to
       defend the place. David saw in this an opportunity of
       displacing Joab from his office of chief captain,—if indeed
       Joab formally held that office as yet, and had not merely
       assumed authority as David's eldest nephew and old comrade in
       arms. The king however now declared, that whoever should first
       scale the wall and drive off its defenders, should be made
       chief captain; but his hopes were signally disappointed. His
       impetuous nephew resolved not to be outdone, and triumphantly
       mounting the wall, was the immediate means of the capture of
       the town. … Jerusalem is henceforth its name in … history;
       in poetry only, and not before the times of king Hezekiah, is
       it entitled Salem, or peace; identifying it with the city of
       the legendary Melchisedek. David's first care was to provide
       for the security of his intended capital, by suitable
       fortifications. Immediately to the north of Mount Zion, and
       separated from it by a slighter depression which we have
       named, was another hill, called Millo in the Hebrew. … In
       ancient times this seems to have been much loftier than now;
       for it has been artificially lowered. David made no attempt to
       include Millo (or Acra) in his city, but fortified Mount Zion
       separately; whence it was afterwards called, The city of
       David."

          F. W. Newman,
          A History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
          chapter 3.

       "The Jebusite city was composed of the fortress of Sion, which
       must have been situated where the mosque of El Akasa now
       stands, and of a lower town (Ophel) which runs down from there
       to the well which they called Gihon. David took the fortress
       of Sion, and gave the greater portion of the neighbouring
       lands to Joab, and probably left the lower town to the
       Jebusites. That population, reduced to an inferior situation,
       lost all energy, thanks to the new Israelitish influx, and
       played no important part in the history of Jerusalem. David
       rebuilt the upper town of Sion, the citadel or millo, and all
       the neighbouring quarters. This is what they called the city
       of David. … David in reality created Jerusalem."

          E. Renan,
          History of the People of Israel,
          book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 2, section 1, B.

    JERUSALEM:
       Early sieges.

       Jerusalem, the ancient stronghold of the Jebusites, which
       remained in the hands of that Canaanite people until David
       reduced it and made it the capital of his kingdom, was the
       object of many sieges in its subsequent history and suffered
       at the hands of many ruthless conquerors. It was taken, with
       no apparent resistance, by Shishak, of Egypt, in the reign of
       Rehoboam, and Solomon's temple plundered. Again, in the reign
       of Amaziah, it was entered by the armies of the rival kingdom
       of Israel and a great part of its walls thrown down. It was
       besieged without success by the tartan or general of
       Sennacherib, and captured a little later by Pharaoh Necho. In
       B. C. 586 the great calamity of its conquest and destruction
       by Nebuchadnezzar befell, when the survivors of its chief
       inhabitants were taken captive to Babylon. Rebuilt at the
       return from captivity, it enjoyed peace under the Persians;
       but in the troubled times which followed the dissolution of
       Alexander's Empire, Jerusalem was repeatedly pillaged and
       abused by the Greeks of Egypt and the Greeks of Syria. Its
       walls were demolished by Ptolemy I. (B. C. 320) and again by
       Autiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168), when a great part of the city
       was likewise burned.

          Josephus,
          Antiquity of the Jews.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews.

          See, also, JEWS.

    JERUSALEM: B. C. 171-169.
       Sack and massacre by Antiochus Epiphanes.

          See JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

    JERUSALEM: B. C. 63.
       Siege and capture by Pompeius.

          See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

    JERUSALEM: B. C. 40.
       Surrendered to the Parthians.

          See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

    JERUSALEM: B. C. 37.
       Siege by Herod and the Romans.

          See Jews: B. C. 40—A. D. 44.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 33-100.
       Rise of the Christian Church.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 70.-Siege and destruction by Titus.

          See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
          THE GREAT REVOLT.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 130-134.
       Rebuilt by Hadrian.
       Change of name.
       The revolt of Bar-Kokheba.

          See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
       Siege, sack and massacre by the Persians.

       In the last of the wars of the Persians with the Romans, while
       Heraclius occupied the throne of the Empire, at
       Constantinople, and Chosroës II. filled that of the
       Sassanides, the latter (A. D. 614) "sent his general,
       Shahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus and took
       the ancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the
       ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and,
       summoning the Jews to his aid, proclaimed a Holy War against
       the Christian misbelievers, whom he threatened to enslave or
       exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of these fanatics flocked to
       his standard; and having occupied the Jordan region and
       Galilee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after
       a siege of eighteen days forced his way into the town and gave
       it over to plunder and rapine.
    {1882}
       The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of
       Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of the
       Resurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the
       greater part of the city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries
       were plundered; the relics scattered or carried off; and a
       massacre of the inhabitants, in which the Jews took the chief
       part, raged throughout the whole city for some days. As many
       as 17,000, or, according to another account, 90,000, were
       slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them
       was the aged patriarch, Zacharias, who was carried captive
       into Persia, where he remained till his death. The Cross found
       by Helena, and believed to be 'the True Cross,' was at the
       same time transported to Ctesiphon; where it was preserved
       with care and duly venerated by the Christian wife of
       Chosroës."

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 24.

          See, also, ROME: A. D. 565-628.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.
       Surrender to the Moslems.

       In the winter of 637, the Arabs, then masters of the greater
       part of Syria, laid siege to Jerusalem. After four months of
       vigorous attack and defense, the Christian Patriarch of
       Jerusalem held a parley from the walls with the Arab general,
       Abu Obeidah. "'Do you not know,' said he, 'that this city is
       holy, and that whoever offers violence to it draws upon his
       head the vengeance of heaven?' 'We know it,' replied Abu
       Obeidah, 'to be the house of the prophets, where their bodies
       lie interred; we know it to be the place whence our prophet
       Mahomet made his nocturnal ascent to heaven; and we know that
       we are more worthy of possessing it than you are, nor will we
       raise the siege until Allah has delivered it into our hands,
       as he has done many other places.' Seeing there was no further
       hope, the patriarch consented to give up the city, on
       condition that the Caliph would come in person to take
       possession and sign the articles of surrender." This proposal
       being communicated to Omar, the Caliph, he consented to make
       the long journey from Medina to Jerusalem, and, in due time,
       he entered the Holy City, not like a conqueror, but on foot,
       with his staff in his hand and wearing his simple,
       much-patched Arab garb. "The articles of surrender were drawn
       up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a model for
       the Moslem leaders in other conquests. The Christians were to
       build no new churches in the surrendered territory. The church
       doors were to be set open to travellers, and free ingress
       permitted to Mahometans by day and night. The bells should
       only toll, and not ring, and no crosses should be erected on
       the churches, nor shown publicly in the streets. The
       Christians should not teach the Koran to their children; nor
       speak openly of their religion; nor attempt to make
       proselytes; nor hinder their kinsfolk from embracing Islam.
       They should not assume the Moslem dress, either caps,
       slippers, or turbans, nor part their hair like Moslems, but
       should always be distinguished by girdles. They should not use
       the Arabian language in inscriptions on their signets, nor
       salute after the Moslem manner, nor be called by Moslem
       surnames. They should rise on the entrance of a Moslem, and
       remain standing until he should be seated. They should
       entertain every Moslem traveller three days gratis. They
       should sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in
       riding; neither should they have any domestic who had been in
       Moslem service. … The Christians having agreed to surrender
       on these terms, the Caliph gave them, under his own hand, an
       assurance of protection in their lives and fortunes, the use
       of their churches, and the exercise of their religion."

          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and His Successors,
          volume 2, chapter 18.

          See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 908-1171.
       In the Moslem civil wars.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST and EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1064-1076.
       Great revival of pilgrimages from western Europe.

          See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1076.
       Taken by the Seljuk Turks.

          See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1094.
       Visit of Peter the Hermit.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
       The Blood "Deliverance" of the Holy City by the Crusaders.

       The armies of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES: A. D.
       1096-1099)—the surviving remnant of them—reached Jerusalem
       in June, A. D. 1099. They numbered, it is believed, but 20,000
       fighting men, and an equal number of camp followers,—women,
       children, non-militant priests, and the like. "Immediately
       before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans
       deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians
       in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city.
       It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders
       were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons
       of the enemy's cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling
       their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their
       wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their
       ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still,
       the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the
       Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was
       not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond
       any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their
       men to carry the town, if they could, by assault." They were
       repulsed with heavy loss, and driven to the operations of a
       regular siege, for which their resources were limited in the
       extreme. But overcoming all difficulties, and enduring much
       suffering from lack of water, at the end of little more than a
       month they drove the Moslems from the walls and entered the
       city—on Friday, the 15th of July, A. D. 1099. "The city was
       taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians
       ran through the streets slaughtering as they went. At first
       they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all
       alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage
       was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage,
       and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover
       their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to
       their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so
       burned them all. The chroniclers relate, with savage joy, how
       the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and
       how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the
       knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here
       upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole
       number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to
       forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. …
    {1883}
       Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more
       enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by
       Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out
       the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one
       thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they
       proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these
       Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers.
       They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of
       the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords
       reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy
       Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears and prayers
       and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those
       who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It
       was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom
       Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him.
       Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who
       capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to
       kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every
       Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of,
       and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old
       inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true
       Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the
       siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful
       procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave
       themselves up to murder, plunder—and prayers! And the first
       Crusade was finished."

          W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
          Jerusalem,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Mills,
          History of the Crusades,
          volume 1, chapter 6.

          J. F. Michaud,
          History of the Crusades,
          book 4.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
       The Founding of the Latin kingdom.

       Eight days after their bloody conquest of the Holy City had
       been achieved, "the Latin chiefs proceeded to the election of
       a king, to guard and govern their conquests in Palestine. Hugh
       the Great [count of Vermandois] and Stephen of Chartres had
       retired with some loss of reputation, which they strove to
       regain by a second crusade and an honourable death. Baldwin
       was established at Edessa, and Bohemond at Antioch; and two
       Roberts—the Duke of Normandy and the Count of Flanders—
       preferred their fair inheritance in the West to a doubtful
       competition or a barren sceptre. The jealousy and ambition of
       Raymond [of Toulouse] were condemned by his own followers; and
       the free, the just, the unanimous voice of the army proclaimed
       Godfrey of Bouillon the first and most worthy of the champions
       of Christendom. His magnanimity accepted a trust as full of
       danger as of glory; but in the city where his Saviour had been
       crowned with thorns the devout pilgrim rejected the name and
       ensigns of royalty, and the founder of the kingdom of
       Jerusalem contented himself with the modest title of Defender
       and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. His government of a single
       year, too short for the public happiness, was interrupted in
       the first fortnight by a summons to the field by the approach
       of the vizir or sultan of Egypt, who had been too slow to
       prevent, but who was impatient to avenge, the loss of
       Jerusalem. His total overthrow in the battle of Ascalon sealed
       the establishment of the Latins in Syria, and signalized the
       valour of the French princes, who in this action bade a long
       farewell to the holy wars. … After suspending before the
       Holy sepulchre the sword and standard of the sultan, the new
       king (he deserves the title) embraced his departing
       companions, and could retain only, with the gallant Tancred,
       300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers, for the defence of
       Palestine."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 58.

       Godfrey lived not quite a year after his election, and was
       succeeded on the throne of Jerusalem by his brother Baldwin,
       the prince of Edessa, who resigned that Mesopotamian lordship
       to his cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, and made haste to secure the
       more tempting sovereignty. Godfrey, during his short reign,
       had permitted himself to be made almost a vassal and
       subordinate of the patriarch of Jerusalem—one Daimbert, a
       domineering prelate from Italy. But Baldwin matched the priest
       in his own grasping qualities and soon established the
       kingship on a more substantial footing. He reigned eighteen
       years, and when he died, in 1118, the fortunate cousin,
       Baldwin du Bourg, received his crown, surrendering the
       principality of Edessa to another. This Baldwin II. died in
       1131, and was succeeded by Fulk or Foulque, count of Anjou,
       who had lately arrived in Palestine and married Baldwin's
       daughter. "The Latin dominions in the East attained their
       greatest extent in the reign of King Baldwin II. … The
       entire sea-coast from Tarsus in Cilicia to El-Arish on the
       confines of Egypt was, with the exception of Ascalon and Gaza,
       in the possession of the Franks. In the north their dominions
       extended inland to Edessa beyond the Euphrates; the mountains
       of Lebanon and their kindred ranges bounded them on the east
       as they ran southwards; and then the Jordan and the desert
       formed their eastern limits. They were divided into four
       states, namely, the kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of
       Tripolis, the principality of Antioch, and the county of
       Edessa; the rulers of the three last held as vassals under the
       king." King Fulk died in 1143 or 1144, and was succeeded by
       his son, Baldwin III. Edessa was lost in the following year.

          T. Keightley,
          The Crusaders
          chapter 2.

          See, also,
          CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1291.
       The constitution of the kingdom.

       "Godfrey was an elected king; and we have seen that his two
       immediate successors owed their crowns rather to personal
       merit and intrigue than to principles of hereditary
       succession. But after the death of Baldwin du Bourg, the
       foundation of the constitution appears to have been settled;
       and the Latin state of Jerusalem may be regarded as a feudal
       hereditary monarchy. There were two chief lords of the
       kingdom, namely, the patriarch and the king, whose cognizance
       extended over spiritual and temporal affairs. … The great
       officers of the crown were the seneschal, the constable, the
       marshal, and the chamberlain. … There were four chief
       baronies of the kingdom, and many other lordships which had
       the privileges of administering justice, coining money, and,
       in short, most of those powers and prerogatives which the
       great and independent nobility of Europe possessed. The first
       great barony comprised the counties of Jaffa and Ascalon, and
       the lordships of Ramula, Mirabel, and Ibelin. The second was
       the principality of Galilee. The third included the lordships
       of Sajetta, Cesarea, and Nazareth; and the fourth was the
       county of Tripoli. …
    {1884}
       But the dignity of these four great barons is shewn by the
       number of knights which they were obliged to furnish, compared
       with the contributions of other nobles. Each of the three
       first barons was compelled to aid the king with five hundred
       knights. The service of Tripoli was performed by two hundred
       knights; that of the other baronies by one hundred and
       eighty-three Knights. Six hundred and sixty-six knights was
       the total number furnished by the cities of Jerusalem,
       Naplousa, Acre, and Tyre. The churches and the commercial
       communities of every part of the kingdom provided five
       thousand and seventy-five serjeants or serving men."

          C. Mills,
          History of the Crusades,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 58.

          See, also, ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1147-1149.
       The note of alarm and the Second Crusade.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
       Decline and fall of the kingdom.
       The Rise of Saladin and his conquest of the Holy City.

       King Fulk was succeeded in 1144 by his son, a boy of thirteen,
       who took the title of Baldwin III. and with whom his mother
       associated herself on the throne. It was early in this reign
       of the boy-king that Edessa was taken by Zenghi, sultan of
       Aleppo, and an appeal made to Europe which called out the
       miserably abortive Second Crusade. The crusade "did nothing
       towards the maintenance of the waning ascendency of the
       Latins. Even victories brought with them no solid result, and
       in not a few instances victory was misused with a folly
       closely allied to madness. … The interminable series of
       wars, or rather of forays and reprisals, went on; and amidst
       such contests the life of Baldwin closed [A. D. 1162] in early
       manhood. … He died childless, and although some opposition
       was made to his choice, his brother Almeric [or Amaury] was
       elected to fill his place. Almost at the beginning of his
       reign the affairs of the Latin kingdom became complicated with
       those of Egypt; and the Christians are seen fighting by the
       side of one Mahomedan race, tribe, or faction against
       another." The Fatimite caliphs of Egypt had become mere
       puppets in the hands of their viziers, and when one grand
       vizier, Shawer, deposed by a rival, Dargham, appealed to the
       sultan of Aleppo (Noureddin, son of Zenghi), the latter
       embraced eagerly the opportunity to stretch his strong hand
       towards the Fatimite throne. Among his generals was Shiracouh,
       a valiant Koord, and he sent Shiracouh to Egypt to restore
       Shawer to power. With Shiracouh went a young nephew of the
       Koordish soldier, named Salah-ud-deen—better known in history
       as Saladin. Shawer, restored to authority, quickly quarrelled
       with his protectors, and endeavored to get rid of them—which
       proved not easy. He sought and obtained help from the Latin
       king of Jerusalem, in whose mind, too, there was the ambition
       to pluck this rotten-ripe plum on the Nile. After a war of
       five years duration, in which king Almeric was encouraged and
       but slightly helped by the Byzantine emperor, while Noureddin
       was approved and supported by the caliph of Bagdad,
       Noureddin's Koord general, Shiracouh, secured the prize. Grand
       vizier Shawer was put to death, and the wretched Fatimite
       caliph made young Saladin his vizier, fancying he had chosen a
       young man too fond of pleasure to be dangerously ambitious. He
       was speedily undeceived. Saladin needed only three years to
       make himself master of Egypt, and the caliph, then dying, was
       stripped of his title and his sovereignty. The bold Koord took
       the throne in the name of the Abbasside Caliph, at Bagdad,
       summarily ending the Fatimite schism. He was still nominally
       the servant of the sultan of Aleppo; but when Noureddin died,
       A. D. 1178, leaving his dominions to a young son, Saladin was
       able, with little resistance, to displace the latter and to
       become undisputed sovereign of Mahometan Syria, Egypt, and a
       large part of Mesopotamia. He now resolved to expel the Latins
       from Palestine and to restore the authority of the prophet
       once more in the holy places of Jerusalem. King Almeric had
       died in 1173, leaving his crown to a son, Baldwin IV., who was
       an unfortunate leper. The leper prince died in 1185, and the
       only makeshift for a king that Jerusalem found in this time of
       serious peril was one Guy of Lusignan, a vile and despised
       creature, who had married the last Baldwin's sister. The Holy
       Land, the Holy City and the Holy Sepulchre had this pitiful
       kinglet for their defender when the potent Saladin led his
       Moslems against them. The decisive battle was fought in July,
       A. D. 1187, near the city of Tiberias, and is known generally
       in Christian history as the Battle of Tiberias, but was called
       by Mahometan annalists the Battle of Hittin. The Christians
       were defeated with great slaughter; the miserable King Guy was
       taken prisoner—but soon released, to make trouble; the "true
       cross," most precious of all Christian relics, fell into
       Saladin's irreverent hands. Tiberias, Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa,
       Berytos, Ascalon, submitted to the victor. Jerusalem was at
       his mercy; but he offered its defenders and inhabitants
       permission to depart peacefully from the place, having no
       wish, he said, to defile its hallowed soil with blood. When
       his offer was rejected, he made a vow to enter the city with
       his sword and to do as the Christians had done when they waded
       to their knees in blood through its streets. But when, after a
       short siege of fourteen days, Jerusalem was surrendered to
       him, he forgot his angry oath, and forgot the vengeance which
       might not have seemed strange in that age and that place. The
       sword of the victor was sheathed. The inhabitants were
       ransomed at a stipulated rate, and those for whom no ransom
       was paid were held as slaves. The sick and the helpless were
       permitted to remain in the city for a year, with the Knights
       of the Hospital—conspicuous among the enemies of Saladin and
       his faith—to attend upon them. The Crescent shone
       Christian-like as it rose over Jerusalem again. The Cross—the
       Crusaders' Cross—was shamed. The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
       was now nearly extinct; Tyre alone held out against Saladin
       and constituted the most of the kingdom of King Guy of
       Lusignan.

          G. W. Cox,
          The Crusades,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
          Jerusalem,
          chapters 12-16.

          J. F. Michaud,
          History of the Crusades,
          book 7.

          Mrs. W. Busk,
          Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
          book 2, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1188-1192.
       Attempted recovery.
       The Third Crusade.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

    {1885}

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1192-1229.
       The succession of nominal kings.

       Guy de Lusignan, the poor creature whom Sybille, daughter of
       King Amaury, married and made king of Jerusalem, lost his
       kingdom fairly enough on the battle-field of Tiberias. To win
       his freedom from Saladin, moreover, he renounced his claims by
       a solemn oath and pledged himself to quit the soil of
       Palestine forever. But oaths were of small account with the
       Christian Crusaders, and with the priests who kept their
       consciences. Guy got easy absolution for the trifling perjury,
       and was a king once more,—waiting for the Crusaders to
       recover his kingdom. But when, in 1190, his queen Sybille and
       her two children died, King Guy's royal title wore a faded
       look to most people and was wholly denied by many. Presently,
       Conrad of Montferrat, who held possession of Tyre—the best
       part of what remained in the actual kingdom of
       Jerusalem—married Sybille's sister, Isabella, and claimed the
       kingship in her name. King Richard of England supported Guy,
       and King Philip Augustus of France, in sheer contrariness,
       took his side with Conrad. After long quarreling it was
       decided that Guy should wear the crown while he lived, and
       that it should pass when he died to Conrad and Conrad's
       children. It was Richard's wilfulness that forced this
       settlement; but, after all, on quitting Palestine, in 1192,
       the English king did not dare to leave affairs behind him in
       such worthless hands. He bought, therefore, the abdication of
       Guy de Lusignan, by making him king of Cyprus, and he gave the
       crown of Jerusalem to the strong and capable Conrad. But
       Conrad was murdered in a little time by emissaries of the Old
       Man of the Mountain (see ASSASSINS), who accused Richard of
       the instigation of the deed, and Count Henry of Champagne,
       Richard's nephew, accepted his widow and his crown. Henry
       enjoyed his titular royalty and his little hand-breadth of
       dominion on the Syrian coast for four years, only. Then he was
       killed, while defending Jaffa, and his oft-widowed widow,
       Isabella, brought the Lusignans back into Palestinian history
       again by marrying, for her fourth husband, Amaury de Lusignan,
       who had succeeded his brother Guy, now deceased, as king of
       Cyprus. Amaury possessed the two crowns, of Cyprus and
       Jerusalem, until his death, when the latter devolved on the
       daughter of Isabella, by her second husband, Conrad. The young
       queen accepted a husband recommended by the king of France,
       and approved by her barons, thus bringing a worthy king to the
       worthless throne. This was John de Brienne, a good French
       knight, who came to Palestine (A. D. 1210) with a little
       following of three hundred knights and strove valiantly to
       reconquer a kingdom for his royally entitled bride. But he
       strove in vain, and fragment after fragment of his crumbling
       remnant of dominion fell away until he held almost nothing
       except Acre. In 1217 the king of Hungary, the duke of Austria
       and a large army of crusaders came, professedly, to his help,
       but gave him none. The king of Hungary got possession of the
       head of St. Peter, the right hand of St. Thomas and one of the
       wine vessels of the marriage feast at Cana, and hastened home
       with his precious relics. The other crusaders went away to
       attack Egypt and brought their enterprise to a miserable end.
       Then King John de Brienne married his daughter Yolante, or
       Iolanta, to the German emperor, or King of the Romans,
       Frederick II., and surrendered to that prince his rights and
       claims to the kingship of Jerusalem. Frederick, at war with
       the Pope, and under the ban of the Church, went to Palestine,
       with 600 knights, and contrived by clever diplomacy and
       skilful pressure to secure a treaty with the sultan of Egypt
       (A. D. 1229), which placed Jerusalem, under some conditions,
       in his hands, and added other territory to the kingdom which
       he claimed by right of his wife. He entered Jerusalem and
       there set the crown on his own head; for the patriarch, the
       priests, and the monk-knights, of the Hospital and the Temple,
       shunned him and refused recognition to his work. But Frederick
       was the only "King of Jerusalem" after Guy de Lusignan, who
       wore a crown in the Holy City, and exercised in reality the
       sovereignty to which he pretended. Frederick returned to Italy
       in 1229 and his kingdom in the East was soon as shadowy and
       unreal as that of his predecessors had been.

          W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
          Jerusalem,
          chapters 15 and 18.

          ALSO IN:
          J. F. Michaud,
          History of the Crusades,
          books 8-12.

          See, also,
          CRUSADES: 1188-1192, and 1216-1229;
          and CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.
       Sack and massacre by the Carismians.

       After the overthrow of the Khuarezmian (Korasmian or
       Carismian) empire by the Mongols, its last prince, Gelaleddin,
       or Jalalu-d-Din, implacably pursued by those savage
       conquerors, fought them valiantly until he perished, at last,
       in Kurdistan. His army, made up of many mercenary bands,
       Turkish and other, then scattered, and two, at least, among
       its wandering divisions played important parts in subsequent
       history. Out of one of those Khuarezmian squadrons rose the
       powerful nation of the Ottoman Turks. The other invaded Syria.
       "The Mussulman powers of Syria several times united in a
       league against the Carismians, and drove them back to the
       other side of the Euphrates. But the spirit of rivalry which
       at all times divided the princes of the family of Saladin,
       soon recalled an enemy always redoubtable notwithstanding
       defeats. At the period of which we are speaking, the princes
       of Damascus, Carac, and Emessa had just formed an alliance
       with the Christians of Palestine; they not only restored
       Jerusalem, Tiberias, and the principality of Galilee to them,
       but they promised to join them in the conquest of Egypt, a
       conquest for which the whole of Syria was making preparations.
       The sultan of Cairo, to avenge himself upon the Christians who
       had broken the treaties concluded with him, to punish their
       new allies, and protect himself from their invasion,
       determined to apply for succour to the hordes of Carismia; and
       sent deputies to the leaders of these barbarians, promising to
       abandon Palestine to them, if they subdued it. This
       proposition was accepted with joy, and 20,000 horsemen,
       animated by a thirst for booty and slaughter, hastened from
       the further parts of Mesopotamia, disposed to be subservient
       to the vengeance or anger of the Egyptian monarch. On their
       march they ravaged the territory of Tripoli and the
       principality of Galilee, and the flames which everywhere
       accompanied their steps announced their arrival to the
       inhabitants of Jerusalem. Fortifications scarcely commenced,
       and the small number of warriors in the holy city, left not
       the least hope of being able to repel the unexpected attacks
       of such a formidable enemy.
    {1886}
       The whole population of Jerusalem resolved to fly, under the
       guidance of the knights of the Hospital and the Temple. There
       only remained in the city the sick and a few inhabitants who
       could not make their minds up to abandon their homes and their
       infirm kindred. The Carismians soon arrived, and having
       destroyed a few intrenchments that had been made in their
       route, they entered Jerusalem sword in hand, massacred all
       they met, and … had recourse to a most odious stratagem to
       lure back the inhabitants who had taken flight. They raised
       the standards of the cross upon every tower, and set all the
       bells ringing." The retreating Christians were deceived. They
       persuaded themselves that a miracle had been wrought; "that
       God had taken pity on his people, and would not permit the
       city of Christ to be defiled by the presence of a sacrilegious
       horde. Seven thousand fugitives, deceived by this hope,
       returned to Jerusalem and gave themselves up to the fury of
       the Carismians, who put them all to the sword. Torrents of
       blood flowed through the streets and along the roads. A troop
       of nuns, children, and aged people, who had sought refuge in
       the church of the Holy Sepulchre, were massacred at the foot
       of the altars. The Carismians finding nothing among the living
       to satisfy their fury, burst open the sepulchres, and gave the
       coffins and remains of the dead up to the flames; the tomb of
       Christ, that of Godfrey of Bouillon, the sacred relics of the
       martyrs and heroes of the faith,—nothing was respected, and
       Jerusalem then witnessed within its walls such cruelties and
       profanations as had never taken place in the most barbarous
       wars, or in days marked by the anger of God." Subsequently the
       Christians of Palestine rallied, united their forces with
       those of the Moslem princes of Damascus and Emessa, and gave
       battle to the Carismians on the plains of Gaza; but they
       suffered a terrible defeat, leaving 30,000 dead on the field.
       Nearly all Palestine was then at the mercy of the savages, and
       Damascus was speedily subjugated. But the sultan of Cairo,
       beginning to fear the allies he had employed, turned his arms
       sharply against them, defeated them in two successive battles,
       and history tells nothing more of the career of these last
       adventurers of the Carismian or Khuarezmian name.

          J. F. Michaud,
          History of the Crusades,
          book 13.

          ALSO IN:
          C. G. Addison,
          The Knights Templars,
          chapter 6.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
       The end of the Christian kingdom.
       The surviving title of "King of Jerusalem."

       "Since the death of the Emperor Frederic II. [A. D. 1250], the
       baseless throne of Jerusalem had found a claimant in Hugh de
       Lusignan, King of Cyprus, who, as lineally descended from
       Alice, daughter of Queen Isabella, was, in fact, the next
       heir, after failure of issue by the marriage of Frederic and
       Iolanta de Brienne. His claims were opposed by the partisans
       of Charles of Anjou, King of the Sicilies,—that wholesale
       speculator in diadems. … He rested his claim upon the double
       pretensions of a papal title to all the forfeited dignities of
       the imperial house of Hohenstauffen, and of a bargain with
       Mary of Antioch; whose rights, although she was descended only
       from a younger sister of Alice, he had eagerly purchased. But
       the prior title of the house of Cyprus was more generally
       recognised in Palestine; the coronation of Hugh had been
       celebrated at Tyre; and the last idle pageant of regal state
       in Palestine was exhibited by the race of Lusignan. At length
       the final storm of Mussulman war broke upon the phantom king
       and his subjects. It was twice provoked by the aggressions of
       the Latins themselves, in plundering the peaceable Moslem
       traders, who resorted, on the faith of treaties, to the
       Christian marts on the Syrian coast. After a vain attempt to
       obtain redress for the first of these violations of
       international law, Keladun, the reigning sultan of Egypt and
       Syria, revenged the infraction of the existing ten years'
       truce by a renewal of hostilities with overwhelming force;
       yearly repeated his ravages of the Christian territory; and at
       length, tearing the city and county of Tripoli—the last
       surviving great fief of the Latin kingdom—from its
       dilapidated crown, dictated the terms of peace to its
       powerless sovereign (A. D. 1289)." Two years later, a
       repetition of lawless outrages on Moslem merchants at Acre
       provoked a last wrathful and implacable invasion. "At the head
       of an immense army of 200,000 men, the Mameluke prince entered
       Palestine, swept the weaker Christian garrisons before him,
       and encamped under the towers of Acre (A. D. 1291). That city,
       which, since the fall of Jerusalem, had been for a century the
       capital of the Latin kingdom, was now become the last refuge
       of the Christian population of Palestine. Its defences were
       strong, its inhabitants numerous; but any state of society
       more vicious, disorderly, and helpless than its condition, can
       scarcely be imagined. Within its walls were crowded a
       promiscuous multitude, of every European nation, all equally
       disclaiming obedience to a general government, and enjoying
       impunity for every crime under the nominal jurisdiction of
       independent tribunals. Of these there were no less than
       seventeen; in which the papal legate, the king of Jerusalem,
       the despoiled great feudatories of his realm, the three
       military orders, the colonies of the maritime Italian
       republics, and the representatives of the princes of the West,
       all arrogated sovereign rights, and all abused them by the
       venal protection of offenders. … All the wretched
       inhabitants who could find such opportunities of escape,
       thronged on board the numerous vessels in the harbour, which
       set sail for Europe; and the last defence of Acre was
       abandoned to about 12,000 men, for the most part the soldiery
       of the three military orders. From that gallant chivalry, the
       Moslems encountered a resistance worthy of its ancient renown
       and of the extremity of the cause for which its triple
       fraternity had sworn to die. But the whole force of the
       Mameluke empire, in its yet youthful vigour, had been
       collected for their destruction." After a fierce siege of
       thirty-three days, one of the principal defensive works,
       described in contemporary accounts as "the Cursed Tower," was
       shattered, and the besiegers entered the city. The cowardly
       Lusignan had escaped by a stolen flight the night before. The
       Teutonic Knights, the Templars and the Hospitallers stood
       their ground with hopeless valor. Of the latter only seven
       escaped. "Bursting through the city, the savage victors
       pursued to the strand the unarmed and fleeing population, who
       had wildly sought a means of escape, which was denied not less
       by the fury of the elements than by the want of sufficient
       shipping.
    {1887}
       By the relentless cruelty of their pursuers, the sands and the
       waves were dyed with the blood of the fugitives; all who
       survived the first horrid massacre were doomed to a hopeless
       slavery; and the last catastrophe of the Crusades cost life or
       liberty to 60,000 Christians. … The Christian population of
       the few maritime towns which had yet been retained fled to
       Cyprus, or submitted their necks, without a struggle, to the
       Moslem yoke; and, after a bloody contest of two hundred years,
       the possession of the Holy Land was finally abandoned to the
       enemies of the Cross. The fall of Acre closes the annals of
       the Crusades."

          Colonel G. Procter,
          History of the Crusades,
          chapter 5, section 5.

          J. F. Michaud,
          History of the Crusades,
          book 15 (volume 3).

       Actual royalty in the legitimate line of the Lusignan family
       ends with a queen Charlotte, who was driven from Cyprus in
       1464 by her bastard brother James. She made over to the house
       of Savoy (one of the members of which she had married) her
       rights and the three crowns she wore,—the crown of Armenia
       having been added to those of Jerusalem and Cyprus in the
       family. "The Dukes of Savoy called themselves Kings of Cyprus
       and Jerusalem from the date of Queen Charlotte's settlement;
       the Kings of Naples had called themselves Kings of Jerusalem
       since the transfer of the rights of Mary of Antioch [see
       above], in 1277, to Charles of Anjou; and the title has run on
       to the present day in the houses of Spain and Austria, the
       Dukes of Lorraine, and the successive dynasties of Naples. …
       The Kings of Sardinia continued to strike money as Kings of
       Cyprus and Jerusalem, until they became Kings of Italy. There
       is no recognized King of Cyprus now; but there are two or
       three Kings of Jerusalem; and the Cypriot title is claimed, I
       believe, by some obscure branch of the house of Lusignan,
       under the will of King James II."

          W. Stubbs,
          Seventeen Lectures on the
          Study of Medieval and Modern History,
          lecture 8.

          ALSO IN:
          C. G. Addison,
          The Knights Templars,
          chapter 6.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1299.
       The Templars once more in the city.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1516.
       Embraced in the Ottoman conquests of Sultan Selim.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    JERUSALEM: A. D. 1831.
       Taken by Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

       ----------JERUSALEM: End----------

    JERUSALEM TALMUD, The.

          See TALMUD.

    JESUATES, The.

       "The Jesuates, so called from their custom of incessantly
       crying through the streets, 'Praised be Jesus Christ,' were
       founded by John Colombino, … a native of Siena. … The
       congregation was suppressed … by Clement IX., because some
       of the houses of the wealthy 'Padri dell' acqua vite,' as they
       were called, engaged in the business of distilling liquors and
       practising pharmacy (1668)."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 3, page 149.

       ----------JESUITS: Start--------

    JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
       Founding of the Society of Jesus.
       System of its organization.
       Its principles and aims.

       "Experience had shown that the old monastic orders were no
       longer sufficient. … About 1540, therefore, an idea began to
       be entertained at Rome that a new order was needed; the plan
       was not to abolish the old ones, but to found new ones which
       should better answer the required ends. The most important of
       them was the Society of Jesus. But in this case the moving
       cause did not proceed from Rome. Among the wars of Charles V.
       we must recur to the first contest at Navarra, in 1521. It was
       on this occasion, in defending Pamplona against the French,
       that Loyola received the wound which was to cause the monkish
       tendency to prevail over the chivalrous element in his nature.
       A kind of Catholicism still prevailed in Spain which no longer
       existed anywhere else. Its vigour may be traced to the fact
       that during the whole of the Middle Ages it was always in
       hostile contact with Islam, with the Mohammedan infidels. The
       crusades here had never come to an end. … As yet untainted
       by heresy, and suffering from no decline, in Spain,
       Catholicism was as eager for conquest as it had been in all
       the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was from
       the nation possessing this temperament that the founder of the
       order of the Jesuits sprang. Ignatius Loyola (born 1491) was a
       Spanish knight, possessing the two-fold tendencies which
       distinguish the knighthood of the Middle Ages. He was a
       gallant swordsman, delighting in martial feats and romantic
       love adventures; but he was at the same time animated by a
       glowing enthusiasm for the Church and her supremacy, even
       during the early period of his life. These two tendencies were
       striving together in his character, until the event took place
       which threw him upon a bed of suffering. No sooner was he
       compelled to renounce his worldly knighthood, than he was sure
       that he was called upon to found a new order of spiritual
       knighthood, like that of which he had read in the chivalrous
       romance, 'Amadis.' Entirely unaffected by the Reformation,
       what he understood by this was a spiritual brotherhood in the
       true mediæval sense, which should convert the heathen in the
       newly-discovered countries of the world. With all the zeal of
       a Spaniard he decided to live to the Catholic Church alone; he
       chastised his body with penances and all kinds of privations,
       made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and, in order to complete his
       defective education, he visited the university of Paris; it
       was among his comrades there that he formed the first
       associations out of which the order was afterwards formed.
       Among these was Jacob Lainez; he was Loyola's
       fellow-countryman, the organizing head who was to stamp his
       impress upon the order. … Then came the spread of the new
       doctrines, the mighty progress of Protestantism. No one who
       was heartily attached to the old Church could doubt that there
       was work for such an association, for the object now in hand
       was not to make Christians of the aboriginal inhabitants of
       Central America, but to reconquer the apostate members of the
       Romish Church. About 1539 Loyola came with his fraternity to
       Rome. He did not find favour in all circles; the old orders
       regarded the new one with jealousy and mistrust; but Pope Paul
       III. (1534-49) did not allow himself to be misled, and in 1540
       gave the fraternity his confirmation, thus constituting
       Loyola's followers an order, which, on its part, engaged 'to
       obey in all things the reigning Pope—to go into any country,
       to Turks, heathen, or heretics, or to whomsoever he might send
       them, at once, unconditionally, without question or reward.'
       It is from this time that the special history of the order
       begins.
    {1888}
       During the next year Loyola was chosen the first general of
       the order, an office which he held until his death (1541-56).
       He was succeeded by Lainez. He was less enthusiastic than his
       predecessor, had a cooler head, and was more reasonable; he
       was the man for diplomatic projects and complete and
       systematic organization. The new order differed in several
       respects from any previously existing one, but it entirely
       corresponded to the new era which had begun for the Romish
       Church. … The construction of the new order was based and
       carried out on a monarchical-military system. The territories
       of the Church were divided into provinces; at the head of each
       of these was a provincial; over the provincials, and chosen by
       them, the general, who commanded the soldiers of Christ, and
       was entrusted with dictatorial power, limited only by the
       opinions of three judges, assistants or admonitors. The
       general has no superior but the Pope, with whom he
       communicates directly; he appoints and dismisses all
       officials, issues orders as to the administration of the
       order, and rules with undisputed sway. The absolute monarchy
       which was assigned to the Pope by the Council of Trent, was
       conferred by him on the general of the Jesuits. Among the four
       vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and subjection to the
       Pope, obedience was the soul of all. To learn and practise
       this physically and mentally, up to the point where, according
       to the Jesuit expression, a man becomes 'tanquam lignum et
       cadaver,' was the ruling principle of the institution. …
       Entire renunciation of the will and judgment in relation to
       everything commanded by the superior, blind obedience,
       unconditional subjection, constitute their ideal. There was
       but one exception, but even in this there was a reservation.
       It was expressly stated that there can be no obligation 'ad
       peccatum mortale vel veniale,' to sinful acts of greater or
       less importance, 'except when enjoined by the superior, in the
       name of Jesus Christ,' 'vel in virtute obedientiæ,'—an
       elastic doctrine which may well be summed up in the dictum
       that 'the end justifies the means.' Of course, all the members
       of this order had to renounce all ties of family, home, and
       country, and it was expressly enjoined. … Of the vow of
       poverty it is said, in the 'Summarium' of the constitution of
       the order, that it must be maintained as a 'murus religionis.
       No one shall have any property; everyone must be content with
       the meanest furniture and fare, and, if necessity or command
       require it, he must be ready to beg his bread from door to
       door ('ostiatim mendicare'). The external aspect of members of
       the order, their speech and silence, gestures, gait, garb, and
       bearing shall indicate the prescribed purity of soul. … On
       all these and many other points, the new order only laid
       greater stress on the precepts which were to be found among
       the rules of other orders, though in the universal
       demoralisation of the monastic life they had fallen into
       disuse. But it decidedly differed from all the others in the
       manner in which it aimed at obtaining sway in every sphere and
       every aspect of life. Himself without home or country, and not
       holding the doctrines of any political party, the disciple of
       Jesus renounced everything which might alienate him among
       varying nationalities, pursuing various political aims. Then
       he did not confine his labours to the pulpit and the
       confessional; he gained an influence over the rising
       generation by a systematic attention to education, which had
       been shamefully neglected by the other orders. He devoted
       himself to education from the national schools up to the
       academic chair, and by no means confined himself to the sphere
       of theology. This was a principle of immense importance. …
       It is a true saying, that 'he who gains the youth possesses
       the future'; and by devoting themselves to the education of
       youth, the Jesuits secured a future to the Church more surely
       than by any other scheme that could have been devised. What
       the schoolmasters were for the youth, the confessors were for
       those of riper years; what the clerical teachers were for the
       common people, the spiritual directors and confidants were for
       great lords and rulers—for the Jesuits aspired to a place at
       the side of the great, and at gaining the confidence of kings.
       It was not long before they could boast of astonishing
       success."

          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          chapter 20.

       "The Society, in 1556, only 16 years after its commencement,
       counted as many as twelve provinces, 100 houses, and upwards
       of 1,000 members, dispersed over the whole known world. Their
       two most conspicuous and important establishments were the
       Collegio Romano and the German College. They already were in
       possession of many chairs, and soon monopolised the right of
       teaching, which gave them a most overwhelming influence."

          G. B. Nicolini,
          History of the Jesuits,
          page 90.

          ALSO IN:
          I. Taylor,
          Loyola and Jesuitism in its Rudiments.

          S. Rose,
          Ignatius Loyola and the Early Jesuits.

          T. Hughes,
          Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits.

          See, also, EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1542-1649.
       The early Jesuit Missionaries and their labors.

       "In 1542, Xavier landed at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese
       colony, on the western coast of Hindostan. He took lodgings at
       the hospital, and mingled with the poor. He associated also
       with the rich, and even played with them at cards, acting
       piously upon the motto of the order, 'Ad majorem Dei gloriam.'
       Having thus won good-will to himself, he went into the
       streets, with his hand-bell and crucifix, and, having rung the
       one, he held up the other, exhorting the multitudes to accept
       that religion of which it was the emblem. His great facility
       in acquiring foreign languages helped him much. He visited
       several times the pearl-fisheries on the Malabar coast,
       remaining at one time thirteen months, and planting forty-five
       churches. Cape Comorin, Travancore, Meliapore, the Moluccas,
       Malacca, and other ports of India, and finally the distant
       island of Japan—where Christianity was [accepted—see JAPAN:
       A. D. 1540-1686] … —received his successive visits. Leaving
       two Jesuits on the island, he returned to settle some matters
       at Goa, which done, he sailed for China, but died at the
       island of Sancian, a few leagues from the city of Canton, in
       1552—ten years only after his arrival in India. He had in
       this time established an inquisition and a college at Goa.
       Numbers of the society, whom he had wisely distributed, had
       been sent to his aid; and the Christians in India were
       numbered by hundreds of thousands before the death of this
       'Apostle of the Indies.' It has even been said, that he was
       the means of converting more persons in Asia than the church
       had lost by the Reformation in Europe.
    {1889}
       The empire of China, which Xavier was not allowed to enter,
       was visited, half a century later, by the Jesuit Matthew
       Ricci, who introduced his religion by means of his great skill
       in science and art, especially mathematics and drawing [see
       CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882]. He assumed the garb of a mandarin
       —associated with the higher classes—dined with the
       Emperor—allowed those who received Christianity to retain any
       rites of their own religion to which they were attached—and
       died in 1610, bequeathing and recommending his policy to
       others. This plan of accommodation was far more elaborately
       carried out by Robert Nobili, who went to Madura, in southern
       Hindostan, as a missionary of the order in 1606. He had
       observed the obstacle which caste threw in the way of
       missionary labor, and resolved to remove it. He presented
       himself as a foreign Brahmin, and attached himself to that
       class. They had a tradition, that there once had been four
       roads to truth in India, one of which they had lost. This he
       professed to restore. He did no violence to their existing
       ideas or institutions, but simply gave them other
       interpretations, and in three years he had seventy converted
       Brahmins about him. From this time he went on gathering crowds
       of converts, soon numbering 150,000. This facile policy,
       however, attracted the notice of the other religious orders,
       was loudly complained of at Rome, and, after almost an entire
       century of agitation, was condemned in 1704 by a special
       legation, appointed by Clement XI. to inquire into the matter
       of complaint. … The attention of the society was early
       directed to our own continent, and its missions everywhere
       anticipated the settlements. The most remarkable missions were
       in South America. Missionaries had been scattered over the
       whole continent, everywhere making converts, but doing nothing
       for the progress of the order. Aquaviva was general. This
       shrewd man saw the disadvantage of the policy, and at once
       applied the remedy. He directed, that, leaving only so many
       missionaries scattered over the continent as should be
       absolutely necessary, the main force should be concentrated
       upon a point. Paraguay was chosen. The missionaries formed
       what were called reductions—that is, villages into which the
       Indians were collected from their roving life, taught the
       ruder arts of civilization, and some of the rites and duties
       of the Christian religion. These villages were regularly laid
       out with streets, running each way from a public square,
       having a Church, work-shops and dwellings. Each family had a
       small piece of land assigned for cultivation, and all were
       reduced to the most systematic habits of industry and good
       order. … The men were trained to arms, and all the elements
       of an independent empire were fast coming into being. In 1632,
       thirty years after the starting of this system, Paraguay had
       twenty reductions, averaging 1,000 families each, which at a
       moderate estimate, would give a population of 100,000, and
       they still went on prospering until three times this number
       are, by some, said to have been reached. The Jesuits started,
       in California, in 1642, the same system, which they fully
       entered upon in 1679. This, next to Paraguay, became their
       most successful mission."

          A Historical Sketch of the Jesuits
          (Putnam's Magazine, September, 1856).

       In 1632 the Jesuits entered on their mission work in Canada,
       or New France, where they supplanted the Récollet friars. "In
       1640 Montreal, the site of which had been already indicated by
       Champlain in 1611, was founded, that there might be a nearer
       rendezvous than Quebec for the converted Indians. At its
       occupation a solemn mass was celebrated under a tent, and in
       France itself the following February a general supplication
       was offered up that the Queen of Angels would take the Island
       of Montreal under her protection. In the August of this year a
       general meeting of French settlers and Indians took place at
       Montreal, and the festival of the Assumption was solemnised at
       the island. The new crusading spirit took full possession of
       the enthusiastic French people, and the niece of Cardinal
       Richelieu founded a hospital for the natives between the
       Kennebec and Lake Superior, to which young and nobly-born
       hospital nuns from Dieppe offered their services. Plans were
       made for establishing mission posts, not only on the north
       amongst the Algonkins, but to the south of Luke Huron, in
       Michigan and at Green Bay, and so on as far as the regions to
       the west. The maps of the Jesuits prove that before 1660 they
       had traced the waters of Lake Erie and Lake Superior and had
       seen Lake Michigan. The Huron mission embraced principally the
       country lying between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay, building
       its stations on the rivers and shores. But the French
       missionaries, however much they might desire it, could not
       keep outside the intertribal strifes of the natives around
       them. Succeeding to Champlain's policy, they continued to aid
       the Algonkins and Hurons against their inveterate enemies the
       Iroquois. The Iroquois retaliated by the most horrible cruelty
       and revenge. There was no peace along the borders of this wild
       country, and missionaries and colonists carried their lives in
       their hands. In 1648 St. Joseph, a Huron mission town on the
       shores of Lake Simcoe, was burned down and destroyed by the
       Iroquois, and Père Daniel, the Jesuit leader, killed under
       circumstances of great atrocity. In 1649 St. Ignace, a station
       at the corner of Georgian Bay, was sacked, and there the pious
       Brebeuf met his end, after having suffered the most horrible
       tortures the Indians could invent. Brebeuf, after being hacked
       in the face and burnt all over the body with torches and
       red-hot iron, was scalped alive, and died after three hours'
       suffering. His companion, the gentle Gabriel Lallemand,
       endured terrible tortures for seventeen hours."

          W. P. Greswell,
          History of the Dominion of Canada,
          chapter 6.

       The Hurons were dispersed and their nation destroyed by these
       attacks of the Iroquois. "With the fall of the Hurons fell the
       best hope of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and
       populous communities around them, had been the rude material
       from which the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire
       in the wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were
       uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to
       whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a
       common ruin. The land of promise was turned to a solitude and
       a desolation. There was still work in hand, it is true,—vast
       regions to explore, and countless heathens to snatch from
       perdition; but these, for the most part, were remote and
       scattered hordes, from whose conversion it was vain to look
       for the same solid and decisive results. In a measure, the
       occupation of the Jesuits was gone.
    {1890}
       Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the Father
       Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound of the
       trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in number,
       several soon fell victims to famine, hardship, and the
       Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission;
       political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,
       and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her
       civil and military annals."

          F. Parkman,
          The Jesuits in North America,
          chapter 34.

          See, also,
          CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1558.
       Mission founded in Abyssinia.

          See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 15TH-19TH CENTURIES.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1572-1603.
       Persecution in England under Elizabeth.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1573-1592.
       Change in the statutes of the Order on demands from Spain.

       "At the first establishment of the Order, the elder and
       already educated men, who had just entered it, were for the
       most part Spaniards; the members joining it from other nations
       were chiefly young men, whose characters had yet to be formed.
       It followed naturally that the government of the society was,
       for the first ten years, almost entirely in Spanish hands. The
       first general congregation was composed of twenty-five
       members, eighteen of whom were Spaniards. The first three
       generals belonged to the same nation. After the death of the
       third, Borgia, in the year 1573, it was once more a Spaniard,
       Polanco, who had the best prospect of election. It was however
       manifest that his elevation would not have been regarded
       favourably, even in Spain itself. There were many new converts
       in the society who were Christianized Jews. Polanco also
       belonged to this class, and it was not thought desirable that
       the supreme authority in a body so powerful, and so
       monarchically constituted, should be confided to such hands.
       Pope Gregory XIV., who had received certain intimations on
       this subject, considered a change to be expedient on other
       grounds also. When a deputation presented itself before him
       from the congregation assembled to elect their general,
       Gregory inquired how many votes were possessed by each nation;
       the reply showed that Spain held more than all the others put
       together. He then asked from which nation the generals of the
       order had hitherto been taken. He was told that there had been
       three, all Spaniards. 'It will be just, then,' replied
       Gregory, 'that for once you should choose one from among the
       other nations.' He even proposed a candidate for their
       election. The Jesuits opposed themselves for a moment to this
       suggestion, as a violation of their privileges; but concluded
       by electing the very man proposed by the pontiff. This was
       Eberhard Mercurianus. A material change was at once perceived,
       as the consequence of this choice. Mercurianus, a weak and
       irresolute man, resigned the government of affairs, first
       indeed to a Spaniard again, but afterwards to a Frenchman, his
       official admonitor; factions were formed, one expelling the
       other from the offices of importance, and the ruling powers of
       the Order now began to meet occasional resistance from its
       subordinate members. But a circumstance of much higher moment
       was, that on the next vacancy—in the year 1581—this office
       was conferred on Claudius Acquaviva, a Neapolitan, belonging
       to a house previously attached to the French party, a man of
       great energy, and only thirty-eight years old. The Spaniards
       then thought they perceived that their nation, by which the
       society had been founded and guided on its early path, was now
       to be forever excluded from the generalship. Thereupon they
       became discontented and refractory, and conceived the design
       of making themselves less dependent on Rome. … They first
       had recourse to the national spiritual authority of their own
       country—the Inquisition. … One of the discontented Jesuits,
       impelled, as he affirmed, by a scruple of conscience, accused
       his order of concealing, and even remitting, transgressions of
       the kind so reserved, when the criminal was one of their
       society. The Inquisition immediately caused the Provincial
       implicated, together with his most active associates, to be
       arrested. Other accusations being made in consequence of these
       arrests, the Inquisition commanded that the statutes of the
       order should be placed before it, and proceeded to make
       further seizures of parties accused. … The Inquisition was,
       however, competent to inflict a punishment on the criminal
       only: it could not prescribe changes in the regulations of the
       society. When the affair, therefore, had proceeded thus far,
       the discontented members applied to the king also, assailing
       him with long memorials, wherein they complained of the
       defects in their constitution. The character of this
       constitution had never been agreeable to Philip II.; he used
       to say that he could see through all the other orders, but
       that the order of Jesuits he could not understand. … He at
       once commanded Manrique, bishop of Carthagena, to subject the
       Order to a visitation, with particular reference to these
       points. … The character of Sixtus V. made it particularly
       easy for Acquaviva to excite the antipathies of that pontiff
       against the proceedings of the Spaniards. Pope Sixtus had
       formed the hope, as we know, of rendering Rome, more decidedly
       than it ever yet was, the metropolis of Christendom. Acquaviva
       assured him, that the object really laboured for in Spain was
       no other than increased independence of Rome. Pope Sixtus
       hated nothing so much as illegitimate birth; and Acquaviva
       caused him to be informed that Manrique, the bishop selected
       as 'Visitator' of the Jesuits, was illegitimate. These were
       reasons sufficient to make Sixtus recall the assent he had
       already given to the visitation. He even summoned the case of
       the provincial before the tribunals of Rome. From his
       successor, Gregory XIV., the general succeeded in obtaining a
       formal confirmation of the rule of the order. But his
       antagonists also were unyielding and crafty. They perceived
       that the general must be attacked in the court of Rome itself.
       They availed themselves of his momentary absence. … In the
       summer of 1592, at the request of the Spanish Jesuits and
       Philip II., but without the knowledge of Acquaviva, the
       pontiff commanded that a general congregation should be held.
       Astonished and alarmed, Acquaviva hastened back. To the
       generals of the Jesuits these 'Congregations' were no less
       inconvenient than were the Convocations of the Church to the
       popes; and if his predecessors were anxious to avoid them, how
       much more cause had Acquaviva, against whom there prevailed so
       active an enmity! But he was soon convinced that the
       arrangement was irrevocable; he therefore resumed his
       composure and said, 'We are obedient sons; let the will of the
       holy father be done.' …
    {1891}
       Philip of Spain had demanded some changes, and had
       recommended others for consideration. On two things he'
       insisted: the resignation of certain papal privileges; those
       of reading forbidden books, for example, and of granting
       absolution for the crime of heresy; and a law, by virtue of
       which every novice who entered the order should surrender
       whatever patrimonial rights he might possess, and should even
       resign all his benefices. These were matters in regard to
       which the order came into collision with the Inquisition and
       the civil government. After some hesitation, the demands of
       the king were complied with, and principally through the
       influence of Acquaviva himself. But the points recommended by
       Philip for consideration were of much higher moment. First of
       all came the questions, whether the authority of the superiors
       should not be limited to a certain period; and whether a
       general congregation should not be held at certain fixed
       intervals? The very essence and being of the institute, the
       rights of absolute sovereignty, were here brought into
       question. Acquaviva was not on this occasion disposed to
       comply. After an animated discussion, the congregation
       rejected these propositions of Philip; but the pope, also, was
       convinced of their necessity. What had been refused to the
       king was now commanded by the pope. By the plenitude of his
       apostolic power, he determined and ordained that the superiors
       and rectors should be changed every third year; and that, at
       the expiration of every sixth year, a general congregation
       should be assembled. It is, indeed, true that the execution of
       these ordinances did not effect so much as had been hoped from
       them. … It was, nevertheless, a very serious blow to the
       society, that it had been compelled, by internal revolt and
       interference from without, to a change in its statutes."

          L. Ranke,
          History of the Popes,
          book 6, section 9 (volume 2).

    JESUITS: A. D. 1581-1641.
       Hostility of the Paulistas of Brazil.
       Opposition to enslavement of the Indians.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1595.
       Expulsion from Paris.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1606.
       Exclusion from Venice for half a century.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1653-1660.
       First controversy and conflict with the Jansenists.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1702-1715.
       The renewed conflict with Jansenism in France.
       The Bull Unigenitus.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
       Suppression of the Society in Portugal and the Portuguese
       dominions.

       In 1757, a series of measures intended to break the power, if
       not to end the existence, of the Society of Jesus, in Portugal
       and the Portuguese dominions, was undertaken by the great
       Portuguese minister, Carvalho, better known by his later title
       as the Marquis of Pombal. "It is not necessary to speculate on
       the various motives which induced Carvalho to attack the
       Jesuits, but the principal cause lay in the fact that they
       were wealthy and powerful, and therefore a dangerous force in
       an absolutist monarchy. It must be remembered that the Jesuits
       of the 18th century formed a very different class of men to
       their predecessors. They were no longer intrepid missionary
       pioneers, but a corporation of wealthy traders, who made use
       of their spiritual position to further the cause of their
       commerce. They had done a great work in America by opening up
       the interior of Brazil and converting the natives, and their
       administration of Paraguay, one of the most interesting
       achievements in the whole history of Christianity, was without
       doubt a blessing to the people. But by the middle of the 18th
       century they had gone too far. It was one thing to convert the
       natives of Brazil, and another to absorb much of the wealth of
       that country, in doing which they prejudiced not only the
       Crown but the Portuguese people, whom they kept from settling
       in the territory under their rule. Whether it was a sufficient
       reason for Carvalho to attack the order, because it was
       wealthy and powerful, and had departed from its primitive
       simplicity, is a question for everyone to decide for
       themselves, but that this was the reason, and that the various
       excuses alleged by the admirers of the great minister are
       without foundation, is an undoubted fact. On September 19,
       1757, the first important blow was struck, when the king's
       Jesuit confessor was dismissed, and all Jesuits were forbidden
       to come to Court. Carvalho, in the name of the King of
       Portugal, also formally denounced the order at Rome, and
       Benedict XIV., the then Pope, appointed the Cardinal de
       Saldanha, a friend of the minister, Visitor and Reformer of
       the Society of Jesus. The cardinal did not take long in making
       up his mind, and May 15, 1758, he forbade the Jesuits to
       engage in trade. An attempt upon the king's life, which
       shortly followed this measure, gave the minister the
       opportunity he wanted for urging the suppression of the famous
       society. The history of the Tavora plot, which culminated in
       this attempt, is one of the most mysterious affairs in the
       whole history of Portugal. … The three leaders of the plot
       were the Duke of Aveiro, a descendant of John II., and one of
       the greatest noblemen in Portugal, the Marquis of Tavora, who
       had filled with credit the post of Governor-general of India,
       and the Count of Atouguia, a descendant of the gallant Dom
       Luis de Athaide, the defender of Goa; but the heart and soul
       of the conspiracy was the Marchioness of Tavora, a beautiful
       and ambitious woman, who was bitterly offended because her
       husband had not been made a duke. The confessor of this lady
       was a Jesuit named Gabriel Malagrida. … The evidence on all
       sides is most contradictory, and all that is certain is that
       the king was fired at and wounded on the night of September 3,
       1758; and that in the following January, the three noblemen
       who have been mentioned, the Marchioness of Tavora, Malagrida
       with seven other Jesuits, and many other individuals of all
       ranks of life, were arrested as implicated in the attempt to
       murder. The laymen had but a short trial and, together with
       the marchioness, were publicly executed ten days after their
       arrest. King Joseph certainly believed that the real culprits
       had been seized, and in his gratitude he created Carvalho
       Count of Oeyras, and encouraged him to pursue his campaign
       against the Jesuits. On January 19, 1759, the estates
       belonging to the society were sequestrated; and on September
       3rd, all its members were expelled from Portugal, and
       directions were sent to the viceroys of India and Brazil to
       expel them likewise. The news of this bold stroke was received
       with admiration everywhere, except at Rome, and it became noised
       abroad that a great minister was ruling in Portugal. …
    {1892}
       In 1764 the Jesuit priest Malagrida was burnt alive, not as a
       traitor but as a heretic and imposter, on account of some
       crazy tractates he had written. The man was regarded as a
       martyr, and all communication between Portugal and the Holy
       See was broken off for two years, while the Portuguese
       minister exerted all his influence with the Courts of France
       and Spain to procure the entire suppression of the society
       which he hated. The king supported him consistently, and after
       another attempt upon his life in 1769, which the minister as
       usual attributed to the Jesuits, King Joseph created his
       faithful servant Marquis of Pombal, by which title he is best
       known to fame. The prime ministers of France and Spain
       cordially acquiesced in the hatred of the Jesuits, for both
       the Duc de Choiseul and the Count d'Aranda had something of
       Pombal's spirit in them, and imitated his policy; in both
       countries the society, which on its foundation had done so
       much for Catholicism and Christianity, was proscribed, and the
       worthy members treated with as much rigour as the unworthy;
       and finally in 1773 Pope Clement XIV. solemnly abolished the
       Society of Jesus. King Joseph did not long survive this
       triumph of his minister, for he died on February 24, 1777, and
       the Marquis of Pombal, then an old man of 77, was at once
       dismissed from office."

          H. M. Stephens,
          The Story of Portugal,
          chapter 16.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Nicolini,
          History of the Jesuits,
          chapter 15.

          T. Griesinger,
          The Jesuits,
          book 6, chapter 4 (volume 2).

    JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
       Proceedings against the Order in the Parliament of Paris.
       Suppression in France, Spain, Bavaria, Parma, Modena, Venice.
       Demands on the Pope for the abolition of the Society.

       "Father Antoine Lavalette, 'procureur' of the Jesuit Missions
       in the Antilles, resided in that capacity at St. Pierre in the
       island of Martinique. He was a man of talent, energy, and
       enterprise; and, following an example by no means uncommon in
       the Society, he had been for many years engaged in mercantile
       transactions on an extensive scale, and with eminent success.
       It was an occupation expressly prohibited to missionaries; but
       the Jesuits were in the habit of evading the difficulty by
       means of an ingenious fiction. Lavalette was in correspondence
       with the principal commercial firms in France, and
       particularly with that of Lioncy Brothers and Gouffre, of
       Marseilles. He made frequent consignments of merchandise to
       their house, which were covered by bills of exchange, drawn in
       Martinique and accepted by them. For a time the traffic
       proceeded prosperously; but it so happened that upon the
       breaking out of the Seven Years' War, several ships belonging
       to Lavalette, richly freighted with West Indian produce, were
       captured by the English cruisers, and their cargoes
       confiscated. The immediate loss fell upon Lioncy and Gouffre,
       to whom these vessels were consigned," and they were driven to
       bankruptcy, the General of the Society of Jesus refusing to be
       responsible for the obligations of his subordinate, Father
       Lavalette. "Under these circumstances the creditors determined
       to attack the Jesuit community as a corporate body," and the
       latter were so singularly unwary, for once, as not only to
       contest the claim before the Parliament of Paris, but to
       appeal to the constitutions of their Society in support of
       their contention, that each college was independent in the
       matter of temporal property, and that no corporate
       responsibility could exist. "The Parliament at once demanded
       that the constitutions thus referred to should he examined.
       The Jesuits were ordered to furnish a copy of them; they
       obeyed. … The compulsory production of these mysterious
       records, which had never before been inspected by any but
       Jesuit eyes, was an event of crucial significance. It was the
       turning-point of the whole affair; and its consequences were
       disastrous." As a first consequence, "the court condemned the
       General of the Jesuits, and in his person the whole Society
       which he governed, to acquit the bills of exchange still
       outstanding, together with interest and damages, within the
       space of a year from the date of the 'arrêt.' In default of
       payment the debt was made recoverable upon the common property
       of the Order, excepting only the endowments specially
       restricted to particular colleges. The delight of the public,
       who were present on the occasion in great numbers, 'was
       excessive,' says Barbier, 'and even indecent.'" As a second
       consequence, the Parliament, on the 6th of August, 1761,
       "condemned a quantity of publications by the Jesuits, dating
       from the year 1590 downwards, to be torn and burnt by the
       executioner and the next day this was duly carried out in the
       court of the Palais de Justice. Further, the 'arrêt'
       prohibited the king's subjects from entering the said Society;
       forbade the fathers to give instruction, private or public, in
       theology, philosophy, or humanity; and ordered their schools
       and colleges to be closed. The accusation brought against
       their books was … that of teaching 'abominable and murderous
       doctrine,' of justifying sedition, rebellion, and regicide.
       … The Government replied to these bold measures by ordering
       the Parliament to suspend the execution of its 'arrêts' for
       the space of a year. The Parliament affected to obey, but
       stipulated, in registering the letters-patent, that the delay
       should not extend beyond the 1st of April, 1762, and made
       other provisions which left them virtually at liberty to
       proceed as they might think proper. The Jesuits … relied too
       confidently on the protection of the Crown. … But the
       prestige of the monarchy was now seriously impaired, and it
       was no longer wise or safe for a King of France to undertake
       openly the defence of any institution which had incurred a
       deliberate sentence of condemnation from the mass of his
       people." In November, 1761, a meeting of French prelates was
       summoned by the Royal Council to consider and report upon
       several questions relative to the utility of the Society of
       Jesus, the character of its teaching and conduct, and the
       modifications, if any, which should be proposed as to the
       extent of authority exercised by the General of the Society.
       The bishops, by a large majority, made a report favorable to
       the Jesuits, but recommended, "as reasonable concessions to
       public opinion, certain alterations in its statutes and
       practical administration. … This project of compromise was
       forwarded to Rome for the consideration of the Pope and the
       General; and Louis gave them to understand, through his
       ambassador, that upon no other conditions would it be possible
       to stem the tide of opposition, and to maintain the Jesuits as
       a body corporate in France.
    {1893}
       It was now that the memorable reply was made, either by the
       General Ricci, or, according to other accounts, by Pope
       Clement XIII. himself—Sint ut sunt, aut non sint'; 'Let them
       remain as they are, or let them exist no longer.'" Even had
       the proposed reform been accepted, "its success was
       problematical; but its rejection sealed the fate of the Order.
       Louis, notwithstanding the ungracious response from Rome,
       proposed his scheme of conciliation to the Parliament in
       March, 1762, and annulled at the same time all measures
       adverse to the Jesuits taken since the 1st of August
       preceding. The Parliament, secretly encouraged by the Duc de
       Choiseul, refused to register this edict; the king, after some
       hesitation, withdrew it; and no available resource remained to
       shield the Order against its impending destiny. The
       Parliaments, both of Paris and the Provinces, laid the axe to
       the root without further delay. By an 'arrêt' of the 1st of
       April, 1762, the Jesuits were expelled from their 84 colleges
       in the ressort of the Parliament of Paris, and the example was
       followed by the provincial tribunals of Rouen, Rennes, Metz,
       Bordeaux, and Aix. The Society was now assailed by a general
       chorus of invective and execration. … The final blow was
       struck by the Parliament of Paris on the 6th of August, 1762.
       … The sentence then passed condemned the Society as
       'inadmissible, by its nature, in any civilized State, inasmuch
       as it was contrary to the law of nature, subversive of
       authority spiritual and temporal, and introduced, under the
       veil of religion, not an Order sincerely aspiring to
       evangelical perfection, but rather a political body, of which
       the essence consists in perpetual attempts to attain, first,
       absolute independence, and in the end, supreme authority.' …
       The decree concludes by declaring the vows of the Jesuits
       illegal and void, forbidding them to observe the rules of the
       Order, to wear its dress, or to correspond with its members.
       They were to quit their houses within one week, and were to
       renounce, upon oath, all connection with the Society, upon
       pain of being disqualified for any ecclesiastical charge or
       public employment. The provincial Parliaments followed the
       lead of the capital, though in some few instances the decree
       of suppression was opposed, and carried only by a small
       majority; while at Besançon and Douai the decision was in
       favour of the Society. In Lorraine, too, under the peaceful
       government of Stanislas Leczinski, and in Alsace, where they
       were powerfully protected by Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of
       Strasburg, the Jesuits were left unmolested. … The
       suppression of the Jesuits—the most important act of the
       administration of the Duc de Choiseul—was consummated by a
       royal ordonnance of November, 1764, to which Louis did not
       give his consent without mistrust and regret. It decreed that
       the Society should cease to exist throughout his Majesty's
       dominions; but it permitted the ex-Jesuits to reside in France
       as private citizens, and to exercise their ecclesiastical
       functions under the jurisdiction of the diocesans. … Almost
       immediately afterwards, on the 7th of January, 1765. appeared
       the bull 'Apostolicum,' by which Clement XIII. condemned, with
       all the weight of supreme and infallible authority, the
       measure which had deprived the Holy See of its most valiant
       defenders. … The only effect of the intervention of the
       Roman Curia was to excite further ebullitions of hostility
       against the prostrate Order. Charles III. of Spain, yielding,
       as it is alleged, to the exhortations of the Duc de Choiseul,
       abolished it throughout his dominions by a sudden mandate of
       April 2, 1767. … The Pope precipitated the final catastrophe
       by a further act of imprudence. The young Duke of Parma, a
       prince of the house of Bourbon, had excluded the Jesuits from
       his duchy, and had published certain ecclesiastical
       regulations detrimental to the ancient pretensions of the
       Roman See. Clement XIII., reviving an antiquated title in
       virtue of which Parma was claimed as a dependent fief of the
       Papacy, was rash enough to launch a bull of excommunication
       against the Duke, and deprived him of his dominions as a
       rebellious vassal. All the Bourbon sovereigns promptly
       combined to resent this insult to their family. The Papal Bull
       was suppressed at Paris, at Madrid, at Lisbon, at Parma, at
       Naples. The Jesuits were expelled from Venice, from Modena,
       from Bavaria. The Pontiff was summoned to revoke his
       'monitorium'; and on his refusal French troops took possession
       of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, while the King of Naples
       seized Benevento and Pontecorvo. On the 16th of January, 1769,
       the ambassadors of Spain, France, and Naples presented a joint
       note to the Holy Father, demanding that the Order of Jesus
       should be secularised and abolished for ever. Clement, who had
       suffered severely from the manifold humiliations and reverses
       of his Pontificate, was overwhelmed by this last blow, from
       the effects of which he never rallied. He expired almost
       suddenly on the 2nd of February, 1769."

          W. H. Jervis,
          History of the Church of France,
          volume 2, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Griesinger,
          The Jesuits,
          book 6, chapter 6,
          and book 7, chapter 1.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871
       Papal suppression and restoration of the Order.

       "The attitude of the Roman Catholic Courts was so threatening,
       and their influence with the Conclave so powerful, that
       Lorenzo Ganganelli was selected [1769] for the triple crown,
       as the man best suited for their purposes. Belonging to the
       Franciscans, who had ever been antagonistic to the Jesuits, he
       had been a follower of the Augustinian theology, and was not
       altogether free from Jansenism. The Jesuits even went so far
       as to pray publicly in their churches for the conversion of
       the Pope. The pontificate of Clement XIV. has been rendered
       memorable in history by the Papal decree of July 21, 1773,
       which in its policy adopted the maxim of Lorenzo Ricci, the
       inflexible General of the Jesuits, 'Sint ut sunt, aut non
       sunt'—Let us be as we are, or let us not be! That decree
       declared that, from the very origin of the Order, sorrow,
       jealousies, and dissensions arose, not only among its own
       members but between them and the other religious orders and
       their colleges. After further declaring that, urged as its
       head by a sense of duty to restore the harmony of the Church,
       and feeling convinced that the Society could no longer
       subserve the uses for which it was created, and on other
       grounds of prudence and governmental wisdom, he by his decree
       abolished the Order of Jesuits, its offices, houses, and
       institutes. … The other religious orders at Rome were
       jealous that Jesuits should have been the confessors of
       Sovereigns at Westminster, Madrid, Vienna, Versailles, Lisbon,
       and Naples. The influences of the Dominicans, the
       Benedictines, and the Oratorians were accordingly exercised
       for their suppression. … The Papal Bull 'Dominus Redemptor
       noster' was at first resisted by the Jesuits, and their
       General, Lorenzo Ricci, was sent to the Castle of St. Angelo.
    {1894}
       Bernardine Renzi, a female Pythoness, having predicted the
       death of the Pope, two Jesuits, Coltrano and Venissa, who were
       suspected of having instigated her prophecies, were consigned
       to the same prison. All that follows relating to the fate of
       Ganganelli is of mere historic interest; his end is shrouded
       in mystery, which has been as yet, and is likely to continue,
       impenetrable. According to the revelations of Cardinal de
       Bernis, Ganganelli was himself apprehensive of dying by
       poison, and a sinister rumour respecting a cup of chocolate
       with an infusion of 'Aqua de Tofana,' administered by a pious
       attendant, was generally prevalent throughout Europe; but the
       time has long since passed for an inquest over the deathbed of
       Clement XIV."

          The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany
          (Fraser's' Magazine, May, 1873).

       "All that follows the publication of the brief—the death of
       Ganganelli, the fierce and yet unexhausted disputes about the
       last year of his life, and the manner of his death—are to us
       indescribably melancholy and repulsive. … We have
       conflicting statements, both of which cannot be
       true—churchman against churchman—cardinal against
       cardinal—even, it should seem, pope against pope. On the one
       side there is a triumph, hardly disguised, in the terrors, in
       the sufferings, in the madness, which afflicted the later days
       of Clement; on the other, the profoundest honour, the deepest
       commiseration, for a wise and holy Pontiff, who, but for the
       crime of his enemies, might have enjoyed a long reign of peace
       and respect and inward satisfaction. There a protracted agony
       of remorse in life and anticipated damnation—that damnation,
       if not distinctly declared, made dubious or averted only by a
       special miracle:—here an apotheosis—a claim, at least, to
       canonization. There the judgment of God pronounced in language
       which hardly affects regret; here more than insinuations, dark
       charges of poison against persons not named, but therefore
       involving in the ignominy of possible guilt a large and
       powerful party. Throughout the history of the Jesuits it is
       this which strikes, perplexes, and appals the dispassionate
       student. The intensity with which they were hated surpasses
       even the intensity with which they hated. Nor is this depth of
       mutual animosity among those or towards those to whom the
       Jesuits were most widely opposed, the Protestants, and the
       adversaries of all religion; but among Roman Catholics—and
       those not always Jansenists or even Gallicans—among the most
       ardent assertors of the papal supremacy, monastics of other
       orders, parliaments, statesmen, kings, bishops, cardinals.
       Admiration and detestation of the Jesuits divide, as far as
       feeling is concerned, the Roman Catholic world, with a schism
       deeper and more implacable than any which arrays Protestant
       against Protestant, Episcopacy and Independency, Calvinism and
       Arminianism, Puseyism and Evangelicism. The two parties
       counterwork each other, write against each other in terms of
       equal acrimony, misunderstand each other, misrepresent each
       other, accuse and recriminate upon each other, with the same
       reckless zeal, in the same unmeasured language—each
       inflexibly, exclusively identifying his own cause with that of
       true religion, and involving its adversaries in one sweeping
       and remorseless condemnation. To us the question of the death
       of Clement XIV. is purely of historical interest. It is
       singular enough that Protestant writers are cited as alone
       doing impartial justice to the Jesuits and their enemies: the
       Compurgators of the 'Company of Jesus' are Frederick II. and
       the Encyclopedists. Outcast from Roman Catholic Europe, they
       found refuge in Prussia, and in the domains of Catherine II.,
       from whence they disputed the validity and disobeyed the
       decrees of the Pope."

          Clement XIV. and the Jesuits
          (Quarterly Review, September, 1848.)

       "The Jesuit Order remained in abeyance for a period of
       forty-two years, until Pius VII. on his return to Rome, after
       his liberation from the captivity he endured under Napoleon I.
       at Fontainebleau, issued his brief of August 7, 1814,
       'solicitudo omnium,' by which he authorised the surviving
       members of the Order again to live according to the rules of
       their founder, to admit novices, and to found colleges. With
       singular fatuity the Papal Edict for the restoration of the
       Jesuits, contradicting its own title, assigns on the face of
       the document as the principal reason for its being issued the
       recommendation contained in the gracious despatch of August
       11, 1800, received from Paul, the then reigning Emperor of the
       Russias. We have the histories of all nations concurring that
       Paul was notoriously mad, and within six months from the date
       of that gracious despatch he was strangled in his palace by
       the members of his own Court, as the only possible means, as
       they conceived, of rescuing the Empire from his insane and
       vicious despotism. In return probably for the successful
       intercession of Paul, Thadeus Brzozowski, a Pole by birth but
       a Russian subject, was elected the first General of the
       restored order. We find a striking comment on his
       recommendation in the Imperial Ukase of his successor, the
       Emperor Alexander, by which, in June 1817, he banished the
       Jesuits from all his dominions. Spain, the scene of their
       former ignominious treatment, was, under the degraded rule of
       the Ferdinandian dynasty, the first country to which they were
       recalled; but they were soon again expelled by the National
       Cortes. Our limits here confine us to a simple category of
       their subsequent expulsions from Roman Catholic States: from
       France in 1831, from Saxony in the same year, from Portugal
       again in 1834, from Spain again in 1835, from France again in
       1845, from the whole of Switzerland, including the Roman
       Catholic Cantons, in 1847, and in 1848 from Bavaria and other
       German States. In the Revolution of 1848, they were expelled
       from every Italian State, even from the territories of the
       Pope; but on the counter Revolution they returned, to be again
       expelled in 1859 from Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the
       Legations. They have had to endure even a more recent
       vicissitude, for, in December 1871, a measure relating to the
       vexed question, the Union of Church and State, received the
       sanction of the National Council (Bundesrath) of Switzerland,
       by which the Jesuits were prohibited from settling in the
       country, from interfering even in education, or from founding
       or re-establishing colleges throughout the Federal
       territories. They have thus within a recent period received
       sentence of banishment from almost every Roman Catholic
       Government, but they still remain in Rome."

          The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany
          (Fraser's Magazine, May, 1873).

    {1895}

    JESUITS: A. D. 1847.
       The question of Expulsion in Switzerland.
       The Sonderbund and the war of religions.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

    JESUITS: A. D. 1880.
       The law against Jesuit schools in the French Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

       ----------JESUITS: End--------

    JESUS, Uncertainty of, the date of the birth of.

          See JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

    JEU-DE-PAUME, The Oath at the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

    JEUNESSE DOREE, of the Anti-Jacobin reaction in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

       ----------JEWS: Start--------

    JEWS.
       The National Names.

       There have been two principal conjectures as to the origin of
       the name Hebrews, by which the descendants of Abraham were
       originally known. One derives the name from a progenitor,
       Eber; the other finds its origin in a Semitic word signifying
       "over," or "crossed over." In the latter view, the name was
       applied by the Canaanites to people who came into their
       country from beyond the Euphrates. Ewald, who rejects this
       latter hypothesis, says: "While there is nothing to show that
       the name emanated from strangers, nothing is more manifest
       than that the nation called themselves by it and had done so
       as long as memory could reach; indeed this is the only one of
       their names that appears to have been current in the earliest
       times. The history of this name shows that it must have been
       most frequently used in the ancient times, before that branch
       of the Hebrews which took the name of Israel became dominant,
       but that after the time of the Kings it entirely disappeared
       from ordinary speech, and was only revived in the period
       immediately before Christ, like many other names of the
       primeval times, through the prevalence of a learned mode of
       regarding antiquity, when it came afresh into esteem through
       the reverence then felt for Abraham."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          volume 1, page 284.

       After the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian
       captivity—the returned exiles being mostly of the tribes of
       Judah and Benjamin—"the name of Judah took the predominant
       place in the national titles. As the primitive name of
       'Hebrew' had given way to the historical name of Israel, so
       that of Israel now gave way to the name of 'Judæan' or 'Jew,'
       so full of praise and pride, of reproach and scorn. 'It was
       born,' as their later historian [Josephus] truly observes, 'on
       the day when they came out from Babylon.'"

          A. P. Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          volume 3, page 101.

    JEWS:
       The early Hebrew history.

       "Of course, in the abstract, it is possible that such persons
       as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should have existed. One can
       imagine that such and such incidents in the accounts regarding
       them really took place, and were handed down by tradition. …
       But our present investigation does not concern the question
       whether there existed men of those names, but whether the
       progenitors of Israel and of the neighbouring nations who are
       represented in Genesis are historical personages. It is this
       question which we answer in the negative. Must we then deny
       all historical value to the narratives of the patriarchs? By
       no means. What we have to do is to make proper use of them.
       They teach us what the Israelites thought as to their
       affinities with the tribes around them, and as to the manner
       of their own settlement in the land of their abode. If we
       strip them of their genealogical form, and at the same time
       take into consideration the influence which Israel's self-love
       must have exercised over the representation of relationships
       and facts, we have an historical kernel left. … The
       narratives in Genesis, viewed and used in this way, lead us to
       the following conception of Israel's early history. Canaan was
       originally inhabited by a number of tribes—of Semitic origin,
       as we shall perceive presently—who applied themselves to the
       rearing of cattle, to agriculture, or to commerce, according
       to the nature of the districts in which they were established.
       The countries which were subsequently named after Edom, Ammon,
       and Moab, also had their aboriginal inhabitants, the Horites,
       the Zamzummites, and the Emites. Whilst all these tribes
       retained possession of their dwelling-places, and the
       inhabitants of Canaan especially had reached a tolerably high
       stage of civilization and development, there occurred a
       Semitic migration, which issued from Arrapachitis (Arphacsad,
       Ur Casdim), and moved on in a south-westerly direction. The
       countries to the east and the south of Canaan were gradually
       occupied by these intruders, the former inhabitants being
       either expelled or subjugated; Ammon, Moab, Ishmael, and Edom
       became the ruling nations in those districts. In Canaan the
       situation was different. The tribes which—at first closely
       connected with the Edomites, but afterwards separated from
       them—had turned their steps towards Canaan, did not find
       themselves strong enough either to drive out, or to exact
       tribute from, the original inhabitants; they continued their
       wandering life among them, and lived upon the whole at peace
       with them. But a real settlement was still their aim. When,
       therefore, they had become more numerous and powerful, through
       the arrival of a number of kindred settlers from
       Mesopotamia—represented in tradition by the army with which
       Jacob returns to Canaan—they resumed their march in the same
       south-westerly direction, until at length they took possession
       of fixed habitations in the land of Goshen, on the borders of
       Egypt."

          A. Kuenen,
          The Religion of Israel,
          chapter 2 (volume 1).

       "In the oldest extant record respecting Abraham, Genesis xiv.,
       … we see him acting as a powerful domestic prince, among
       many similar princes, who like him held Canaan in possession;
       not calling himself King, like Melchizedek, the priest-king of
       Salem, because he was the father and protector of his house,
       living with his family and bondmen in the open country, yet
       equal in power to the petty Canaanite kings. …
    {1896}
       Detached as this account may be, it is at least evident from
       it that the Canaanites were at that time highly civilised,
       since they had a priest-king like Melchizedek, whom Abraham
       held in honour, but that they were even then so weakened by
       endless divisions and by the emasculating influence of that
       culture itself, as either to pay tribute to the warlike
       nations of the northeast (as the five kings of the cities of
       the Dead Sea had done for twelve years before they rebelled,
       ver. 4), or to seek for some valiant descendants of the
       northern lands living in their midst, who in return for
       certain concessions and services promised them protection and
       defence. … This idea furnishes the only tenable historical
       view of the migration of Abraham and his kindred. They did not
       conquer the land, nor at first hold it by mere force of arms,
       like the four north-eastern kings from whose hand Abraham
       delivered Lot, Genesis xiv. They advanced as leaders of small
       bands, with their fencible servants and the herds, at first
       rather sought or even invited by the old inhabitants of the
       land, as good warriors and serviceable allies, than forcing
       themselves upon them. Thus they took up their abode and
       obtained possessions among them, but were always wishing to
       migrate farther, even into Egypt. … Little as we are able to
       prove all the details of that migration from the north towards
       Egypt, which probably continued for centuries, it may with
       great certainty be conceived as on the whole similar to the
       gradual advance of many other northern nations; as of the
       Germans towards Rome, and of the Turks in these same regions
       in the Middle Ages. … We now understand that Abraham's name
       can designate only one of the most important and oldest of the
       Hebrew immigrations. But since Abraham had so early attained a
       name glorious among the Hebrews advancing towards the south,
       and since he was everything especially to the nation of Israel
       which arose out of this immigration, and to their nearest
       kindred, his name came to be the grand centre and
       rallying-point of all the memory of those times."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 1, section 1, C, part 3.

    JEWS:
       The Children of Israel in Egypt.

       "It has been very generally supposed that Abraham's visit to
       Egypt took place under the reign of one of the kings of the
       twelfth dynasty [placed by Brugsch B. C. 2466-2266], but which
       king has not yet been satisfactorily made out. … Some
       Biblical critics have considered that Amenemha III. was king
       of Egypt when Abraham came there, and others that Usertsen I.
       was king, and that Amenemha was the Pharaoh of the time of
       Joseph. … It is generally accepted now that Joseph was sold
       into Egypt at the time when the Hyksos were in power [and
       about 1750 B. C.]; and it is also generally accepted that the
       Exodus took place after the death of Rameses II. and under the
       reign of Merenptah, or Meneptah. Now the children of Israel
       were in captivity in Egypt for 400 or 430 years; and as they
       went out of Egypt after the death of Rameses II., it was
       probably some time about the year 1350 B. C. There is little
       doubt that the Pharaoh who persecuted the Israelites so
       shamefully was Rameses II."

          E. A. W. Budge,
          The Dwellers on the Nile,
          chapter 4.

       "It is stated by George the Syncellus, a writer whose
       extensive learning and entire honesty are unquestionable, that
       the synchronism of Joseph with Apepi, the last king of the
       only known Hyksos dynasty, was 'acknowledged by all.' The best
       modern authorities accept this view, if not as clearly
       established, at any rate as in the highest degree probable,
       and believe that it was Apepi who made the gifted Hebrew his
       prime minister, who invited his father and his brethren to
       settle in Egypt with their households, and assigned to them
       the land of Goshen for their residence."

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Ancient Egypt,
          chapter 19 (volume 2).

       "The new Pharaoh, 'who knew not Joseph,' who adorned the city
       of Ramses, the capital of the Tanitic nome, and the city of
       Pithom, the capital of what was afterwards the Sethroitic
       nome, with temple-cities, is no other, can be no other, than
       Ramessu II. or Rameses—the Sesostris of the Greeks, B. C.
       1350, of whose buildings at Zoan the monuments and the
       papyrus-rolls speak in complete agreement. … Ramessu is the
       Pharaoh of the oppression, and the father of that unnamed
       princess, who found the child Moses exposed in the bulrushes
       on the bank of the river. … If Ramses-Sesostris … must be
       regarded beyond all doubt as the Pharaoh under whom the Jewish
       legislator Moses first saw the light, so the chronological
       relations—having regard to the great age of the two
       contemporaries, Ramses II. and Moses—demand that Mineptah
       [his son] should in all probability be acknowledged as the
       Pharaoh of the Exodus."

          H. Brugsch-Bey,
          History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
          chapter 14.

       The quotations given above represent the orthodox view of
       early Jewish history, in the light of modern monumental
       studies,—the view, that is, which accepts the Biblical
       account of Abraham and his seed as a literal family record,
       authentically widening into the annals of a nation. The more
       rationalizing views are indicated by the following: "There can
       be no doubt … as to the Semitic character of these Hyksos,
       or 'Pastors,' who, more than 2,000 years B. C., interrupted in
       a measure the current of Egyptian civilisation, and founded at
       Zoan (Tanis), near the Isthmus, the centre of a powerful
       Semitic state. These Hyksos were to all appearances
       Canaanites, near relations of the Hittites of Hebron. Hebron
       was in close community with Zoan, and there is a tradition,
       probably based upon historical data, that the two cities were
       built nearly at the same time. As invariably happens when
       barbarians enter into an ancient and powerful civilisation,
       the Hyksos soon became Egyptianised. … The Hyksos of Zoan
       could not fail to exercise a great influence upon the Hebrews
       who were encamped around Hebron, the Dead Sea, and in the
       southern districts of Palestine. The antipathy which
       afterwards existed between the Hebrews and the Canaanites was
       not as yet very perceptible. … There are the best of reasons
       for believing that the immigration of the Beni-Israel took
       place at two separate times. A first batch of Israelites seems
       to have been attracted by the Hittites of Egypt, while the
       bulk of the tribe was living upon the best of terms with the
       Hittites of Hebron. These first immigrants found favour with
       the Egyptianised Hittites of Memphis and Zoan; they secured
       very good positions, had children, and constituted a distinct
       family in Israel. This was what was afterwards called the
       'clan of the Josephel,' or the Beni-Joseph. Finding themselves
       well off in Lower Egypt, they sent for their brethren, who,
       impelled perhaps by famine, joined them there, and were
       received also favourably by the Hittite dynasties. These
       new-comers never went to Memphis. They remained in the
       vicinity of Zoan, where there is a land of Goshen, which was
       allotted to them. …
    {1897}
       The whole of these ancient days, concerning which Israel
       possesses only legends and contradictory traditions, is
       enveloped in doubt; one thing, however, is certain, viz., that
       Israel entered Egypt under a dynasty favourable to the
       Semites, and left it under one which was hostile. The presence
       of a nomad tribe upon the extreme confines of Egypt must have
       been a matter of very small importance for this latter
       country. There is no certain trace of it in the Egyptian
       texts. The kingdom of Zoan, upon the contrary, left a deep
       impression upon the Israelites. Zoan became for them
       synonymous with Egypt. The relations between Zoan and Hebron
       were kept up, and … Hebron was proud of the synchronism,
       which made it out seven years older than Zoan. The
       first-comers, the Josephites, always assumed an air of
       superiority over their brethren, whose position they had been
       instrumental in establishing. … Their children, born in
       Egypt, possibly of Egyptian mothers, were scarcely Israelites.
       An agreement was come to, however; it was agreed that the
       Josephites should rank as Israelites with the rest. They
       formed two distinct tribes, those of Ephraim and Manasseh. …
       It is not impossible that the origin of the name of Joseph
       (addition, adjunction, annexation) may have arisen from the
       circumstance that the first emigrants and their families,
       having become strangers to their brethren, needed some sort of
       adjunction to become again part and parcel of the family of
       Israel."

          E. Renan,
          History of the People of Israel,
          book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1).

          See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS, and ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

    JEWS:
       The Route of the Exodus.

       It is said of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt that "they
       built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses."
       (Exodus i. 11.) One of those "treasure cities," or
       "store-cities," has been discovered, in a heap of ruins, at a
       place which the Arabs call "Tell el Maskhutah," and it was
       supposed at first to be the Raamses of the Biblical record.
       But explorations made in 1883 by M. Naville seem to have
       proved that it is the store-city of Pithom which lies buried
       in the mounds at Tell el Maskhutah and that Raamses is still
       to be found. As Raamses or Ramses was the starting point of
       the Exodus, something of a controversy concerning the route of
       the latter turns upon the question. It is the opinion of M.
       Naville that Succoth, where the Children of Israel made their
       first halt, was the district in which Pithom is situated, and
       that the Land of Goshen, their dwelling-place in Egypt, was a
       region embracing that district. The site of Pithom, as
       identified by Naville, is "on the south side of the sweet
       water canal which runs from Cairo to Suez through the Wadi
       Tumilât, about 12 miles from Ismailiah." The excavations made
       have brought to light a great number of chambers, with massive
       walls of brick, which are conjectured to have been granaries
       and storehouses, for the provisioning of caravans and armies
       to cross the desert to Syria, as well as for the collecting of
       tribute and for the warehousing of trade. Hence the name of
       store-city, or treasure-city. Under the Greeks Pithom changed
       its name to Heroopolis, and a new city called Arsinoë was
       built near it.

          E. Naville,
          The Store-City of Pithom.

       "I submit that Goshen, properly speaking, was the land which
       afterwards became the Arabian nome, viz., the country round
       Saft el Henneh east of the canal Abu-I-Munagge, a district
       comprising Belbeis and Abbaseh, and probably extending further
       north than the Wadi Tumilat. The capital of the nome was Pa
       Sopt, called by the Greeks Phacusa, now Saft el Henneh. At the
       time when the Israelites occupied the land, the term 'Goshen'
       belonged to a region which as yet had no definite boundaries,
       and which extended with the increase of the people over the
       territory they inhabited. The term 'land of Ramses' applies to
       a larger area, and covers that part of the Delta which lies to
       the eastward of the Tanitic branch. … As for the city of
       Ramses, it was situate in the Arabian nome. Probably it was
       Phacusa."

          E. Naville,
          Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen.

       The Israelites leaving Succoth, a region which we now know
       well, the neighbourhood of Tell-el-Maskhutah, push forward
       towards the desert, skirting the northern shore of the gulf,
       and thus reach the wilderness of Etham; but there, because of
       the pursuit of Pharaoh, they have to change their course, they
       are told to retrace their steps, so as to put the sea between
       them and the desert. … 'And the Lord spake unto Moses,
       saying: Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn and
       encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over
       against Baalzephon; before it shall ye encamp by the sea.' …
       The question is now, Where are we to look for Migdol and
       Pi-Hahiroth? As for Migdol, the ancient authors, and
       particularly the Itinerary, mention a Migdol, or Magdolon,
       which was twelve Roman miles distant from Pelusium. It is not
       possible to admit that this is the same Migdol which is spoken
       of in Exodus, for then it would not be the Red Sea, but the
       Mediterranean, which the Israelites would have before them,
       and we should thus have to fall in with MM. Schleiden and
       Brugsch's theory, that they followed the narrow track which
       lies between the Mediterranean and the Serbonian Bog. However
       ingenious are the arguments on which this system is based, I
       believe it must now be dismissed altogether, because we know
       the site of the station of Succoth. Is it possible to admit
       that, from the shore of the Arabian Gulf, the Israelites
       turned to the north, and marched forty miles through the
       desert in order to reach the Mediterranean? The journey would
       have lasted several days; they would have been obliged to pass
       in front of the fortresses of the north; they would have
       fallen into the way of the land of the Philistines, which they
       were told not to take; and, lastly, the Egyptians, issuing
       from Tanis and the northern cities, would have easily
       intercepted them. … All these reasons induce me to give up
       definitively the idea of the passage by the north, and to
       return to the old theory of a passage of the Red Sea, but of
       the Red Sea as it was at that time, extending a great deal
       farther northward, and not the Red Sea of to-day, which
       occupies a very different position. The word Migdol, in
       Egyptian, … is a common name. It means a fort, a tower. It
       is very likely that in a fortified region there have been
       several places so called, distinguished from each other,
       either by the name of the king who built them, or by some
       local circumstance; just as there are in Italy a considerable
       number of Torre. I should therefore, with M. Ebers, place
       Migdol at the present station of the Serapeum. There the sea
       was not wide, and the water probably very shallow; there also
       the phenomenon which took place on such a large scale when the
       Israelites went through must have been well known, as it is
       often seen now in other parts of Egypt.
    {1898}
       As at this point the sea was liable to be driven back under
       the influence of the east wind, and to leave a dry way, the
       Pharaohs were obliged to have there a fort, a Migdol, so as to
       guard that part of the sea, and to prevent the Asiatics of the
       desert from using this temporary gate to enter Egypt, to steal
       cattle, and to plunder the fertile land which was round
       Pithom."

          E. Naville,
          The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus
          (Egypt Expl. Fund, 1885).

       "Modern critics prefer an intelligent interpretation,
       according to known natural laws, of the words of Exodus xiv.
       21, 22, which lay stress upon the 'east wind' as the direct
       natural agent by which the sea bottom was for the time made
       dry land. … The theory, which dates from an early period,
       that the passage was in some sense tidal, miraculously aided
       by the agency of wind, has thus come to be very generally
       adopted."

          H. S. Palmer,
          Sinai
          (Ancient History from the Monuments),
          chapter 6.

    JEWS:
       The conquest of Canaan.

       "The first essay [west of Jordan] was made by Judah in
       conjunction with Simeon and Levi, but was far from prosperous.
       Simeon and Levi were annihilated; Judah also, though
       successful in mastering the mountain land to the west of the
       Dead Sea, was so only at the cost of severe losses which were
       not again made up until the accession of the Kenite families
       of the south (Caleb). As a consequence of the secession of
       these tribes, a new division of the nation into Israel and
       Judah took the place of that which had previously subsisted
       between the families of Leah and Rachel; under Israel were
       included all the tribes except Simeon, Levi, and Judah, which
       three are no longer mentioned in Judges v., where all the
       others are carefully and exhaustively enumerated. This
       half-abortive first invasion of the west was followed by a
       second, which was stronger and attended with much better
       results. It was led by the tribe of Joseph, to which the
       others attached themselves, Reuben and Gad only remaining
       behind in the old settlements. The district to the north of
       Judah, inhabited afterwards by Benjamin, was the first to be
       attacked. It was not until after several towns of this
       district had one by one fallen into the hands of the
       conquerors that the Canaanites set about a united resistance.
       They were, however, decisively repulsed by Joshua in the
       neighbourhood of Gibeon [or Beth-horon]; and by this victory
       the Israelites became masters of the whole central plateau of
       Palestine. The first camp, at Gilgal, near the ford of Jordan,
       which had been maintained until then, was now removed, and the
       ark of Jehovah brought further inland (perhaps by way of
       Bethel) to Shiloh, where henceforwards the headquarters were
       fixed, in a position which seemed as if it had been expressly
       made to favour attacks upon the fertile tract lying beneath it
       on the north. The Bne Rachel now occupied the new territory
       which up to that time had been acquired—Benjamin, in
       immediate contiguity with the frontier of Judah, then Ephraim,
       stretching to beyond Shiloh, and lastly Manasseh, furthest to
       the north, as far as to the plain of Jezreel. The centre of
       gravity, so to speak, already lay in Ephraim, to which
       belonged Joshua and the ark, It is mentioned as the last
       achievement of Joshua that at the waters of Merom he defeated
       Jabin, king of Hazor, and the allied princes of Galilee,
       thereby opening up the north for Israelitish settlers. …
       Even after the united resistance of the Canaanites had been
       broken, each individual community had still enough to do
       before it could take firm hold of the spot which it had
       searched out for itself or to which it had been assigned. The
       business of effecting permanent settlement was just a
       continuation of the former struggle, only on a diminished
       scale; every tribe and every family now fought for its own
       hand after the preliminary work had been accomplished by a
       united effort. Naturally, therefore, the conquest was at first
       but an incomplete one. The plain which fringed the coast was
       hardly touched; so also the valley of Jezreel with its girdle
       of fortified cities stretching from Acco to Bethshean. All
       that was subdued in the strict sense of that word was the
       mountainous land, particularly the southern hill-country of
       'Mount Ephraim'; yet even here the Canaanites retained
       possession of not a few cities, such as Jebus, Shechem,
       Thebez. It was only after the lapse of centuries that all the
       lacunæ were filled up, and the Canaanite enclaves made
       tributary. The Israelites had the extraordinarily
       disintegrated state of the enemy to thank for the ease with
       which they had achieved success."

          J. Wellhausen,
          Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
          chapter 2.

       "Remnants of the Canaanites remained everywhere among and
       between the Israelites. Beside the Benjamites the Jebusites (a
       tribe of the Amorites) maintained themselves, and at Gibeon,
       Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth were the Hivites, who
       had made peace with the Israelites. In the land of Ephraim,
       the Canaanites held their ground at Geser and Bethel, until
       the latter—it was an important city—was stormed by the
       Ephraimites. Among the tribe of Manasseh the Canaanites were
       settled at Beth Shean, Dan, Taanach, Jibleam, Megiddo and
       their districts, and in the northern tribes the Canaanites
       were still more numerous. It was not till long after the
       immigration of the Hebrews that they were made in part
       tributary. The land of the Israelites beyond the Jordan, where
       the tribe of Manasseh possessed the north, Gad the centre, and
       Reuben the south as far as the Arnon, was exposed to the
       attacks of the Ammonites and Moabites, and the migratory
       tribes of the Syrian desert, and must have had the greater
       attraction for them, as better pastures were to be found in
       the heights of Gilead, and the valleys there were more
       fruitful. To the west only the tribe of Ephraim reached the
       sea, and became master of a harbourless strip of coast. The
       remaining part of the coast and all the harbours remained in
       the hands of the powerful cities of the Philistines and the
       Phenicians. No attempt was made to conquer these, although
       border-conflicts took place between the tribes of Judah, Dan,
       and Asher, and Philistines and Sidonians. Such an attempt
       could only have been made if the Israelites had remained
       united, and even then the powers of the Israelites would
       hardly have sufficed to overthrow the walls of Gaza, Ascalon,
       and Ashdod, of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus. Yet the invasion of
       the Israelites was not without results for the cities of the
       coast: it forced a large part of the population to assemble in
       them, and we shall see … how rapid and powerful is the
       growth of the strength and importance of Tyre in the time
       immediately following the incursion of the Israelites, i. e.,
       immediately after the middle of the thirteenth century.
    {1899}
       As the population and in consequence the power of the cities
       on the coast increased, owing to the collection of the ancient
       population on the shore of the sea, those cities became all
       the more dangerous neighbours for the Israelites. It was a
       misfortune for the new territory which the Israelites had won
       by the sword that it was without the protection of natural
       boundaries on the north and east, that the cities of the
       Philistines and Phenicians barred it towards the sea, and in
       the interior remnants of the Canaanites still maintained their
       place. Yet it was a far more serious danger for the immigrants
       that they were without unity, connection, or guidance, for
       they had already given up these before the conflict was ended.
       Undoubtedly a vigorous leadership in the war of conquest
       against the Canaanites might have established a military
       monarchy which would have provided better for the maintenance
       of the borders and the security of the land than was done in
       its absence. But the isolated defence made by the Canaanites
       permitted the attacking party also to isolate themselves. The
       new masters of the land lived, like the Canaanites before and
       among them, in separate cantons; the mountain land which they
       possessed was much broken up, and without any natural centre,
       and though there were dangerous neighbours, there was no
       single concentrated aggressive power in the neighbourhood, now
       that Egypt remained in her borders. The cities of the
       Philistines formed a federation merely, though a federation
       far more strongly organised than the tribes of the Israelites.
       Under these circumstances political unity was not an
       immediately pressing question among the Israelites."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 2, chapter 11 (volume 1).

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 2, section 2, C.

    JEWS:
       Israel under the Judges.
       The wars of the Period.
       Conquest of Gilead and Bashan.
       Founding of the kingdom.

       "The office which gives its name to the period [between the
       death of Joshua and the rise of Samuel] well describes it. It
       was occasional, irregular, uncertain, yet gradually tending to
       fixedness and perpetuity. Its title is itself expressive. The
       Ruler was not regal, but he was more than the mere head of a
       tribe, or the mere judge of special cases. We have to seek for
       the origin of the name, not amongst the Sheykhs of the Arabian
       desert, but amongst the civilised settlements of Phœnicia.
       'Shophet,' 'Shophetim,' the Hebrew word which we translate
       'Judge,' is the same as we find in the 'Suffes,' 'Suffetes,'
       of the Carthaginian rulers at the time of the Punic wars. As
       afterwards the office of 'king' was taken from the nations
       round about, so now, if not the office, at least the name of
       'judge' or 'shophet' seems to have been drawn from the
       Canaanitish cities, with which for the first time Israel came
       into contact. … Finally the two offices which, in the
       earlier years of this period, had remained distinct—the High
       Priest and the Judge—were united in the person of Eli."

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 13.

       "The first war mentioned in the days of the Judges is with the
       Syrians, at a time when the Israelites, or a northern portion
       of them, were held in servitude for eight years by a king
       whose name, Cushan-rish-athaim, which may be translated the
       'Most Wicked Negress,' seems to place him in the region of
       imaginary tradition rather than of history. … The next war
       mentioned was an invasion by the Moabites, who, being joined
       with a body of Ammonites, and Amalakites, harassed the
       Israelites of the neighbourhood of Gilgal and Jericho. …
       After a servitude of 18 years under the Moabites, Ehud, a
       Benjamite, found an opportunity of stabbing Eglon, the king of
       Moab; and shortly afterwards the Benjamites were relieved by a
       body of their neighbours from the hill country of Ephraim. The
       Israelites then defeated the Moabites, and seized the fords of
       the Jordan to stop their retreat, and slew them all to a man.
       While this war was going on on one side of the land, the
       Philistines from the south were harassing those of the
       Israelites who were nearest to their country. … The history
       then carries us back to the northern Israelites, and we hear
       of their struggle with the Canaanites of that part of the
       country which was afterwards called Galilee. These people were
       under a king named Jabin, who had 900 chariots of iron, and
       they cruelly oppressed the men of Naphtali and Zebulun, who
       were at that time the most northerly of the Israelites. After
       a suffering of 20 years, the two tribes of Zebulun and
       Naphtali, under the leadership of Barak, rallied against their
       oppressors, and called to their help their stronger
       neighbours, the men of Ephraim. The tribe of Ephraim was the
       most settled portion of the Israelites, and they had adopted
       some form of government, while the other tribes were
       stragglers scattered over the land, every man doing what was
       right in his own eyes. The Ephraimites were at that time
       governed, or, in their own language, judged, by a brave woman
       of the name of Deborah, who led her followers, together with
       some of the Benjamites, to the assistance of Barak, the leader
       of Zebulun and Naphtali; and, at the foot of Mount Tabor, near
       the brook Kishon, their united forces defeated Sisern, the
       general of the Canaanites. Sisera fled, and was murdered by
       Jael, a woman in whose tent he had sought for refuge. … The
       next war that we are told of is an invasion by the Midianites
       and Amalakites and Children of the East. They crossed the
       Jordan to attack the men of Manasseh, who were at the same
       time struggling with the Amorites, the natives who dwelt
       amongst them. Gideon, the leader of Manasseh, called together
       the fighting men of his own tribe, together with those of
       Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. The men of Gilead, who had come
       over to help him, seem to have deserted him. Gideon, however,
       routed his enemies, and then he summoned the Ephraimites to
       guard the fords of the Jordan, and to cut off the fugitives.
       … This victory of Gideon, or Jerubbaal, as he was also
       named, marked him out as a man fit to be the ruler of Israel,
       and to save them from the troubles that arose from the want of
       a single head to lead them against the enemies that surrounded
       them and dwelt among them. Accordingly, he obtained the rank
       of chief of all the northern Israelites. Gideon had dwelt at
       Ophrah, in the land of Manasseh; but his son Abimelech, who
       succeeded him in his high post, was born in Shechem, in the
       land of Ephraim, and had thus gained the friendship of some of
       that tribe. Abimelech put to death all but one of his
       brethren, the other sons of Gideon, and got himself made king
       at Shechem; and he was the first who bore that title among the
       Israelites.
    {1900}
       But his thus violently seizing upon the power was the cause of
       a long civil war between Ephraim and Manasseh, which ended in
       the death of the usurper Abimelech, and the transfer of the
       chieftainship to another tribe. Tola, a man of Issachar, was
       then made Judge, or ruler of the northern tribes. … After
       Tola, says the historian, Jair of Gilead judged Israel. …
       Jair and his successors may have ruled in the east at the same
       time that Deborah and Gideon and their successors were ruling
       or struggling against their oppressors in the west. Jephtha of
       Gilead is the next great captain mentioned. … The Ammonites,
       who dwelt in the more desert country to the east of Gilead,
       had made a serious incursion on the Israelites on both sides
       of the Jordan; and the men of Gilead, in their distress, sent
       for Jephtha, who was then living at Tob, in Syria, whither he
       had fled from a quarrel with his brethren. … It seems that
       the Ammonites invaded Gilead on the plea that they had
       possessed that land before the Israelites arrived there, to
       which Jephtha answered that the Israelites had dispossessed
       the Amorites under Sihon, king of Heshbon, and that the
       Ammonites had not dwelt in that part of the country. In
       stating the argument, the historian gives a history of their
       arrival on the banks of the Jordan. On coming out of Lower
       Egypt, they crossed the desert to the Red Sea, and then came
       to Kadesh. From thence they asked leave of the Edomites and
       Moabites to pass through their territory; but, being refused,
       they went round Moab till they came to the northern bank of
       the river Arnon, an eastern tributary of the Jordan. There
       they were attacked by Sihon, king of the Amorites; and on
       defeating him they seized his territory, which lay between the
       Arnon and the Jabbok. There the Israelites had dwelt quietly
       for 300 years, without fighting against either the Moabites or
       the Ammonites, who were both too strong to be attacked. This
       is a most interesting narrative, both for what it tells and
       for what it omits, as compared with the longer narrative in
       the Pentateuch. … It omits all mention of the delivery of
       the Law, or of the Ark, or of any supernatural events as
       having happened on the march, and of the fighting with Og,
       king of Bashan. Og, or Gog, as it is spelled by other writers,
       was the name of the monarch whose imaginary castles, seen upon
       the mountains in the distance, the traveller thought it not
       wise to approach. They were at the limits of all geographical
       knowledge. At this early time this fabulous king held Mount
       Bashan; in Ezekiel's time he had retreated to the shores of
       the Caspian Sea; and ten centuries later the Arabic travellers
       were stopped by him at the foot of the Altai Mountains, in
       Central Asia. His withdrawing before the advance of
       geographical explorers proves his unreal character. He is not
       mentioned in this earlier account of the Israelites settling
       in the land of the Amorites; it is only in the more modern
       narrative in the Book of Numbers that he is attacked and
       defeated in battle, and only in the yet more modern Book of
       Deuteronomy that we learn about his iron bedstead of nine
       cubits in length."

          S. Sharpe,
          History of the Hebrew Nation,
          pages 4-9.

       "At the close of the period of the Judges the greater part of
       the Israelites had quite lost their pastoral habits. They were
       an agricultural people living in cities and villages, and
       their oldest civil laws I are framed for this kind of life.
       All the new arts which this complete change of habit implies
       they must have derived from the Canaanites, and as they
       learned the ways of agricultural life they could hardly fail
       to acquire many of the characteristics of their teachers. To
       make the transformation complete only one thing was lacking
       —that Israel should also accept the religion of the
       aborigines. The history and the prophets alike testify that to
       a great extent they actually did this. Canaanite sanctuaries
       became Hebrew holy places, and the vileness of Canaanite
       nature-worship polluted the Hebrew festivals. For a time it
       seemed that Jehovah, the ancestral God of Israel, who brought
       their fathers up out of the house of bondage and gave them
       their goodly land, would be forgotten or transformed into a
       Canaanite Baal. If this change had been completed Israel would
       have left no name in the world's history; but Providence had
       other things in store for the people of Jehovah. Henceforth
       the real significance of Israel's fortunes lies in the
       preservation and development of the national faith, and the
       history of the tribes of Jacob is rightly set forth in the
       Bible as the history of that divine discipline by which
       Jehovah maintained a people for Himself amidst the seductions
       of Canaanite worship and the ever-new backslidings of Israel.
       … In the end Jehovah was still the God of Israel, and had
       become the God of Israel's land. Canaan was His heritage, not
       the heritage of the Baalim, and the Canaanite worship appears
       henceforth, not as a direct rival to the worship of Jehovah,
       but as a disturbing element corrupting the national faith,
       while unable to supplant it altogether. This, of course, in
       virtue of the close connection between religion and national
       feeling, means that Israel had now risen above the danger of
       absorption in the Canaanites, and felt itself to be a nation
       in the true sense of the word. We learn from the books of
       Samuel how this great advance was ultimately and permanently
       secured. The earlier wars recorded in the book of Judges had
       brought about no complete or lasting unity among the Hebrew
       tribes. But at length a new enemy arose, more formidable than
       any whom they had previously encountered. The Philistines from
       Caphtor, who, like the Israelites, had entered Canaan as
       emigrants, but coming most probably by sea had displaced the
       aboriginal Avvim in the rich coastlands beneath the mountains
       of Judah (Deuteronomy ii. 23; Amos ix. 7), pressed into the
       heart of the country, and broke the old strength of Ephraim in
       the battle of Ebenezer. This victory cut the Hebrew
       settlements in two, and threatened the independence of all the
       tribes. The common danger drew Israel together."

           W. Robertson Smith,
           The Prophets of Israel,
           lecture 1.

    JEWS:
       The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

       "No one appeared again in the character at once of judge and
       warrior, to protect the people by force of arms. It was the
       Levite Samuel, a prophet dedicated to God even before his
       birth, who recalled them to the consciousness of religious
       feeling. He succeeded in removing the emblems of Baal and
       Astarte from the heights, and in paving the way for renewed
       faith in Jehovah. … It was the feeling of the people that
       they could only carry on the war upon the system employed by
       all their neighbors.
    {1901}
       They demanded a king—a request very intelligible under
       existing circumstances, but one which nevertheless involved a
       wide and significant departure from the impulses which had
       hitherto moved the Jewish community and the forms in which it
       had shaped itself. … The Israelites demanded a king, not
       only to go before them and fight their battles, but also to
       judge them. They no longer looked for their preservation to
       the occasional efforts of the prophetic order and the
       ephemeral existence of heroic leaders. … The argument by
       which Samuel, as the narrative records, seeks to deter the
       people from their purpose, is that the king will encroach upon
       the freedom of private life which they have hitherto enjoyed,
       employing their sons and daughters in his service, whether in
       the palace or in war, exacting tithes, taking the best part of
       the land for himself, and regarding all as his bondsmen. In
       this freedom of tribal and family life lay the essence of the
       Mosaic constitution. But the danger that all may be lost is so
       pressing that the people insist upon their own will in
       opposition to the prophet. Nevertheless, without the prophet
       nothing can be done, and it is he who selects from the youth
       of the country the man who is to enjoy the new dignity in
       Israel. … At first the proceeding had but a doubtful result.
       Many despised a young man sprung from the smallest family of
       the smallest tribe of Israel, as one who could give them no
       real assistance. In order to make effective the conception of
       the kingly office thus assigned to him, it was necessary in
       the first place that he should gain for himself a personal
       reputation. A king of the Ammonites, a tribe in affinity to
       Israel, laid siege to Jabesh in Gilead, and burdened the
       proffered surrender of the place with the condition that he
       should put out the right eyes of the inhabitants. … Saul,
       the son of Kish, a Benjamite, designated by the prophet as
       king, but not as yet recognized as such, was engaged, as
       Gideon before him, in his rustic labors, when he learned the
       situation through the lamentations of the people. … Seized
       with the idea of his mission, Saul cuts in pieces a yoke of
       oxen, and sends the portions to the twelve tribes with the
       threat, 'Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after
       Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.' … Thus urged,
       … Israel combines like one man; Jabesh is rescued and Saul
       acknowledged as king. … With the recognition of the king,
       however, and the progress of his good-fortune, a new and
       disturbing element appears. A contest breaks out between him
       and the prophet, in which we recognize not so much opposition
       as jealousy between the two powers. … On the one side was
       the independent power of monarchy, which looks to the
       requirements of the moment, on the other the prophet's
       tenacious and unreserved adherence to tradition. … The
       relations between the tribes have also some bearing on the
       question. Hitherto Ephraim had led the van, and jealously
       insisted on its prerogative. Saul was of Benjamin, a tribe
       nearly related to Ephraim by descent. He had made the men of
       his own tribe captains, and had given them vineyards. On the
       other hand, the prophet chose Saul's successor from the tribe
       of Judah. This successor was David, the son of Jesse. … In
       the opposition which now begins we have on the one side the
       prophet and his anointed, who aim at maintaining the religious
       authority in all its aspects, on the other the champion and
       deliverer of the nation, who, abandoned by the faithful, turns
       for aid to the powers of darkness and seeks knowledge of the
       future through witchcraft. Saul is the first tragic personage
       in the history of the world. David took refuge with the
       Philistines. Among them he lived as an independent military
       chieftain, and was joined not only by opponents of the king,
       but by others, ready for any service, or, in the language of
       the original, 'men armed with bows, who could use both the
       right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows
       out of a bow.' … In any serious war against the Israelites,
       such as actually broke out, the Sarim of the Philistines would
       not have tolerated him amongst them. David preferred to engage
       in a second attack upon the Amalekites, the common enemy of
       Philistines and Jews. At this juncture Israel was defeated by
       the Philistines. The king's sons were slain; Saul, in danger
       of falling into the enemy's hands, slew himself. Meanwhile
       David with his freebooters had defeated the Amalekites, and
       torn from their grasp the spoil they had accumulated, which
       was now distributed in Judah. Soon after, the death of Saul is
       announced. … David, conscious of being the rightful
       successor of Saul—for on him too, long ere this, the unction
       had been bestowed—betook himself to Hebron, the seat of the
       ancient Canaanitish kings, which had subsequently been given
       up to the priests and made one of the cities of refuge. It was
       in the province of Judah; and there, the tribe of Judah
       assisting at the ceremony, David was once more anointed. This
       tribe alone, however, acknowledged him; the others, especially
       Ephraim and Benjamin, attached themselves to Ishbosheth, the
       surviving son of Saul. … The first passage of arms between
       the two hosts took place between twelve of the tribe of
       Benjamin and twelve of David's men-at-arms. It led, however,
       to no result; it was a mutual slaughter, so complete as to
       leave no survivor. But in the more serious struggle which
       succeeded this the troops of David, trained as they were in
       warlike undertakings of great daring as well as variety, won
       the victory over Ishbosheth; and as the unanointed king could
       not rely upon the complete obedience of his
       commander-in-chief, who considered himself as important as his
       master, David, step by step, won the upper hand. … The
       Benjamites had been the heart and soul of the opposition which
       David experienced. Nevertheless, the first action which he
       undertook as acknowledged king of all the tribes redounded
       specially to their advantage, whilst it was at the same time a
       task of the utmost importance for the whole Israelitish
       commonwealth. Although Joshua had conquered the Amorites, one
       of their strongholds, Jebus, still remained unsubdued, and the
       Benjamites had exerted all their strength against it in vain.
       It was to this point that David next directed his victorious
       arms. Having conquered the place, he transferred the seat of
       his kingdom thither without delay [see JERUSALEM]. This seat
       is Jerusalem; the word Zion has the same meaning as Jebus."

          L. von Ranke,
          Universal History:
          The Oldest Historical Groups of Nations,
          chapter 2.

    {1902}

       "After Saul's death it was at first only in Judah, where David
       maintained his government, that a new Kingdom of Israel could be
       established at all, so disastrous were the consequences of the
       great Philistine victory. The Philistines, who must have already
       conquered the central territory, now occupied that to the
       north, also, while the inhabitants of the cities of the great
       plain of Jezreel and of the western bank of the Jordan, fled,
       we are very distinctly informed, across the river."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 3.

       But Abner, the strong warrior and the faithful kinsman of
       Saul's family, took Ishbosheth, the oldest surviving son of
       his dead king, and throned him in the city of Mahanaim, beyond
       the Jordan, proceeding gradually to gather a kingdom for him
       by reconquest from the Philistines. Thus the Israelite nation
       was first divided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah,
       and there was bitter war between them. But that first division
       was not to endure long. Abner and Ishbosheth fell victims to
       treachery, and the tribes which had held by them offered
       allegiance to David, who then became king over "all Israel and
       Judah." By the conquest of the city of Jebus from its
       Canaanite founders and possessors, he acquired a new,
       impregnable capital, which, under the name of Jerusalem, grew
       to be the most reverently looked upon of all the cities of the
       world. "History has been completely distorted in representing
       David as the head of a powerful kingdom, which embraced nearly
       the whole of Syria. David was king of Judah and of Israel, and
       that was all; the neighboring peoples, Hebrews, Canaanites,
       Arameans and Philistines, as far as Mahul Hermon and the
       desert, were sternly subjected, and were more or less its
       tributaries. In reality, with the exception, perhaps, of the
       small town of Ziklag, David did not annex any non-Israelite
       country to the domain of Israel. The Philistines, the
       Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans of
       Zoba, of Damascus, of Rehob and of Maacah were, after his day,
       very much what they were before, only a little weaker.
       Conquest was not a characteristic of Israel; the taking
       possession of the Canaanite lands was an act of a different
       order, and it came to be more and more regarded as the
       execution of a decree of Iahveh. As this decree did not extend
       to the lands of Edom, of Moab, of Ammon and of Aram, the
       Israelites deemed themselves justified in treating the
       Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Arameans with
       the utmost severity, in carrying off their precious stones and
       objects of price, but not in taking their land, or in changing
       their dynasty. None of the methods employed by great empires
       such as Assyria was known to these small peoples, which had
       scarcely got beyond the status of tribes. They were as cruel
       as Assur, but much less politic and less capable of a general
       plan. The impression produced by the appearance of this new
       royalty was none the less extraordinary. The halo of glory
       which enveloped David remained like a star upon the forehead
       of Israel."

          E. Renan,
          History of the People of Israel,
          book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

       David died about 1000 B. C. and was succeeded by his son
       Solomon, whose mother, Bathsheba, secured the throne for him
       by intrigue. "Solomon was a younger son, to whom the throne
       had been allotted contrary to ordinary laws of succession,
       whilst Adonijah, whom a portion of the people had recognised
       as king, was considered the rightful heir. So long as the
       latter lived. Solomon's government could not be on a firm
       basis, and he could never feel himself secure. Adonijah had
       therefore to be removed; the leader of the body guard,
       Benaiah, forcibly entered his house and killed him. As an
       excuse for this act of violence, it was asserted that Adonijah
       had attempted to win the hand of Abishag, the young widow of
       David, and thus had revealed his traitorous intention of
       contesting the throne with his brother. No sooner had he
       fallen than Joab, the former adherent of Adonijah, feared that
       a similar fate would overtake him. This exemplary general, who
       had contributed so considerably to the aggrandisement of the
       people of Israel and to the power of the house of David, fled
       to the altar on Mount Zion, and clung to it, hoping to escape
       death. Benaiah, however, refused to respect his place of
       refuge, and shed his blood at the altar. In order to excuse
       this crime, it was circulated that David himself, on his
       death-bed, had impressed on his successor the duty of
       preventing Joab's grey head from sinking in peace to its last
       rest. … Adonijah's priestly partisan, Abiathar, whom Solomon
       did not dare to touch, was deprived of his office as high
       priest, and Zadok was made the sole head of the priesthood.
       His descendants were invested with the dignity of high priest
       for over a thousand years, whilst the offspring of Abiathar
       were neglected. The Benjamite Shimei, who had attacked David
       with execrations on his flight from Jerusalem, was also
       executed, and it was only through this three-fold deed of
       blood that Solomon's throne appeared to gain stability.
       Solomon then directed his attention to the formation of a
       court of the greatest magnificence."

          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

       "The main characteristic of Solomon's reign was peace. The
       Philistines, allies of the new dynasty, and given profitable
       employment by it as mercenaries, were no longer tempted to
       cross the frontier. … The decay of military strength was
       only felt in the zone of countries which were tributary to the
       kingdom. Hadad, or Hadar, the Edomite, who had been defeated
       by Joab and had taken refuge in Egypt, having heard of David's
       death, and that of Joab as well, left Pharaoh, whose
       sister-in-law he had married. We have no details of this war.
       … We only know that Hadad braved Israel throughout the whole
       of Solomon's reign, that he did it all the injury he could,
       and that he was an independent ruler over a great part at all
       events of Edom. A still more formidable adversary was Rezon,
       son of Eliadah, an Aramean warrior who, after the defeat of
       his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah, had assembled about him
       those who had fled before the sword of David. … A lucky
       'coup-de-main' placed the city of Damascus at their mercy, and
       they succeeded in maintaining themselves there. During the
       whole of Solomon's reign Rezon continued to make war against
       Israel. The kingdom of Zobah does not appear, however, to have
       been re-established. Damascus became henceforth the centre and
       capital of that part of Aramea which adjoined Mount Hermon.
       David's horizon never extended beyond Syria. With Solomon,
       fresh perspectives opened up for the Israelites, especially
       for Jerusalem. Israel is no longer a group of tribes,
       continuing to lead in its mountains the patriarchal life of
       the past. It is a well-organised kingdom, small according to
       our ideas, but rather large judged by the standard of the day.
       The worldly life of the people of Iahveh is about to begin. If
       Israel had no other life but that it would not have found a
       place in history. … An alliance with Egypt was the first
       step in that career of profane politics which the prophets
       afterwards interlarded with so much that was impossible. …
    {1903}
       The king of Egypt gave Gezer as a dowry to his daughter, and
       married her to Solomon. … It is not too much to suppose that
       the tastes of this princess for refined luxury had a great
       influence upon the mind of her husband. … The relations of
       Solomon with Tyre exercised a still more civilising influence.
       Tyre, recently separated from Sidon, was then at the zenith of
       its activity, and, so to speak, in the full fire of its first
       foundation. A dynasty of kings named Hiram, or rather Ahiram,
       was at the head of this movement. The island was covered with
       constructions imitated from Egypt. … Hiram is the close ally
       of the king of Israel; it is he who provides Solomon with the
       artists who were lacking at Jerusalem; the precious materials
       for the buildings in Zion; seamen for the fleet of Eziongeber.
       The region of the upper Jordan, conquered by David, appears to
       have remained tributary to Solomon. What has been related as
       to a much larger extension of the kingdom of Solomon is
       greatly exaggerated. … The fables as to the pretended
       foundation of Palmyra by Solomon come from a letter
       intentionally added to the text of the ancient historiographer
       by the compiler of the Chronicles. The construction of Baalbec
       by Solomon rests upon a still more inadmissible piece of
       identification. … In reality, the dominion of Solomon was
       confined to Palestine. … What was better than peoples kept
       under by force, the Arab brigands were held in check from
       pillage. The Amalekites, the Midianites, the Beni-Quedem and
       other nomads were confronted with an impassable barrier all
       around Israel. The Philistines preserved their independence.
       … When it is surmised that Solomon reigned over all Syria,
       the size of his kingdom is exaggerated at least fourfold.
       Solomon's kingdom was barely a fourth of what is now called
       Syria. … Solomon … built 'cities of store,' or warehouses,
       the commercial or military object of which cannot well be
       defined. There was, more especially, a place named Tamar, in
       the direction of Petra, of which Solomon made a city, and
       which became a calling-place for the caravans. … With very
       good reason, too, Solomon had his attention constantly fixed
       upon the Red Sea, a broad canal which placed the dawning
       civilisation of the Mediterranean in communication with India,
       and thus opened up a new world, that of Ophir. The Bay of Suez
       belonged to Egypt, but the Gulf of Akaba was, one may say, at
       the mercy of anyone who cared to take it. Elath and
       Asiongaber, according to all appearances, had been of very
       little importance in earlier times. Without regularly
       occupying the country, Solomon secured the route by the Valley
       of Araba. He built a fleet at Asiongaber, though the
       Israelites had never much liking for the sea. Hiram provided
       Solomon with sailors, or, what is more probable, the two
       fleets acted together. On leaving the Straits of Aden, they
       went to Ophir, that is to say, to Western India, to Guzarate,
       or to the coast of Malabar."

          E. Renan,
          History of the People of Israel,
          book 3, chapter 10 (volume 2).

       The government of Solomon was extravagant and despotic; it
       imposed burdens upon the people which were borne impatiently
       until his death; and when his son Rehoboam refused to lessen
       them, the nation was instantly broken again on the lines of
       the earlier rupture. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin,
       only, remained faithful to the house of David and constituted
       the kingdom of Judah. The other ten tribes made Jeroboam their
       king and retained the name of Israel for their kingdom. The
       period of this division is fixed at 978 B. C. Jerusalem
       continued to be the capital of the kingdom of Judah. In the
       kingdom of Israel several changes of royal residence occurred
       during the first half century, until Samaria was founded by
       King Omri and thenceforth became the capital city. "Six miles
       from Shechem, in the same well-watered valley, here opening
       into a wide basin, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet
       accessible sides, and a long level top. This was the mountain
       of Samaria, or, as it is called in the original, Shômeron, so
       named after its owner Shemer, who there lived in state, and
       who sold it to the King for the great sum of two talents of
       silver."

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lectures 29-30 (volume 2).

       For two centuries, until the overthrow of the kingdom, Samaria
       continued to be the queen of the land, and the seat of
       government, often giving its name to the whole state, so that
       the kings were called "Kings of Samaria." "Under the dynasties
       of Omri and Jehu [10th-8th centuries, B. C.] the Northern
       Kingdom took the leading part in Israel; even to the Judæan
       Amos it was Israel 'par excellence.' Judah was not only
       inferior in political power, but in the share it took in the
       active movements of national life and thought. In tracing the
       history of religion and the work of the prophets, we have been
       almost exclusively occupied with the North; Amos himself, when
       charged with a message to the whole family that Jehovah
       brought up out of Egypt, leaves his home to preach in a
       Northern sanctuary. During this whole period we have a much
       fuller knowledge of the life of Ephraim than of Judah; the
       Judæan history consists of meagre extracts from official
       records, except where it comes into contact with the North,
       through the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab; through the
       reaction of Jehu's revolution in the fall of Athaliah, the
       last scion of the house of Ahab, and the accompanying
       abolition of Baal worship at Jerusalem, or, finally, through
       the presumptuous attempt of Amaziah to measure his strength
       with the powerful monarch of Samaria. While the house of
       Ephraim was engaged in the great war with Syria, Judah had
       seldom to deal with enemies more formidable than the
       Philistines or the Edomites; and the contest with these foes,
       renewed with varying success generation after generation,
       resolved itself into a succession of forays and blood-feuds
       such as have always been common in the lands of the Semites
       (Amos i.), and never assumed the character of a struggle for
       national existence. It was the Northern Kingdom that had the
       task of upholding the standard of Israel; its whole history
       presents greater interest and more heroic elements; its
       struggles, its calamities, and its glories were cast in a
       larger mould. It is a trite proverb that the nation which has
       no history is happy, and perhaps the course of Judah's
       existence ran more smoothly than that of its greater neighbor,
       in spite of the raids of the slave-dealers of the coast, and
       the lawless hordes of the desert. But no side of national
       existence is likely to find full development where there is
       little political activity; if the life of the North was more
       troubled, it was also larger and more intense.
    {1904}
       Ephraim took the lead in literature and religion as well as in
       politics; it was in Ephraim far more than in Judah that the
       traditions of past history were cherished, and new problems of
       religion became practical and called for solution by the word
       of the prophets. So long as the Northern Kingdom endured Judah
       was content to learn from it for evil or for good. It would be
       easy to show in detail that every wave of life and thought in
       Ephraim was transmitted with diminished intensity to the
       Southern Kingdom. In many respects the influence of Ephraim
       upon Judah was similar to that of England upon Scotland before
       the union of the crowns, but with the important difference
       that after the accession of Omri the two Hebrew kingdoms were
       seldom involved in hostilities. … The internal condition of
       the [Judæan] state was stable, though little progressive; the
       kings were fairly successful in war, though not sufficiently
       strong to maintain unbroken authority over Edom, the only
       vassal state of the old Davidic realm over which they still
       claimed suzerainty, and their civil administration must have
       been generally satisfactory according to the not very high
       standard of the East; for they retained the affections of
       their people, the justice and mercy of the throne of David are
       favourably spoken of in the old prophecy against Moab quoted
       in Isaiah XV., xvi., and Isaiah contrasts the disorders of his
       own time with the ancient reputation of Jerusalem for fidelity
       and justice (i. 21). … The religious conduct of the house of
       David followed the same general lines. Old abuses remained
       untouched, but the cultus remained much as David and Solomon
       had left it. Local high places were numerous, and no attempt
       was made to interfere with them; but the great temple on Mount
       Zion, which formed part of the complex of royal buildings
       erected by Solomon, maintained its prestige, and appears to
       have been a special object of solicitude to the kings, who
       treated its service as part of their royal state. It is common
       to imagine that the religious condition of Judah was very much
       superior to that of the North, but there is absolutely no
       evidence to support this opinion."

          W. Robertson Smith,
          The Prophets of Israel,
          lecture 5.

       In the year B. C. 745 the throne of Assyria was seized by a
       soldier of great ability, called Pul, or Pulu, who took the
       name of Tiglath-pileser III. and who promptly entered on an
       ambitious career of conquest, with imperial aims and plans.
       "In B. C. 738 we find him receiving tribute from Menahem of
       Samaria, Rezon of Damascus, and Hiram of Tyre. … The throne
       of Israel was occupied at the time by Pekah, a successful
       general who had murdered his predecessor, but who was
       evidently a man of vigour and ability. He and Rezon
       endeavoured to form a confederacy of the Syrian and
       Palestinian states against their common Assyrian foe. In order
       to effect their object they considered it necessary to
       displace the reigning king of Judah, Ahaz, and substitute for
       him a creature of their own. … They were aided by a party of
       malcontents in Judah itself (Isaiah viii. 6), and the position
       of Ahaz seemed desperate. … In this moment of peril Isaiah
       was instructed to meet and comfort Ahaz. He bade him 'fear
       not, neither be fainthearted,' for the confederacy against the
       dynasty of David should be broken and overthrown. … But Ahaz
       … had no faith either in the prophet or in the message he
       was commissioned to deliver. He saw safety in one course
       only—that of invoking the assistance of the Assyrian king,
       and bribing him by the offer of homage and tribute to march
       against his enemies. In vain Isaiah denounced so suicidal and
       unpatriotic a policy. In vain he foretold that when Damascus
       and Samaria had been crushed, the next victim of the Assyrian
       king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not
       listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of
       Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and
       save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the
       hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The
       king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated
       Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east
       of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel,
       captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of
       Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later,
       Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having
       been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea
       attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before
       Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was
       defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into
       chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held
       out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the
       land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years
       Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile
       broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to
       death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown,
       taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient
       Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the
       throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself
       with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into
       captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were
       implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or
       governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the
       population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old
       homes."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Life and Times of Isaiah,
          chapter 3.

       "Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national
       religion then and upon its subsequent development by the
       single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the
       surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them,
       while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a
       hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the
       period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able
       to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the
       circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria
       did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely
       due to the prophets."

          J. Wellhausen,
          Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
          chapter 6.

       "The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of
       their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover
       any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with
       their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense
       Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was
       in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have
       been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the
       traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a
       mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes']
       are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable
       with no foundation either in history or prophecy."

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 34 (volume 2).

          See, also, JERUSALEM.

    {1905}

    JEWS: B. C. 724-604.
       The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.

       Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah
       had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem.
       … Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its
       deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his
       designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive
       of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The
       neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon,
       and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west,
       Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's
       apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly
       quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of
       an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular.
       Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth,
       resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible
       rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705;
       Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an
       explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first
       years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a
       formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The
       court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for
       detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the
       movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders,
       and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701,
       Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."

          M. Arnold,
          Isaiah of Jerusalem,
          introduction.

       Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having
       captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after
       the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at
       Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt
       with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were
       occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.).
       The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic,
       offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on
       payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to
       retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply
       off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared,
       Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were
       collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the
       enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave
       in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands
       of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified
       treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city,
       believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to
       secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in
       Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had
       indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against
       Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless
       undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation
       and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly
       than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article
       of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly
       annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with
       the announcement that a remnant should return and form the
       kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's
       own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the
       multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the
       darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted
       their present depression with its bright reverse;
       faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than
       temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of
       good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender.
       The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to
       shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train
       against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,'
       is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage
       against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle
       in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which
       thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still
       unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was
       annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and
       Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had
       to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was
       triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of
       influential public life can hardly be imagined."

          J. Wellhausen,
          Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
          chapter 7.

       "We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at
       Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the
       Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of
       the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia
       were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and
       receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries
       bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time
       implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started
       southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and
       Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which
       he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king,
       doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian
       interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to
       Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured
       and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron.
       The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for
       the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed
       their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him
       bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the
       Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they
       arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes
       place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory
       declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without
       effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon
       reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi
       from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows
       the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against
       Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not
       submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities,
       fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without
       number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?)
       attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and
       trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small
       and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels,
       oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I
       brought out, and I counted them as spoil.
    {1906}
       Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his
       royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and
       the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His
       cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and
       to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to
       Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory.
       To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of
       subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them.
       Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my
       sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom
       he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal
       city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents
       of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?)
       stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of
       ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every
       kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters,
       the women of his palace, his male and female
       harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to
       be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the
       rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on
       the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the
       campaign of the subsequent year."

          S. R. Driver,
          Isaiah: His Life and Times,
          chapter 7.

       "Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of
       the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little
       more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the
       prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid.
       … But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah
       still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria
       was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the
       face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power
       was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal
       condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of
       a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat
       high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the
       king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the
       fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged
       and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform.
       The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this
       reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in
       the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious
       innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was
       the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded
       the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider
       changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have
       effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th
       chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited
       to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that
       mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah,
       whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless
       recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would
       incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more
       than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to
       be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as
       well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of
       the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah
       in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm
       betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than
       doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen
       years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early
       part of this, its second division, the religious reformation
       must be assigned. A successful campaign against the
       Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell
       within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though
       we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years
       of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded
       by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five
       years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single
       external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been
       a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity.
       Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian
       inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings,
       Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal
       (669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in
       Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's
       reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important
       in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short
       reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there
       set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over
       nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by
       the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the
       eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate
       cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even
       Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of
       his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against
       Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had
       provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and
       dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of
       Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.'
       … What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been
       indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not
       only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old
       Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was
       introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after
       receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became
       very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens
       in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous
       reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts.
       … Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the
       idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation
       of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and
       relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of
       Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much,
       till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This
       innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed
       his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh
       to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years,
       this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the
       blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was
       succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old.
    {1907}
       It is possible that his accession brought about some
       amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and
       that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and
       idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen
       years, though those years are passed over without any notice
       in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great
       importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the
       break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the
       Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the
       death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern
       and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands
       of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal
       kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."

          C. G. Montefiore,
          Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,
          as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews,
          (Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4.

       "The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not
       think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces.
       … In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this
       time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the
       same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded
       by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge
       his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man
       to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he
       proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces
       that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share
       of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant.
       By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on
       the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was
       transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean,
       whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this
       plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to
       meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to
       Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would
       fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what
       Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the
       reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of
       them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an
       encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler
       relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from
       the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle
       was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated;
       Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of
       Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the
       kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the
       land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably
       because he was more attached than his elder brother to his
       father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him
       and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim,
       henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal
       of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to
       escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events
       occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position.
       Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians
       now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria
       and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course,
       the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed
       possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on
       the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar,
       who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar,
       but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians
       sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate
       of Western Asia, including Judæa."

          A. Kuenen,
          The Religion of Israel,
          chapter 6 (volume 2).

    JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
       Fall of the kingdom of Judah.
       The Babylonian captivity.

       "In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest
       monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,
       was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the
       command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place
       of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …
       Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the
       ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,
       having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,
       and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.
       Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains
       to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he
       was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of
       many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among
       whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their
       Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date
       commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had
       learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.
       Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of
       Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.
       C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had
       scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself
       appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at
       discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining
       treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the
       nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away
       to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah
       (Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy
       an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,
       during which he abused his powers, even worse than his
       imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the
       remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert
       his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by
       Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At
       length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of
       despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible
       conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the
       besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the
       king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His
       children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and
       thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and
       childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of
       Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on
       the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew
       devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by
       solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan
       executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the
       palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining
       treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood
       before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests
       were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …
    {1908}
       The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the
       command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;
       the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan
       (the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the
       strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the
       poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In
       general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were
       allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as
       household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of
       the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They
       were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees
       possessed of considerable property. … They had free
       enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered
       faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special
       and general religious persecution. The first deportation of
       chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of
       Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not
       numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his
       wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of
       the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and
       others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it
       comprehended the mass of the people, according to some
       calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1).

       The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful
       remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown
       wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied
       themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from
       the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and
       from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's
       abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with
       certainty the number of the exiles carried off by
       Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are
       evidently incomplete. But that their number was very
       considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who
       afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more
       than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to
       be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of
       Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the
       nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to
       the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to
       the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an
       imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions
       of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river
       Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into
       the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others
       to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature
       of the case, that the second and third company of captives
       received another destination. Even had it been possible,
       prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate
       vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore
       that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their
       arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The
       historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him,
       the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he
       does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the
       Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to
       which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's
       purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been
       attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them
       to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of
       the districts in which they settled, that their development
       should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome
       conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the
       maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain
       limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the
       families and tribes remained in possession of the authority
       which they had formerly exercised."

          A. Kuenen,
          The Religion of Israel,
          chapter 7 (volume 2).

       "About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus,
       King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him
       master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done
       full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but
       what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to
       power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent
       years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest
       figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary
       documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records
       his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from
       the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by
       no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was
       a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession,
       himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes,
       his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous
       region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name
       of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in
       Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year
       555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy
       and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The
       eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against
       the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing
       warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter
       danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for
       deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus
       led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The
       discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of
       battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered
       him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to
       the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital
       and place of arms, and more than doubled his military
       strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of
       Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire
       on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following
       his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the
       kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had
       sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on
       the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader
       before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This
       leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the
       destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass
       of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this
       period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on
       the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without
       interference their own customs, religious and social. …
       Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable
       life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break
       with their past and give up hope for the future.
    {1909}
       But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could
       not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be
       what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in
       abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat
       as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold
       expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at
       every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood
       forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people
       constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and
       encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish
       exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh
       passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new
       Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month
       Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of
       Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela,
       eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of
       Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered
       in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire
       to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether
       worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the
       difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed
       with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median
       Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth
       year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took
       the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from
       the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces,
       probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him
       into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected
       subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on
       at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of
       a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last
       hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the
       month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a
       town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A
       revolution followed at once. … Some days later the
       victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared
       before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority
       made useless defences which were the wonder of the world;
       friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a
       struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus
       entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion
       that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd,
       and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is
       seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which
       record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for
       the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what
       the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there
       still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not
       Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam.
       The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater
       or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter
       alternative is the more probable."

          P. H. Hunter,
          After the Exile,
          part 1, chapters 1-2.

    JEWS: B. C. 537.
       The return from Babylon.

       "The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the
       Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of
       these was Syria, with the great trading places of the
       Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews
       were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the
       fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies
       of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not
       belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered
       him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to
       return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return
       of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews
       was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support
       his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude
       of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian
       kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian
       empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had
       not only to be established anew, but would never be very
       strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts.
       Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten
       announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of
       Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first
       announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus
       commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of
       Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and
       therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant
       of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to
       establish them in their abode, and be the head of the
       community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him
       the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as
       trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there
       are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and
       silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews
       in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like
       the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some
       180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia
       and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found
       there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their
       fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000),
       many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared
       for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah
       'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march
       over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high
       priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson
       of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed
       after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable
       multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters
       of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their
       ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of
       Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew
       men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by
       435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B.
       C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a
       prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the
       wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly
       from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of
       joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath
       redeemed his servant Jacob."'
    {1910}
       'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that
       bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto
       Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean
       person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that
       bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led
       in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before
       you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands.
       Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the
       rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman,
       and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put
       away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was
       destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up
       the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make
       thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of
       the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy
       foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and
       thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them,
       thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea
       shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be
       thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and
       the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy
       sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from
       thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and
       I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The
       islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children
       from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land
       will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for
       thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay
       not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou
       be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they
       bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be
       carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and
       queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth
       before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and
       thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently
       for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes
       were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the
       mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of
       the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem
       was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning
       exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem,
       the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash,
       Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned
       to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first
       care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law
       and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were
       collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple;
       contributions even came in from those who had remained in
       Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of
       silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were
       hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell
       cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus
       had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was
       laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The
       fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple
       soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a
       mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers
       whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria,
       … and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the
       exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from
       which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture
       the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were
       preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been
       the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the
       'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they
       had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to
       Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence
       the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and
       the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the
       Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force;
       'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired
       counsellors to make the attempt vain during the
       whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6).

       The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only
       forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from
       the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or,
       better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought
       to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set
       on the throne of Babylon."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 5, introduction.

       "The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended
       only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king
       of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build
       him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and
       Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But
       the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.'
       Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the
       Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their
       enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the
       Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which
       came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and
       the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined
       the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was
       about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree
       was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution
       of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which
       is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of
       Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of
       the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they
       'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again
       stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this
       house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint
       to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of
       Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to
       proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the
       'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and
       thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the
       square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished
       it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the
       sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the
       rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls
       of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the
       nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges,
       which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah,
       the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment
       to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or
       Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto
       Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may
       build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond
       the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to
       Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the
       necessary timber."

          T. Lewin,
          Jerusalem,
          chapter 2.

    {1911}

       "The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their
       sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early
       hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence,
       and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the
       more to religion, the only source and support of their
       nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout
       carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All,
       indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new
       temple was empty, for it was without the lost and
       irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of
       the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far
       more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the
       high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation
       willingly submitted; it served as the representative and
       pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another
       of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered
       mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been
       exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with
       strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination
       went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their
       being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their
       multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."

          J. J. I. Dollinger,
          The Gentile and the Jew
          in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
          book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 9.

    JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.
       The Babylonian Jews.

       "There is something very remarkable in the history of this
       race, for the most part descendants of those families which
       had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and
       Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native
       country. … The singular part of their history is this, that,
       though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they
       remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be
       a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the
       population of the country in which they were domiciliated.
       While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of
       forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring
       tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of
       authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were
       still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has
       been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the
       Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the
       great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if
       they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple
       became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the
       object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious
       pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on
       their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level
       plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden
       cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This
       Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that
       Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their
       marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in
       Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess,
       as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city
       Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river
       Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle
       of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of
       freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community,
       gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian
       king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but
       with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then
       "began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish
       population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers
       to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a
       pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided
       into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the
       Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the
       Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came
       to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall
       upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The
       few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of
       the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took
       refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 12 (volume 2).

    JEWS: B. C. 433-332.
       The century of Silence.

       "The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The
       Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a
       whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which
       empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy:
       it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred
       years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as
       any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of
       silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period
       from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the
       time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history.
       That it was a period of growth and development with the
       Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical
       life—is evident from the changes which the close of the
       century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of
       heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria,
       and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's
       office."

          T. R Slicer,
          Between the Testaments
          (The New World, March, 1892).

    JEWS: B. C. 413-332.
       The rule of the High Priests.

       "After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib
       (413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of
       Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria,
       Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige
       under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the
       Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the
       last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi,
       had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors.
       Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the
       theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x.
       3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation,
       although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim
       (Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the
       representative of the people before the king and his satrap,
       and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of
       the nation."

          I. M. Wise,
          History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,
          chapter 4.

    {1912}

    JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
       The Greek domination.
       Jewish dispersion.
       Hellenism.

       On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest
       of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the
       Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem
       submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of
       Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors,
       which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several
       times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High
       Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither
       the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state
       suffered much interference. The final partition made among the
       new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of
       Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This
       period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The
       Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception,
       respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them
       settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and
       emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the
       Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested
       Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his
       own dominions.

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

       Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors
       proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 5, section 2 (volume 5).

       "These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in
       Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities
       and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of
       Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with
       settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the
       other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek
       was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the
       newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by
       their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the
       commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus,
       Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a
       later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they
       drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the
       Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek
       marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more
       developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this
       certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse,
       prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it
       happened that two movements, identical in their operation,
       crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic
       but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of
       Jews and Samaritans into the, cities speaking the Greek
       tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a
       national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people
       as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they
       bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They
       wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and
       intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to
       honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and
       carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and
       protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now
       there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews
       everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle,
       that between them and all other nations there was an
       insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed
       in every town separate corporations, with officers of their
       own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion
       with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the
       temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and
       from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem.
       There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were
       demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a
       centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this
       an event, which in its consequences was one of the most
       important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who
       were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who
       remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted
       intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the
       Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even
       upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The
       Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and
       soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation
       already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by
       natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a
       peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the
       second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated
       at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious
       wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire
       of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the
       use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and
       Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent.
       Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy,
       according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic
       philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples
       of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met
       with a much more considerable resistance from the old
       believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen
       dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer,
       Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and
       synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and
       sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship
       was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There
       presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of
       the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B.
       C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the
       restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge
       appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth
       dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge
       of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of
       partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and
       became the source of many advantages as well as of serious
       faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of
       the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the
       time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed
       to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the
       high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine.
    {1913}
       One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was
       high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time
       (that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold
       dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of
       Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one
       person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more
       it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their
       caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of
       all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by
       the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170
       B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the
       Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus
       Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish
       religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a
       temple of Jupiter Olympius."

          J. J. I. Döllinger,
          The Gentile and the Jew
          in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
          book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

       Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with
       awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed
       to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold
       as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple
       was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these
       enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the
       Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the
       race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his
       dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to
       his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods,
       and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and
       penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to
       disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be
       treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old
       man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the
       Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his
       commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter
       Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the
       altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to
       Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves
       and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to
       the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was
       everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes.
       That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed
       against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a
       general edict was published, condemning to death or torture
       all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree
       was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer
       sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise
       circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to
       the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to
       destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons
       refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this
       terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and
       took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the
       mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs
       continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution'
       (Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded
       to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the
       majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers,
       Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His
       people, and sent them a deliverer."

          E. H. Palmer,
          History of the Jewish Nation,
          chapter 7.

    JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
       Revolt of the Maccabees.
       Reign of the Asmoneans.
       Rise of Herod.

       The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led
       the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and
       persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of
       the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of
       "its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the
       magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak
       of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had
       five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military
       leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas
       was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence
       came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general
       name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly
       designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had
       the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the
       "Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt
       assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to
       meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation
       which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the
       Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute
       imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an
       expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large
       number of troops. During the king's absence the government of
       the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias.
       Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and
       despatched a force under the command of three generals to
       suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the
       hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in
       person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been
       apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and
       was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of
       affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C.
       164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the
       indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause
       of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of
       Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of
       rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of
       the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was
       only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His
       father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his
       son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias,
       who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on
       the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by
       Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with
       Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting
       Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can
       be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the
       Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus
       Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to
       Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the
       Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of
       their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not
       endure.
    {1914}
       In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded
       Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the
       strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City.
       Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and
       their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered
       condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept
       honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came
       to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of
       a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to
       the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on
       the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty.
       Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was
       established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon
       after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by
       his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed
       the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by
       his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the
       selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for
       Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of
       success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards
       developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who,
       while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of
       Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious
       freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which
       afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax
       their efforts till the country was completely independent. The
       Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the
       population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius
       had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless
       barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the
       arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High
       Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an
       army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces,
       and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish
       delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an
       alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an
       opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a
       favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged
       the independence of their country. … While these
       negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded
       Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a
       desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B.
       C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of
       freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct
       centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the
       treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left
       Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the
       Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it
       was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the
       kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take
       advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them.
       About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the
       Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the
       person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B.
       C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to
       take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the
       threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas,
       was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142),
       and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his
       side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately
       outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as
       the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest
       bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from
       Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance.
       The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius
       was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of
       the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military
       governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government
       of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest.
       Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian
       pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by
       another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an
       ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his
       place.

          W. D. Morrison,
          The Jews under Roman Rule,
          chapter 1.

       The Asmonean family had now become so established in its
       princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took
       the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of
       King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and
       was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander.
       "These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in
       name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus,
       the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had
       left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of
       five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty
       wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin
       afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his
       people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a
       civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and
       finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute,
       ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his
       rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in
       the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age
       of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish
       power upon the soil of Palestine."

          J. H. Allen,
          Hebrew Men and Times,
          chapter 10.

       "When … Jannæus Alexander died, the Jewish kingdom stretched
       towards the south over the whole Philistian territory as far
       as the Egyptian frontier; towards the south-east as far as the
       Nabatæan kingdom of Petra, from which Jannæus had wrested
       considerable tracts on the right bank of the Jordan and the
       Dead Sea; towards the north over Samaria and the Decapolis up
       to the lake of Gennesareth; here he was already making
       arrangements to occupy Ptolemais (Acco) and victoriously to
       repel the aggressions of the Ityræans. The coast obeyed the
       Jews from Mount Carmel as far as Rhinocorura, including the
       important Gaza—Ascalon alone was still free; so that the
       territory of the Jews, once almost cut off from the sea, could
       now be enumerated among the asylums of piracy. Now that the
       Armenian invasion, just as it approached the borders of Judæa,
       was averted by the intervention of Lucullus, … the gifted
       rulers of the Hasmonæan house would probably have carried
       their arms still further, had not the development of the power
       of that remarkable conquering sacerdotal state been arrested
       by internal divisions.
    {1915}
       The spirit of religious independence and the national
       patriotism—the energetic union of which had called the
       Maccabee state into life—very soon became dissociated and
       even antagonistic. The Jewish orthodoxy [or Pharisaism]
       gaining fresh strength in the times of the Maccabees, …
       proposed as its practical aim a community of Jews composed of
       the orthodox in all lands essentially irrespective of the
       secular government—a community which found its visible points
       of union in the tribute to the temple at Jerusalem obligatory
       on every conscientious Jew and in the schools of religion and
       spiritual courts, and its canonical superintendence in the
       great temple consistory at Jerusalem, which was reconstituted
       in the first period of the Maccabees and may be compared as
       respects its sphere of jurisdiction to the Roman pontifical
       college. Against this orthodoxy, which was becoming more and
       more ossified into theological formalism and a painful
       ceremonial service, was arrayed the opposition of the
       so-called Sadducees—partly dogmatic, in so far as these
       innovators acknowledged only the sacred books themselves and
       conceded authority merely, not canonicity, to the 'bequests of
       the scribes,' that is canonical tradition; partly political,
       in so far as instead of a fatalistic waiting for the strong
       arm of the Lord of Zebaoth they taught that the salvation of
       the nation was to be expected from the weapons of this world,
       and above all from the internal and external strengthening of
       the kingdom of David as re-established in the glorious times
       of the Maccabees. The partisans of orthodoxy found their
       support in the priesthood and the multitude. … Jannæus had
       kept down the priesthood with a strong hand; under his two
       sons there arose … a civil and fraternal war, since the
       Pharisees opposed the vigorous Aristobulus and attempted to
       obtain their objects under the nominal rule of his brother,
       the good-natured and indolent Hyrcanus. This dissension not
       merely put a stop to the Jewish conquests, but gave also
       foreign nations opportunity to interfere and to obtain a
       commanding position in southern Syria. This was the case first
       of all with the Nabatæans. This remarkable nation has often
       been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering
       Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch
       than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan, or,
       according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian, stock
       must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient
       settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of
       trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the
       Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez
       and Aila, and in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their
       ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those
       of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from
       Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,
       passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose
       still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer
       evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost
       extinct tradition. The party of the Pharisees, to whom after
       the manner of priests the victory of their faction seemed not
       too dearly bought at the price of the independence and
       integrity of their country, solicited Aretas the king of the
       Nabatæans for aid against Aristobulus, in return for which
       they promised to give back to him all the conquests wrested
       from him by Jannæus. Thereupon Aretas had advanced with, it
       was said, 50,000 men into Judæa and, reinforced by the
       adherents of the Pharisees, he kept king Aristobulus besieged
       in his capital."

           T. Mommsen,
           History of Rome,
           book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4).

       "While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his
       victorious campaign in Asia [see ROME: B. C. 69-63]. He had
       conquered Mithridates in B. C. 66, and had in the same year
       received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he
       himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to
       Syria in B. C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he
       heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed
       forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this
       strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached
       Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both
       from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his
       favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four
       hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so
       promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather
       because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement,
       and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw
       if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans.
       Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised
       the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But
       Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted
       upon him a crushing defeat. But the Roman favour which
       Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the
       protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon
       proved fatal to his well-being and that of his country. He
       himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of
       Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present,
       a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents,
       which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of
       Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus,
       whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw
       his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B.
       C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria,
       subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and
       advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There
       he was met at one and the same time by representatives of
       three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus
       appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus
       complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had
       violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his
       conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the
       people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the
       abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old
       theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but
       cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would
       put all things in order when he had accomplished his
       contemplated expedition against the Nabatheans. Till then all
       parties were to maintain the peace. Aristobulus, however, was
       by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his
       discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had
       accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabatheans.
       Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the
       Nabatheans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus.
    {1916}
       He … pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the
       neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He
       betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further
       presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey
       would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and
       sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city,
       while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius
       returned without having obtained his object, for the people in
       the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged
       at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately
       advanced against the city. … The city was surrendered to
       Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword
       took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together
       on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for
       resistance. The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the
       strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the
       south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated
       from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a
       gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost
       impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In
       this fortress, well nigh impregnable, the adherents of
       Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would
       or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. … After a three
       months' siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the
       dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his
       troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful
       massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering
       sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their
       office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000
       Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general
       butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B. C.
       63, under Cicero's consulship, according to Josephus on the
       very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath,
       that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander.
       Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into
       which only the feet of the high priest had ever before
       entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the
       temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God
       should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he
       passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were
       beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary. …
       The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly
       curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken
       from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of
       the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others;
       also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them.
       All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the
       governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The
       contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II.,
       who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king.
       … With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish
       people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we
       reckon it as beginning in B. C. 142, was completely
       overthrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no
       essential change in the internal government of the country. He
       suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and
       gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was
       favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation
       was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the
       Romans."

          E. Schürer,
          History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
          division 1, volume 1, pages 317-324.

       Hyrcanus II. was not merely the vassal of the Romans; he was
       the puppet of one of his own partisans—the able Idumean,
       Antipater, who gathered the reins of government into his own
       hands. "Antipater ruled without interfering with Hyrcanus; he
       rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and appointed Phasael, the
       eldest of his four heroic sons (whose mother was Kypros, an
       Arabian), to be ruler of the district of the holy city, and
       Herod the younger to be ruler of Galilee. This young man, who
       was at that time scarcely twenty-five years old, was soon able
       to surpass even his father. … He purified Galilee from the
       robber-bands, of which Hezekiah was the most dreaded leader,
       and by so doing, although he was already a mark for the hatred
       borne by the national and priestly party against the Edomites,
       as friends of their new tyrants the Romans, he distinguished
       himself by dealing summarily with the robbers, without
       appealing to the legal authorities. He therefore appeared
       before the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, to which he was summoned by
       Hyrcanus, with a military escort, wearing purple, with his
       head anointed, and bearing a letter of safe-conduct from his
       patron Sextus Cæsar, the ruler of Syria. … Hyrcanus allowed
       him to withdraw in defiance: he hastened to Syria, bought the
       governments of Cœle-Syria and Samaria (B. C. 46), marched
       thence with an army towards Jerusalem, and when he had with
       difficulty been persuaded by his father and brother to return,
       he rejoiced that he had at least menaced the country. Neither
       the death of Julius Cæsar (B. C. March 44), the civil war at
       Rome, nor the poisoning of his father Antipater at the table
       of Hyrcanus in the year 43, interfered with Herod's success:
       He bought the favour of Cæsar's murderers by the unexampled
       haste with which he brought in large contributions, amounting
       to a hundred talents (more than £20,000) from Galilee alone,
       so that Cassius appointed him Procurator of Syria, and
       promised him the dignity of king, in the event of a victory
       over Anthony and Octavianus, a prospect which indeed cost his
       father his life. Nor was Herod's power destroyed by the
       unfortunate battle of Philippi in the autumn of B. C. 42. He
       succeeded in gaining Anthony by the influence of his person
       and of his wealth; and in spite of all the embassies of the
       Jews, Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs of the whole
       of Judea in the year B. C. 41. His betrothal to Mariamne,
       grand-child of Hyrcanus, which took place at the same time,
       added the illusion of national and hereditary right to Herod's
       previous good fortune. But there was first an interval of
       hardship. Immediately afterwards, the Parthian armies overran
       Upper Asia, while Anthony remained in Egypt, ensnared by
       Cleopatra: they took Jerusalem [B. C. 40], and to please that
       place as well as the Jews of Babylon, they installed
       Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king, taking Phasael and
       Hyrcanus prisoners, while Herod escaped with difficulty. All
       was ended with a blow, Herod was put to flight, Phasael killed
       himself, and Antigonus cut off the cars of Hyrcanus the high
       priest. Herod landed in Italy as an adventurer.
    {1917}
       He met Anthony, and by his means also gained over Octavianus.
       Fear and hatred of the Parthians effected even more than old
       acquaintance and new engagements: and beyond his most daring
       hopes a decree of the senate [B. C. 40] bestowed the kingdom
       of Judea upon him."

          T. Keim,
          History of Jesus of Nazara,
          volume I, page 231.

    JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
       Herod and the Herodians.
       Roman rule.

       Returning to Judæa with his new rank and the confirmed support
       of Rome, "Herod slowly obtained possession of the country, not
       without the help of Roman legions, and in a third campaign, in
       June (Sivan), B. C. 37, occupied Jerusalem [after a siege of
       half a year] and the Temple, in the halls of which fire raged,
       contrary to his wish, and blood streamed through its courts.
       This was the second Roman occupation of Jerusalem, after an
       interval of twenty-six years, even to a day. Antigonus fell,
       by the king's wish, beneath the axe of Anthony, and the
       Maccabean house had ceased to reign. The new kingdom underwent
       its final crisis in the war between Octavianus and Anthony, in
       which Herod was constrained to take part with Anthony. … The
       frankness with which, after the battle of Actium (September,
       B. C. 31), he proclaimed his friendship for Anthony to
       Octavianus at the island of Rhodes, in order to set before him
       the prospect of a like faithfulness, procured the crown for
       him afresh, which Octavianus set upon his head." Octavianus
       "restored to him all the possessions which his intriguing
       enemy Cleopatra had obtained at his expense in the south of
       the country and on its western coast, giving to him Gadra,
       Hippo, Samaria, and on the coast Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, the
       tower of Strato, and in short the whole country, and even more
       than he had lost by Pompey's conquests. A few years later the
       same benefactor enlarged the kingdom on the north-east, by
       making over to Herod, between the years B. C. 24-21, the wide
       extent of territory reaching to Anti-Lebanon, and Damascus, in
       order to protect that city from attacks on the side of the
       desert. He was appointed Procurator-General of Syria, and
       afterwards nearly obtained the government of Arabia. It was in
       fact almost the kingdom of David which was again united under
       Herod. Herod enjoyed the favour of Octavianus, with few
       intervals, to the last. … Herod did not merely owe his
       success to that officious attention which displayed the
       greatness of Rome in costly hospitalities, gifts, and edifices
       of every kind, but to his genuine fidelity and manly heroism,
       his pre-eminent wisdom and readiness to accept the culture of
       the West, qualities which were recognized as adapting him to
       be a most useful ally in the territory which bounded the
       eastern empire of Rome, where the inhabitants were so ready to
       take offence. Herod, in a certain sense, emulated his friend
       in Rome, in introducing an Augustan era into his land. He, as
       well as Octavianus, put an end to war, and the dominion which
       had been cemented together by the blood of its citizens
       enjoyed a long peace, lasting for almost forty years. … The
       prosperity of the country increased so much in these quiet
       times that Herod, when he began to build the Temple, boasted
       of the wealth and income which had accumulated in an
       unprecedented manner, so as to confirm the most fabulous
       accounts of the luxurious expenditure of his reign. … Herod
       was not devoid of nobler qualities, even although they have
       been forgotten by the Jews and Christians. He was not merely a
       brave leader in war, a bold hunter and rider, and a sagacious
       ruler; there was in him a large-heartedness and an innate
       nobility of mind which enabled him to be a benefactor of his
       people. This fundamental characteristic of his nature,
       inherited from his father, is admitted by the Jewish
       historian, times out of number, and has been shown by his
       affection for his father, mother, and brothers, and also for
       his friends, by his beneficence in good fortune, and even in
       adversity. … When in the thirteenth year of his reign (B. C.
       25), some years before the building of the Temple, famine and
       sickness devastated the land, he sold the gold and silver
       treasures in his house, and himself became poor, while he
       bespoke great quantities of grain from Egypt, which he
       dispensed, and caused to be made into bread: he clothed the
       poor, and fed 50,000 men at his own expense: he himself sent
       help to the towns of Syria, and obtained the immediate, and
       indeed the enduring gratitude of the people as a second
       Joseph. Yet it was only the large-heartedness of a barbarian,
       without true culture, or deeper morality. Hence came the
       unscrupulousness, the want of consideration for the national
       peculiarities which he opposed, the base cunning and vanity
       which coloured all his actions, and hence again, especially in
       later life, he became subject to caprices, to anger and
       repentance, to mistrust and cruelty, to the wiles of women and
       of eunuchs. He was, in short, only the petty tyrant, the
       successful upstart who was self-seeking, and at once rash and
       timid; a beggar before Augustus; a foolish time-server before
       the Greek and Roman world; a tyrant in his own house, and
       incapable either of resisting influence or of enduring
       contradiction. … The dangerous position of the upstart, with
       respect to the earlier royal family and to the national
       aversion, the divisions of his numerous family, the intrigues
       of a court of women, eunuchs, barbers, and frivolous
       flatterers of every description, drew him on, as if with
       demoniacal power, from one stage of cruelty to another. …
       Daily executions began on his entry into Jerusalem in the year
       B. C. 37 with the execution of Antigonus, of the nephew of
       Hyrcanus, and of his own dependants. … He pardoned no one
       whom he suspected: he enforced obedience by an oath, and
       whoever would not swear forfeited his life. Innumerable people
       disappeared mysteriously in the fortress of Hyrcania. Life was
       forfeited even for the offence of meeting or standing
       together, when it was noticed by the countless spies in the
       city and on the highways, and indeed by himself in his rounds
       by night. The bloody decimation of his own family was most
       revolting. About the year B. C. 35 he caused his wife's
       brother Aristobulus, who had been high priest for eighteen
       years, to be stifled by his Gallic guards in a pond at
       Jericho, because he was popular, and belonged to the old
       family: in the year B. C. 31, after the battle of Actium, he
       murdered his grandfather-in-law Hyrcanus, aged eighty years,
       and in the year B. C. 30 or 29 his wife Mariamne, and a little
       later her intriguing mother Alexandra, since they had become
       objects of suspicion to him: in the year B. C. 25 his
       brother-in-law, Kostobar, find a long line of friends were
       slain: about the year B. C. 6, the sons of Mariamne, Alexander
       and Aristobulus, were judicially condemned and strangled in
       Samaria: and finally the diabolical Antipater, the son of the
       first marriage, who, together with Salome, Herod's sister, and
       with Alexandra, his mother-in-law, had taken the greatest part
       in the crimes of the family."

          T. Keim,
          History of Jesus of Nazara,
          volume 1, pages 233-246.

    {1918}

       Herod died within the year (B. C. 4) which has been most
       generally agreed upon as that of the birth of Jesus. By ten
       wives he had had many children, and had slain not a few; but a
       large family survived, to quarrel over the heritage, disputing
       a will which Herod left. There was a hearing of the disputants
       at Rome, and also a hearing given to deputies of the Jewish
       people, who prayed to be delivered from the Herodian family,
       all and singly. The latter prayer, however, received small
       consideration. The imperial judgment established Archelaus,
       eldest son of Herod's sixth wife, Malthace, in the sovereignty
       of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch. To
       Herod Antipas, second son of the same mother, it gave Galilee
       and Peræa. Philip, another son, by a seventh wife, was made
       tetrarch of a small principality. Archelaus governed so
       oppressively that, after some years (A. D. 6), he was deposed
       by the Romans and banished to Gaul. Judæa was then joined to
       the præfecture of Syria, under a succession of Roman
       governors, the fifth of whom was Pontius Pilate. "Judaea thus
       became in the year 6 A. D. a Roman province of the second
       rank, and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom
       of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth
       remained a Roman province. Instead of the previous native
       princes holding office for life and, under reservation of
       their being confirmed by the Roman government, hereditary,
       came an official of the equestrian order, nominated and liable
       to recall by the emperor. The port of Caesarea rebuilt by
       Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at once, the
       seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from
       Roman garrison, as a matter of course, ceased, but, as
       throughout in provinces of second rank, the Roman military
       force consisted only of a moderate number of cavalry and
       infantry divisions of the inferior class; subsequently one ala
       and five cohorts—about 3,000 men—were stationed there. These
       troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier government, at
       least in great part formed in the country itself, mostly,
       however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks. The province did
       not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories
       adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the
       four Syrian legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman
       commandant, who took up his abode in the royal castle, with a
       weak standing garrison; only during the time of the Passover,
       when the whole land and countless strangers flocked to the
       temple, a stronger division of Roman soldiers was stationed in
       a colonnade belonging to the temple. … For the native
       authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban communities
       were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as the
       town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and
       the other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of
       Archelaus, were self-administering, under superintendence of
       the Roman authority. The government also of the capital with
       the large territory belonging to it was organised in a similar
       way. Already in the pre-Roman period under the Seleucids there
       was formed … in Jerusalem a council of the elders, the
       Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin. The presidency in
       it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of the land,
       if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for the
       time. To the college belonged the former high priests and
       esteemed experts in the law. This assembly, in which the
       aristocratic element preponderated, acted as the supreme
       spiritual representative of the whole body of Jews, and, so
       far as this was not to be separated from it, also as the
       secular representative in particular of the community of
       Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious
       fiction transformed the Sanhedrion of Jerusalem into a
       spiritual institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded
       essentially to the council of the Greek urban constitution,
       but certainly bore, as respected its composition as well as
       its sphere of working, a more spiritual character than
       belonged to the Greek representations of the community. To
       this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now nominated by
       the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain, the
       Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in
       the Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban
       authorities and the common councils. With indifferent
       short-sightedness it allowed to the transcendental Messianism
       of the Pharisees free course, and to the by no means
       transcendental land-consistory—acting until the Messiah
       should arrive—tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of
       manners, and of law, where Roman interests were not directly
       affected thereby. This applied in particular to the
       administration of justice. It is true that, as far as Roman
       burgesses were concerned in the matter, justice in civil as in
       criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman
       tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But
       civil justice over the Jews remained even after that
       annexation chiefly with the local authority. Criminal justice
       over them was exercised by the latter probably in general
       concurrently with the Roman procurator; only sentences of
       death could not be executed by it otherwise than after
       confirmation by the imperial magistrate. In the main those
       arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the abolition
       of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this
       request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements
       along with it. … The local coining of petty moneys, as
       formerly practised by the kings, now took place in the name of
       the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish abhorrence of
       images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the
       coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple
       continued to be forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under
       penalty of death. … In the very beginning of the reign of
       Tiberius the Jews, like the Syrians, complained of the
       pressure of the taxes; especially the prolonged administration
       of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all the usual official
       crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as the same Jew
       says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign
       maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set
       them aside or violated them. This is the more to be
       recognised, seeing that the same emperor in the West
       interfered against the Jews more emphatically than any other,
       and thus the long-suffering and caution shown by him in Judaea
       cannot be traced back to personal favour for Judaism. In spite of
       all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman
       government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of
       the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome: The Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian,
          book 8, chapter 11.

    {1919}

       In the year 41 A. D. the house of Herod rose to power again,
       in the person of his grandson, Herod Agrippa, descendant of
       the unfortunate Mariamne. Agrippa had lived long at Rome and
       won the favor of two successive emperors, Caligula and
       Claudius. Caligula deposed Herod Antipas from the tetrarchy of
       Galilee and conferred it on Agrippa. Claudius, in 41, added
       Judæa and Samaria to his dominions, establishing him in a
       kingdom even greater than that of his grandfather. He died
       suddenly in 44 A. D. and Judæa again relapsed to the state of
       a Roman province. His young son, also named Herod Agrippa, was
       provided, after a few years, with a small kingdom, that of
       Chalcis, exchanged later for one made up of other districts in
       Palestine. After the destruction of Jerusalem he retired to
       Rome, and the line of Herod ended with him.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 12.

          ALSO IN:
          Josephus,
          Antiquity of the Jews,
          books 15-20.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 5, section 2.

    JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.
       Uncertainty of the date of the birth of Jesus.

       "The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign
       authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and
       which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts,
       goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the
       settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of
       Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth,
       Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A.
       D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity
       from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and
       best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign
       of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology:
       Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along
       with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own
       account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus
       is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and
       he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight
       into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall
       hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that
       Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King
       Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of
       two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death,
       about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter
       of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian
       era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U.
       C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which
       is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century;
       according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A.
       U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon
       Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his
       book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance,
       we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that
       is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars
       was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such
       certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself
       to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the
       part of the Christian community of the approximate point of
       time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in
       question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten
       every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is
       after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all
       legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without
       any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with
       the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the
       birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the
       same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than
       elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on
       the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We
       should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according
       to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and
       more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which
       after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the
       close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the
       most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as
       he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of
       Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical
       computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of
       Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of
       Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite
       rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the
       Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius'
       Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the
       death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been
       reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement
       of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the
       Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once
       begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would
       have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the
       Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late
       birth would not only clash with the first statement of the
       Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch
       as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old
       at his death, which in any case took place before the recall
       of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here
       therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the
       writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the
       time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the
       Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as
       about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus
       was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the
       reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds
       for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as
       fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if
       after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth
       year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August,
       767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that
       case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years
       backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before
       our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year
       of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim
       our attention in different ways. …
    {1920}
       Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the
       forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of
       Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of
       birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch
       as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus
       after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his
       conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the
       first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of
       Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is
       752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree
       with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the
       occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were
       possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back
       beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as
       the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and
       the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of
       the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than
       the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i.
       e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one
       reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph
       of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the
       Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk
       Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of
       the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525
       A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that
       this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian
       calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern
       times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and
       chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748
       has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's
       star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm
       for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful
       regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh,
       to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning
       of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King
       Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still
       746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year
       748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749,
       Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following
       Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching
       great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to
       the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious
       method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod
       must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength
       of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard
       enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events,
       probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must
       entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day,
       however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our
       traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of
       December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."

          Dr. T. Keim,
          History of Jesus of Nazara,
          volume 2, pages 109-126.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Anderdon,
          Fasti Apostolici,
          introd.

    JEWS: A. D. 26.
       Political situation of Judæa
       at the time of the appearance of Jesus.

       "Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of
       Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His
       countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to
       it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long
       vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not
       by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by
       proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He
       associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of
       which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In
       consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties
       presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the
       procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his
       administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of
       Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first.
       Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much
       success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible
       with the usages and institutions of the conquered province.
       The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side
       with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very
       limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion
       and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of
       decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had
       lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had
       reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a
       tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted
       himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext
       that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on
       the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his
       choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to
       keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to
       them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came
       to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases,
       to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of
       Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not
       exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property,
       and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such
       objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the
       temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers
       in the service of the Romans were regarded as the
       representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for
       the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal
       contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on
       the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at
       which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third
       procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in
       the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law
       of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the
       same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather
       than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher
       principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance
       of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact
       which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign
       rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those
       men without patriotism, who think only of using their
       authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the
       peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was
       to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with
       standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation,
       for the eagles were worshipped as gods.
    {1921}
       Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd,
       which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled
       to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into
       desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone
       in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused
       shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the
       emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the
       citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which
       might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was
       received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was
       obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have
       led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object
       of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger:
       his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on
       the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that
       it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the
       national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This
       increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a
       purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa,
       and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of
       Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the
       country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his
       moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod
       Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from
       the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his
       brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which
       he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating
       defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the
       influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court,
       evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners
       was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and
       self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though
       of the family of the vile despots who had sold the
       independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a
       national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and
       which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of
       Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the
       political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was
       placed."

          E. de Pressensé,
          Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work,
          book 3, chapter 1.

    JEWS: A. D. 33-100.
       The rise and diffusion of Christianity.

          See CHRISTIANITY.

    JEWS: A. D.66-70.
       The Great Revolt.

       The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors
       who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod
       Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than
       it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the
       Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating
       and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be
       more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued,
       conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out
       into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead
       them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under
       extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish
       capital, who were generally controlled by the superior
       prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets.
       … But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so
       easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was
       always then, as it has since always been, in a state of
       partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem]
       the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the
       tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the
       title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was
       suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain
       certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the
       more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the
       Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the
       king could observe all that passed in that mart of business
       and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower,
       he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence,
       as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and
       honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out
       his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between
       the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now
       was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new
       feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more
       prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private
       assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are
       recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by
       which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on
       exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government.
       … Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had
       omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were
       now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and
       nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to
       seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This
       was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to
       lead him."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 59.

       A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the
       entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of
       the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of
       fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put
       to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day
       and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the
       hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their
       own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and
       Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them
       in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and
       hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly
       slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more
       was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with
       gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest
       enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when
       they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the
       very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of
       Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and
       besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves,
       were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to
       the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp
       and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The
       retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army
       with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent
       hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of
       auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our
       limits will not allow us to write. …
    {1922}
       The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before
       the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal
       evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The
       events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the
       principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually
       commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in
       April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city,
       meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which
       hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and
       Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets
       run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the
       Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews
       and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City,
       with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots,
       more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the
       Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made
       upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town
       were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so
       that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the
       siege."

          W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
          Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin,
          chapters 1-2.

       The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by
       Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to
       most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from
       April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans
       forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the
       streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses
       where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps
       of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they
       retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench.
       But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some
       places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with
       streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. …
       The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers,
       which were left as standing monuments of the victory. …
       During the whole siege the number killed [according to
       Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact,
       the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the
       adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city,
       more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had
       been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those
       who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman
       soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years
       old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed
       among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the
       public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve
       thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the
       metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately
       city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings,
       the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a
       ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne,
       and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as
       a defence for the Roman camp."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 16.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 7.

          Josephus,
          The Jewish War.

          A. J. Church,
          Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem.

          I. M. Wise,
          History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth, 7th period.

    JEWS: A. D. 70-133.
       After the war with Rome.
       The state of the surviving people.

       "It might have been expected that, from the character of the
       great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the
       Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least,
       verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss
       of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the
       markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves.
       … Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to
       offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of
       detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed,
       immediately after the war, we have little accurate
       information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of
       life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the
       country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of
       Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the
       province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the
       possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the
       rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the
       country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in
       this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it
       must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all,
       by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and
       great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much
       depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance,
       the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan
       escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were,
       for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without
       resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. …
       The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as
       detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian
       and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A
       garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to
       prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and
       religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is
       impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and
       the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation
       could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance
       which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 18 (volume 2).

    JEWS: A. D. 116.
       The rising in Trajan's reign.

       "Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in
       the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose
       against the imperial government. The rising, although
       undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character
       in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the
       expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently,
       to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified
       even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and
       Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they
       conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in
       Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene
       220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus
       put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which
       does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the
       Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in
       the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. …
       To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation
       of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano
       since the destruction of the temple. …
    {1923}
       The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the
       compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on
       this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That
       Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is
       hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression
       for what took place."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).

          See, also, CYPRUS, A. D. 117.

    JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
       The rising in Hadrian's reign.

       The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought
       him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed
       holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and
       to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred
       in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new
       city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is
       said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a
       fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest
       Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or
       Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed
       by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and
       was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been
       slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in
       the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of
       Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the
       name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who
       founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of
       the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of
       Zion and Moriah."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 65.

       "The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by
       the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents
       on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the
       governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on
       the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no
       pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost
       time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare
       the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far
       from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed
       down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985
       villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible,
       since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male
       population was probably everywhere put to death. In
       consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished
       people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not
       as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of
       the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained
       desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did
       not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death
       from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).

    JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
       The Nation without a country.
       Its two governments.

       "In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before
       the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present
       the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized
       communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch
       of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who
       inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the
       Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid
       their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most
       difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the
       patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its
       recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who,
       with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble
       attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects
       and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with
       one mind and one heart to establish their community on a
       settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation
       dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or
       repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing
       themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which
       rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power
       whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the
       Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty,
       began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The
       death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the
       war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them
       courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but
       openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The
       Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the
       schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great
       Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and
       finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and
       maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it
       may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an
       ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more
       scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins
       soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his
       cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the
       burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of
       the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be
       clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea
       of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the
       Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during
       all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished.
       Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the
       Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin.
       … In every region of the West, in every province of the
       Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted,
       with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual
       Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with
       honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in
       Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in
       Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly
       rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain
       its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There
       seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R.
       Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if
       his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the
       willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the
       Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as …
       splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his
       officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed
       as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is
       probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of
       the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times,
       was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the
       authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond
       Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 19 (volume 2).

    {1924}

    JEWS: A. D. 415.
       Driven from Alexandria by Cyril.

          See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.

    JEWS: 5-6th Centuries.
       Early Jewish settlements in Europe.
       Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.

       "The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as
       we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived
       in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the
       world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a
       separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was
       also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by
       an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the
       synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of
       God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had
       already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are
       known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the
       Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political
       rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors.
       They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of
       Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the
       position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks
       of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during
       this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against
       the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this
       hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised
       in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus
       the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before
       the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by
       proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained
       against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were
       happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine
       empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith
       the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The
       heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage
       intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and
       holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism,
       gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be
       converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by
       violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal
       sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he
       steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the
       fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as
       a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain,
       where the Church was first obliged to make its way
       laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and
       much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before
       Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and
       the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until
       the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration
       of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took
       place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of
       Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is,
       however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews,
       whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed
       the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in
       Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in
       the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by
       the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King
       Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first
       raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit
       of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over
       the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings
       became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews
       consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly
       only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such
       of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the
       Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in
       France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy,
       and France, possesses but special interest, that of their
       brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of
       universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as
       greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia.
       … Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews
       as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea
       and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East,
       and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain.
       … The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is
       buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as
       free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order
       to take advantage of the productive resources of this country.
       The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under
       Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the
       extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000
       of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews
       … were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as
       the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and
       Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."

          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

    JEWS: A. D. 615.
       Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians.
       Sack and massacre.

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

    JEWS: A. D. 637.
       Surrender of Jerusalem to the Moslems.

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.

    JEWS: 7th Century.
       General persecution.
       First expulsion from Spain.

       In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman
       Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a
       more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced
       before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about
       this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the
       Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This
       report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite
       their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but
       the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent
       conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited
       the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the
       imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted
       to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an
       end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised
       every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within
       the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced
       conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in
       his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic
       king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in
       forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.

          G. Finlay,
          Greece under the Romans,
          chapter 4, section 5.

    {1925}

       "Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius,
       Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that,
       within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace
       Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from
       the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a
       premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of
       self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal
       submission."

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

    JEWS: 7th Century.
       The Epoch of the Geonim.
       The Exilarchate and the Gaonate.

       After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the
       followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the
       partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the
       Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and
       rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish
       supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The
       unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded
       privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite
       probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora
       occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There
       were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which
       even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not
       venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar
       relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the
       Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels.
       With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish
       officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period
       in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space
       of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and
       Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are
       entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and
       concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the
       officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into
       a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia
       (Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar
       constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him
       stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the
       community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He
       represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs.
       He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid
       them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer
       appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove
       about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of
       body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity
       of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two
       chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the
       Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws
       and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by
       allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The
       Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of
       Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of
       the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled
       'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the
       title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference
       over his colleague of Pumbaditha."

          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 3, chapter 4.

    JEWS: 8th Century.
       Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.

          See KHAZARS.

    JEWS: 8th Century.
       Origin of the Karaites.

          See KARAISM.

    JEWS: 8-15th Centuries.
       Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by
       merciless persecution and expulsion.
       Treatment in Portugal.

       "Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this
       persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any
       Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th
       and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as
       financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians;
       in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in
       Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the
       13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any
       other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster
       to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were
       detested by the people; first in one town and then in another
       they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were
       burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them
       in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of
       Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved
       themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a
       few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century
       later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the
       country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition
       at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the
       majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who
       withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from
       170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence,
       starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who
       survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under
       Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in
       Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their
       brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as
       the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the
       wealth of the new Christians."

          J. I. von Döllinger,
          The Jews in Europe
          (Studies in European History, chapter 9).

          ALSO IN:
          H. C. Lea,
          Chapters from the Religious History of Spain,
          pages 437-468.

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
          part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2).

          See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    JEWS: 11th Century.
       First appearance of Jews in England.
       Their treatment as usurers.

       "Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to
       the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to
       London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under
       Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign
       we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can
       be no doubt that they were already established in most of the
       chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the
       townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the
       king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil,
       save at the king's own bidding.
    {1926}
       Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had
       the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed
       be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but
       which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against
       all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually
       appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the
       scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they
       should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no
       such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving
       trade."

          K. Norgate,
          England Under the Angevin Kings,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

       "The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding
       it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain
       the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation
       unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the
       function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth
       century, which was just passing economically out of the stage
       of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of
       architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and
       especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The
       Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess
       dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of
       protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their
       influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that
       no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country
       were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who
       also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. …
       The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards
       usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his
       Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other
       pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the
       State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all
       usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer,
       his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be
       dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to
       say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews'
       wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good
       Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could
       very soon double and treble it, since the absence of
       competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high,
       rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. …
       The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both
       king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the
       larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it
       plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the
       benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main
       functions and main source of income was selling justice, and
       Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them,
       as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the
       events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid
       by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a
       journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew,
       in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all,
       the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased
       Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters
       and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more
       profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property
       escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of
       Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but
       kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and
       debts of the great financier. He appears to have first
       organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews
       his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these
       quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the
       king claimed from them—again as from his other
       subjects—various contributions from time to time under the
       names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on
       occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable
       discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year
       of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of
       England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews,
       which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were
       reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable
       wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the
       rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal
       Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the
       country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's
       treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner
       in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the
       Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to
       bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the
       Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the
       usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into
       his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for
       a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to
       above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which
       they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."

          Joseph Jacobs,
          The Jews of Angevin England,
          introduction.

    JEWS: A. D. 1076.
       Capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks.

          See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &C.

    JEWS: A. D. 1096-1146.
       Massacre of Jews in Europe by Crusaders.

       The lawless and savage mobs of Crusaders which followed in the
       wake of the disorderly hosts of Peter the Hermit and Walter
       the Penniless, A. D. 1096, expended their zeal, at the outset
       of their march, in hunting and killing Jews. "Acting on the
       notion that the infidels dwelling in Europe should be
       exterminated before those in Asia should be attacked, [they]
       murdered 12,000 Jews. In Treves, many of these unfortunate
       men, driven to despair, laid violent hands on their children
       and on themselves, and multitudes embraced Christianity, from
       which they lapsed the moment the peril had passed. Two hundred
       Jews fled from Cologne and took refuge in boats; they were
       overtaken and slain. In Mayence, the archbishop, Rudhart, took
       them under his protection, and gave them the great hall of his
       castle for an asylum; the pilgrims, nevertheless, forced their
       way in, and murdered 700 of them in the archbishop's presence.
       At Spires the Jews valiantly defended themselves. At Worms
       they all committed suicide. At Magdeburg the archbishop,
       Ruprecht, amused himself by attacking them during the
       celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and by seizing their
       property."

          W. Menzel,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 145 (volume 1).

       The fervors of the Second Crusade [A. D. 1146] inclined, in
       Germany, to the same direction, of Jew-hunting; but St.
       Bernard, the apostle of the Crusade, was enlightened and
       humane enough to suppress the outrage by his great influence.
    {1927}
       A monk named Radulf, self-appointed preacher of the Crusade in
       Germany, stirred up the people of the cities of the Rhine
       against the Jews, and numbers were massacred, notwithstanding
       attempts of the emperor, Conrad, to protect them. But Bernard
       went in person to the scene, and, by his personal authority,
       drove the brutal monk into his convent.

          T. Keightley,
          The Crusaders
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 3, chapters 9 and 11.

          H. C. Adams,
          History of the Jews,
          chapter 15.

    JEWS: A. D. 1099.
       Conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

    JEWS: 11-17th Centuries.
       Alternating toleration and oppression in Poland.

       "It cannot be denied that this frugal, careful race formed the
       only class of traders in the land [16th-17th centuries]. That
       branch of industry which the nobleman despised, owing to pride
       or carelessness, and from which the peasant was excluded by
       stupidity and ignorance, fell to the share of the Jews. Though
       their presence may have been a misfortune for the nation in
       after years, they were certainly at the same time a national
       necessity. … Perpetually oppressed by capricious laws, the
       race raised itself by perseverance and cunning. Ill-treated,
       persecuted by fire and sword, still they returned, or others
       took their place; robbed and plundered repeatedly, the wealth
       of the land was yet theirs. … The first Jewish immigrants
       were exiles from Germany and Bohemia. In 1096 they fled to
       Poland, where at that time there was more religious tolerance
       than in the rest of Europe. The cruelty and greed of the first
       crusaders caused this exodus of the Jews. … Casimir the
       Great [1333-1370], instigated by his love for Esther, the
       beautiful Jewess of Opocno, gave the Jews such civil rights
       and privileges as a Polish king could grant, which conduced to
       the advantage of the land; but already in the time of Lewis of
       Hungary, 1371, they were sentenced to exile. Notwithstanding
       this, we find them scattered over the whole of Poland in 1386.
       Christians were forbidden on pain of excommunication to have
       any intercourse with Jews or to purchase from them. When they
       settled in towns they were forced to live in particular
       suburbs. … The incredible increase of the Jewish population,
       supposed to be three times as rapid as that of the Polish
       inhabitants, was very alarming, as the Jews managed to avoid
       all public burdens and taxes. Sigismund Augustus [1548-1572]
       resolved, in spite of their objections, to impose a poll tax
       of one florin per head, and at the same time to discover by
       this means their actual number. It was estimated at 200,000,
       but only 16,000 florins were paid as tax. Their power was
       increased by John Sobiesky, to whom they had prophesied that
       he would ascend the throne. He favoured the Jews so much, that
       the senate in 1682 implored him to regard the welfare of the
       state, and not let the favours of the crown pass through their
       hands. The laws forbidding the Jews on pain of death to trade
       with the peasants, to keep inns, to sell brandy—laws which
       were passed anew in every reign—show that they never ceased
       to carry on these trades, so profitable for them, so ruinous
       for the peasant."

          Count Von Moltke,
          Poland:
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 4, chapter 18.

    JEWS: A. D. 1189.
       Massacres in England.

       At the time of the accession of Richard Cœur de Lion, king of
       England, the crusading spirit had inflamed a specially bitter
       hatred of the Jews. Some of the obnoxious people were
       imprudent enough to press in among the spectators of King
       Richard's coronation. They were driven back with blows; "a
       riot ensued, and the Jews' quarter was plundered. A day
       elapsed before the king's troops could restore order, and then
       only three rioters were punished, for damage done to
       Christians. Thus encouraged, or allowed, the frenzy of
       persecution spread over the land. Generally it was the country
       people who were setting out as pilgrims for Palestine, who
       began the crusade at home, while the cities interposed to
       preserve the king's peace. But the rumour that the unbelievers
       were accustomed to crucify a Christian boy at Easter had
       hardened men's hearts against them. The cause of murder and
       rapine prevailed in Dunstable, Stamford, and Lincoln. At York,
       the viscount allowed 500 Jews to take refuge in the castle.
       Fearing, in spite of this, to be given up, they closed the
       gates against the king's officers. They were now besieged by
       the townsmen, under orders of the viscount, and the defence of
       men untrained to arms and without artillery lay only in the
       strength of the walls. They offered to ransom their lives, but
       the crowd thirsted for blood. Then a rabbi rose up and
       addressed his countrymen. 'Men of Israel, hear my words: it is
       better for us to die for our law than to fall into the hands
       of those who hate it; and our law prescribes this.' Then every
       man slew his wife and children, and hurled the corpses over
       the battlements. The survivors shut themselves up with their
       treasures in the royal chamber, and set fire to it. The crowd
       indemnified themselves by sacking the Jews' quarter, and
       burning the schedules of their debts, which were kept for
       safety in the cathedral."

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 1, chapter 32.

          ALSO IN:
          H. C. Adams,
          History of the Jews,
          chapter 16.

    JEWS: 12-15th Centuries.
       Treatment in France.

       In France, during the Middle Ages, the extorting of money from
       the Jews was one of the devices depended upon for replenishing
       the royal treasury. "It is almost incredible to what a length
       this was carried. Usury, forbidden by law and superstition to
       Christians, was confined to this industrious and covetous
       people. … The children of Israel grew rich in despite of
       insult and oppression, and retaliated upon their Christian
       debtors. If an historian of Philip Augustus may be believed,
       they possessed almost one-half of Paris. Unquestionably they
       must have had support both at court and in the halls of
       justice. The policy of the kings of France was to employ them
       as a sponge to suck their subjects' money, which they might
       afterwards express with less odium than direct taxation would
       incur. Philip Augustus released all Christians in his
       dominions from their debts to the Jews, reserving a fifth part
       to himself. He afterwards expelled the whole nation from
       France. But they appear to have returned again—whether by
       stealth, or, as is more probable, by purchasing permission.
       St. Louis twice banished and twice recalled the Jews. A series
       of alternate persecution and tolerance was borne by this
       extraordinary people with an invincible perseverance, and a
       talent of accumulating riches which kept pace with their
       plunderers; till new schemes of finance supplying the turn,
       they were finally expelled under Charles VI. and never
       afterwards obtained any legal establishment in France."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. I. von Döllinger,
          The Jews in Europe
          (Studies in European History, chapter 9).

    {1928}

    JEWS: 13-14th Centuries.
       Hostility of the Papacy and the Church.
       Doctrine of the Divine condemnation of the Jews to Slavery.
       Claim of the Emperors to ownership of them.

       "The declaration by Innocent III. [Pope, 1198-1216] that the
       entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins to
       perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually appealed
       to by those who coveted the possessions of the Jews and the
       earnings of their industry; both princes and people acted upon
       it. … The succeeding popes took their stand upon the maxims
       and behests of Innocent III. If the Jews built themselves a
       synagogue, it was to be pulled down; they might only repair
       the old ones. No Jew might appear as a witness against a
       Christian. The bishops were charged to enforce the wearing of
       the distinctive badge, the hat or the yellow garment, by all
       the means in their power. The wearing of the badge was
       particularly cruel and oppressive, for in the frequent tumults
       and risings in the towns the Jews, being thus recognisable at
       a glance, fell all the more easily into the hands of the
       excited mob; and if a Jew undertook a journey he inevitably
       became a prey to the numerous bandits and adventurers, who
       naturally considered him as an outlaw. … Where popes failed
       to interfere, the councils of the various countries made
       amends for the omission; they forbade, for instance, a
       Christian letting or selling a house to a Jew, or buying wine
       from him. Besides all this, the order was often renewed that
       all copies of the Talmud and commentaries upon
       it—consequently the greater part of the Jewish
       literature—should be burnt. … The new theory as to the Jews
       being in a state of slavery was now adopted and enlarged upon
       by theologians and canonists. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching
       was received by the whole Roman Church as unassailable,
       pronounced that since the race was condemned to perpetual
       bondage princes could dispose of the possessions of the Jews
       just as they would of their own. A long list of canonical
       writers maintained, upon the same ground, the right of princes
       and governors to seize upon the sons and daughters of Jews and
       have them baptized by force. It was commonly taught, and the
       ecclesiastical claim still exists, that a Jewish child once
       baptized was not to be left to the father. Meanwhile princes
       had eagerly seized upon the papal doctrine that the perpetual
       slavery of the Jews was ordained by God, and on it the Emperor
       Frederick II. founded the claim that all Jews belonged to him
       as Emperor, following the contention prevalent at the time
       that the right of lordship over them devolved upon him as the
       successor of the old Roman Emperors. … King Albert went so
       far as to claim from King Philip of France that the French
       Jews should be handed over to him. … From the 14th century
       this 'servitude to the state' was understood to mean complete
       slavery. 'You yourselves, your bodies and your possessions,
       belong,' says the Emperor Charles IV. in a document addressed
       to the Jews, 'to us and to the empire; we may act, make and do
       with you what we will and please.' The Jews were, in fact,
       constantly handed about like merchandise from one to another;
       the emperor, now in this place, now in that, declared their
       claims for debts to be cancelled; and for this a heavy sum was
       paid into his treasury, usually 30 per cent."

          J. I. Von Döllinger,
          The Jews in Europe
          (Studies in European History, chapter 9).

    JEWS: A. D. 1290.
       Banished from England.

       "At the same time [A. D. 1290], the King [Edward I.] banished
       all the Jews from the kingdom. Upward of 16,000 are said to
       have left England, nor did they reappear till Cromwell
       connived at their return in 1654. It is not quite clear why
       the King determined on this act of severity, especially as the
       Jews were royal property and a very convenient source of
       income. It is probable, however, that their way of doing
       business was very repugnant to his ideas of justice, while
       they were certainly great falsifiers of the coinage, which he
       was very anxious to keep pure and true. Earlier in the reign
       he had hanged between 200 and 300 of them for that crime, and
       they are said to have demanded 60 per cent. for their loans,
       taking advantage of the monopoly as money-lenders which the
       ecclesiastical prohibition of usury had given them."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England, period 1,
          page 179.

       The expulsion was in compliance with a demand made by
       Parliament. "We have no record of any special action or crime
       on the part of the Jews which suggested the particular
       parliamentary demand in 1290." It had been made four years
       before, when, "in one night, all the Jews in England were
       flung into prison, and would most likely have been expelled
       there and then, had they not outbribed the King with £12,000."

          G. H. Leonard,
          Expulsion of the Jews by Edward I.
          (Royal History Society Transactions,
          new series, volume 5, 1891).

    JEWS: A. D. 1321.
       Persecution of Lepers and Jews.

       "In the year 1321, a general rumour prevailed through Europe
       that the unhappy beings afflicted with leprosy (a disease with
       which the Crusaders had become infected in the East …) had
       conspired to inoculate all their healthy fellow-creatures with
       their own loathsome malady. … The King of Grenada and the
       Jews were denounced as the prime movers of this nefarious plot
       directed to the extermination of Christianity; and it was said
       that the latter, unable to overcome the many impediments which
       opposed their own agency, had bribed the lepers to become
       their instruments. This 'enormous Creed,' in spite of its
       manifold absurdities, found easy admission; and, if other
       evidence were wanting for its support, torture was always at
       hand to provide confessions. Philip V. [of France] was among
       the firmest believers, and therefore among the most active
       avengers of the imaginary crime; and he encouraged persecution
       by numerous penal edicts. At Toulouse, 160 Jews were burned
       alive at once on a single pile, without distinction of sex,
       and, as it seems, without any forms of previous examination.
       In Paris, greater gentleness was manifested; those only were
       led to the stake from whom an avowal of guilt could be
       extorted."

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 8.

    {1929}

       "The lord of Parthenay writes word to the king that 'a great
       leper,' arrested on his territory, has confessed that a rich
       Jew had given him money, and supplied him with drugs. These
       drugs were compounded of human blood, of urine, and of the
       blood of Christ (the consecrated wafer), and the whole, after
       having been dried and pounded, was put into a bag with a
       weight and thrown into the springs or wells. Several lepers
       had already been provisionally burnt in Gascony, and the king,
       alarmed at the new movement which was originating, hastily
       returned from Poitou to France, and issued an ordinance for
       the general arrest of the lepers. Not a doubt was entertained
       by anyone of this horrible compact between the lepers and the
       Jews. 'We ourselves,' says a chronicler of the day, 'have seen
       with our own eyes one of these bags, in Poitou, in a burgh of
       our own vassalage.' … The king ordered all found guilty to
       be burnt, with the exception of those female lepers who
       happened to be pregnant. The other lepers were to be confined
       to their lazarettos. As to the Jews, they were burnt
       indiscriminately, especially in the South."

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 5, chapter 5 (volume 1).

    JEWS: A. D. 1348-1349.
       Accused of causing the Black Plague.

       On the appearance in Europe, A. D. 1348, of the pestilence
       known as the Black Death, "there was a suspicion that the
       disease was due to human agencies, and, as usual, the Jews
       were asserted to have contrived the machinations by which the
       calamity was created. They were charged with poisoning the
       wells, and through France, Switzerland, and Germany, thousands
       of these unhappy people were destroyed on evidence derived
       from confessions obtained under torture. As far as he could,
       the Emperor Charles IV. protected them. They escaped
       persecution too in the dominions of Albrecht of Austria. It is
       said that the great number of the Jewish population in Poland
       is due to the fact that Casimir the Great was induced by the
       entreaties of one Esther, a favourite Jewish mistress of that
       monarch, to harbour and shelter them in his kingdom. It should
       be mentioned that Clement VI. forbad the persecution of the
       Jews at Avignon."

          J. E. T. Rogers,
          History of Agriculture and Prices,
          volume 1, chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 4, chapter 4.

    JEWS: A. D. 1391.
       Massacre and expulsion from Spain.

          See above: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES;
          also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    JEWS: A. D. 1492.
       Expulsion of Jews from Spain.

          See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    JEWS: 17th Century.
       Toleration in Holland.
       Attractiveness of that country to wealthy Israelites.

          See NETHERLANDS A. D. 1621-1633.

    JEWS: A. D. 1655.
       Toleration in England by Cromwell.

       "Wednesday, Dec. 12, 1655. This day, 'in a withdrawing room at
       Whitehall,' presided over by his Highness [the Lord Protector,
       Oliver Cromwell], who is much interested in the matter, was
       held 'a Conference concerning the Jews';—of which the modern
       reader too may have heard something. Conference, one of Four
       Conferences, publicly held, which filled all England with
       rumour in those old December days; but must now contract
       themselves into a point for us. Highest official Persons, with
       Lord Chief Barons, Lord Chief Justices, and chosen Clergy have
       met here to advise, by reason, Law-learning,
       Scripture-prophecy, and every source of light for the human
       mind, concerning the proposal of admitting Jews, with certain
       privileges as of alien-citizens, to reside in England. They
       were banished near Four-hundred years ago: shall they now be
       allowed to reside and trade again? The Proposer is Manasseh
       Ben Israel,' a learned Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam; who, being
       stirred up of late years by the great things doing in England,
       has petitioned one and the other, Long Parliament and Little
       Parliament, for this object; but could never, till his
       Highness came into power, get the matter brought to a hearing.
       And so they debate and solemnly consider; and his Highness
       spake;—and says one witness, 'I never heard a man speak so
       well.' His Highness was eager for the scheme, if so might be.
       But the Scripture-prophecies, Law-learnings, and lights of the
       human mind seemed to point another way: zealous Manasseh went
       home again; the Jews could not settle here except by private
       sufferance of his Highness."

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 9, letter 207.

       "Cromwell … was able to overcome neither the arguments of
       the theologians, nor the jealousies of the merchants, nor the
       prejudices of the indifferent; and seeing that the conference
       was not likely to end as he desired, he put an end to its
       deliberations. Then, without granting the Jews the public
       establishment which they had solicited, he authorized a
       certain number of them to take up their residence in London,
       where they built a synagogue, purchased the land for a
       burial-ground, and quietly commenced the formation of a sort
       of corporation, devoted to the Protector, on whose tolerance
       their safety entirely depended."

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of Oliver Cromwell,
          book 6 (volume 2).

    JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
       Condition in England.
       Defeated attempt to legalize their naturalization.

       "The Jews … were not formally authorised to establish
       themselves in England till after the Restoration. The first
       synagogue in London was erected in 1662. … There does not
       appear … to have been any legal obstacle to the sovereign
       and Parliament naturalising a Jew till a law, enacted under
       James I., and directed against the Catholics, made the
       sacramental test an essential preliminary to naturalisation.
       Two subsequent enactments exempted from this necessity all
       foreigners who were engaged in the hemp and flax manufacture,
       and all Jews and Protestant foreigners who had lived for seven
       continuous years in the American plantations. In the reign of
       James II. the Jews were relieved from the payment of the alien
       duty, but it is a significant fact that it was reimposed after
       the Revolution at the petition of the London merchants. In the
       reign of Anne some of them are said to have privately
       negotiated with Godolphin for permission to purchase the town
       of Brentford, and to settle there with full privileges of
       trade; but the minister, fearing to arouse the spirit of
       religious intolerance and of commercial jealousy, refused the
       application. The great development of industrial enterprise
       which followed the long and prosperous administration of
       Walpole naturally attracted Jews, who were then as now
       preeminent in commercial matters, and many of them appear at
       this time to have settled in England,"—among others, the
       family of Disraeli. In 1753, the Pelhams attempted to legalise
       the naturalisation of Jews; "not to naturalise all resident
       Jews, but simply to enable Parliament to pass special Bills to
       naturalise those who applied to it, although they had not
       lived in the colonies or been engaged in the hemp or flax
       manufacture. …
    {1930}
       The opponents of the ministry raised the cry that the Bill was
       an unchristian one, and England was thrown into paroxysms of
       excitement scarcely less intense than those which followed the
       impeachment of Sacheverell. There is no page in the history of
       the 18th century that shows more decisively how low was the
       intellectual and political condition of English public
       opinion. According to its opponents, the Jewish Naturalisation
       Bill sold the birthright of Englishmen for nothing, it was a
       distinct abandonment of Christianity, it would draw upon
       England all the curses which Providence had attached to the
       Jews. The commercial classes complained that it would fill
       England with usurers. … The clergy all over England
       denounced it." After fierce opposition, the bill was finally
       passed; "but as the tide of popular indignation rose higher
       and higher, the ministers in the next year brought forward and
       carried its repeal."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 2 (volume 1).

    JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
       Persecutions and restrictions in Russia.
       The Pale.

       "The refugees from the Ukraine who had settled in Little
       Russia were expelled in 1727. No Jews from without were
       allowed to enter Russia upon any pretext. The few physicians
       and other professional men of the excluded race who did manage
       to remain in Russia were in continual jeopardy of insult and
       expulsion. Over and over again Russian statesmen who were
       anxious to develop the resources and trade possibilities of
       their backward and barbarous land, hinted at the advisability
       of bringing in some Jews. The Imperial will was resolutely
       opposed. … When the broad-minded Catherine II ascended the
       throne these efforts were renewed, but she too resisted them,
       and says in her Memoirs, 'their admission into Russia might
       have occasioned much injury to our small tradesmen.' She was
       too deeply bitten with the Voltairean philosophy of her time
       to have, or even assume, any religious fervour in the matter,
       but though in 1786 she issued a high-sounding edict
       'respecting the protection of the rights of Jews of Russia,'
       the persecution on economic and social grounds continued
       unabated. By this time it will be seen the laws did, however,
       recognise the existence of Jews in Russia. The explanation is
       that the first partition of Poland and the annexation of the
       great Turkish territory lying between the Dnieper and the
       Dniester had brought into the empire such a vast Hebraic
       population that any thought of expulsion was hopeless. … The
       rape of Poland and the looting of Turkey had brought two
       millions of Jews under the sceptre of the Czar. The fact could
       not be blinked. They were there—inside the Holy Empire, whose
       boast for centuries had been that no circumcised dog could
       find rest for his foot on its sanctified territory. To an
       autocracy based so wholly on an orthodox religion as is that
       of the Czars, this seemed a most trying and perplexing
       problem. The solution they hit upon was to set aside one part
       of the empire as a sort of lazar house, which should serve to
       keep the rest of it from pollution. Hence we get the Pale.
       Almost every decade since 1786, the date of Catherine's ukase,
       has witnessed some alteration made in the dimensions and
       boundaries of this Pale. Now it has been expanded, now sharply
       contracted. … To trace these changes would be to
       unnecessarily burden ourselves with details. It is enough to
       keep in mind that the creation of the Pale was Russia's
       solution of the Jewish problem in 1786, and is still the only
       one it can think of. Side by side with this naïve notion that
       Holy Russia could be kept an inviolate Christian land in the
       eyes of Heaven by juggling the map, there grew up the more
       worldly conception of turning the Jew to account as a kind of
       milch cow. … In 1819 Jewish brandy distillers were allowed
       to go into the interior and settle 'until,' as the ukase said,
       'Russian master distillers shall have perfected themselves in
       the art of distilling.' They availed themselves of this
       permission in great numbers, and at the end of seven years
       were all summarily driven out again, a new ukase explaining
       that 'the number of Christian distillers was now sufficient.'
       … The past century's history of the Jews in Russia is made
       up of conflicts between these two impulses in the childlike
       Slavonic brain—the one to drive the heretic Jew into the Pale
       as into a kennel with kicks and stripes, the other guardedly
       to entice him out and manage to extract some service or profit
       from him. … In 1825 Nicholas ascended the throne. Within a
       year he had earned from the Jews that sinister title of 'The
       Second Haman,' by which Israel still recalls him. … With the
       death of Nicholas [1855] and the advent of Alexander II a new
       era dawned. Dr. Mackenzie Wallace has drawn a spirited and
       comprehensive picture of the literal stampede all Russia made
       to reform everything. … Almost the first thing the young
       Czar did was to revive a commission to inquire into the
       condition of the Jews, which Nicholas had decreed in 1840 and
       then allowed to lapse. This commission sent out a list of
       inquiries to all the Provincial Governors. These gentlemen
       returned voluminous reports, all, without exception,
       favourable to the Jews. … Upon the strength of these reports
       were issued the ukases of 1859, 1861, and 1865, … by which
       Jews of the first mercantile guild and Jewish artisans were
       allowed to reside all over the Empire. It is just as well to
       remember that even these beneficent concessions, which seem by
       contrast with what had gone before to mark such a vast forward
       step in Russo-Jewish history, were confessedly dictated by
       utilitarian considerations. The shackles were stricken only
       from the two categories of Jews whose freedom would bring
       profit to Russia. … Still, the quarter century following
       Alexander II's accession in 1855 fairly deserves its
       appellation of the 'golden age' when what preceded it is
       recalled."

          H. Frederic,
          The New Exodus,
          chapters 4-5.

          See, also, JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

    JEWS: A. D. 1740.
       Rise of the modern Chasidim.

          See CHASIDIM.

    JEWS: A. D. 1791.
       The French Revolutionary emancipation.

       "It is to the French Revolution that the Jews owe their
       improved position in the modern world. That prolific parent of
       good and evil has at least deserved well of them. It was the
       first to do justice, full and unequivocal, to those whom every
       other great political movement passed over as too
       insignificant or too contemptible to be taken into account.
       Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, the one in his desire to
       secularise the State, the other in his policy of
       Christianising the Revolution, as our historian Graetz puts
       it, both urged on a movement which, in an incredibly short
       space of time, succeeded in effecting the complete
       emancipation of all the Jews under the rule of the Republic.
       On the 17th September, 1791, the National Assembly decreed the
       abolition of every exceptional enactment previously in force
       against them, and thus made them by law what they had
       previously been in heart, citizens of their country.
    {1931}
       He who started as the child, afterwards to become the master,
       of the Revolution, proclaimed the same great principles of
       religious equality wherever his victorious eagles penetrated.
       Since that dawn of a better time, the light has spread more
       and more, though even now [1890] it is only here and there
       that it has shone forth unto the perfect day."

          S. Singer,
          Jews in their Relation to Other Races
          (National Life and Thought, chapter 20).

    JEWS: A. D. 1846-1858.
       Removal of disabilities in England.

       "In 1846 the Act of Parliament was formally repealed which
       compelled Jews living in England to wear a distinctive dress.
       The law had, however, been in abeyance for nearly two
       centuries. About this time also the Jews were admitted to the
       privileges of the naturalization laws; and in 1858 the House
       of Commons by resolution altered the form of oath tendered to
       all its members. As it had stood up to this time, Jews were
       prevented from voting in the divisions, although a Jew could
       take his seat in the House when sent there by a constituency."

          E. Porritt,
          The Englishman at Home,
          chapter 9.

    JEWS: 19th Century.
       The Anti-Semite movement.
       Later persecution of the Jews in Russia.

       "Among the strange and unforeseen developments that have
       characterized the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century,
       few are likely to be regarded by the future historian with a
       deeper or more melancholy interest than the anti-Semite
       movement, which has swept with such a portentous rapidity over
       a great part of Europe. It has produced in Russia by far the
       most serious religious persecution of the century. It has
       raged fiercely in Roumania, the other great centre of the
       Oriental Jews. In enlightened Germany it has become a
       considerable parliamentary force. In Austria it counts among
       its adherents men of the highest social station. Even France,
       which from the days of the Revolution has been specially
       distinguished for its liberality to the Jews, has not escaped
       the contagion. … It is this movement which has been the
       occasion of the very valuable work of M. Anatole
       Leroy-Beaulieu on 'Israel among the Nations.' The author, who
       is universally recognized as one of the greatest of living
       political writers, has special qualifications for his task.
       With an exceedingly wide knowledge of the literature relating
       to his subject he combines much personal knowledge of the Jews
       in Palestine and in many other countries, and especially in
       those countries where the persecution has most furiously
       raged. That persecution, he justly says, unites in different
       degrees three of the most powerful elements that can move
       mankind—the spirit of religious intolerance; the spirit of
       exclusive nationality; and the jealousy which springs from
       trade or mercantile competition. Of these elements M.
       Leroy-Beaulieu considers the first to be on the whole the
       weakest. In that hideous Russian persecution which 'the New
       Exodus' of Frederic has made familiar to the English reader,
       the religious element certainly occupies a very leading place.
       Pobedonosteff, who shares with his master the chief guilt and
       infamy of this atrocious crime, belongs to the same type as
       the Torquemadas of the past, and the spirit that animates him
       has entered largely into the anti-Semite movement in other
       lands. … Another element to which M. Leroy-Beaulieu attaches
       considerable importance is the Kultur Kampf in Germany. When
       the German Government was engaged in its fierce struggle with
       the Catholics, these endeavored to effect a diversion and to
       avenge themselves on papers, which were largely in the hands
       of Jews, by raising a new cry. They declared that a Kultur
       Kampf was indeed needed, but that it should be directed
       against the alien people who were undermining the moral
       foundations of Christian societies; who were the implacable
       enemies of the Christian creed and of Christian ideals. The
       cry was soon taken up by a large body of Evangelical
       Protestants. … Still more powerful, in the opinion of our
       author, has been the spirit of intense and exclusive
       nationality which has in the present generation arisen in so
       many countries and which seeks to expel all alien or
       heterogeneous elements, and to mould the whole national being
       into a single definite type. The movement has been still
       further strengthened by the greater keenness of trade
       competition. In the midst of many idle, drunken and ignorant
       populations the shrewd, thrifty and sober Jew stands
       conspicuous as the most successful trader. His rare power of
       judging, influencing and managing men, his fertility of
       resource, his indomitable perseverance and industry
       continually force him into the foremost rank and he is
       prominent in occupations which excite much animosity. The
       tax-gatherer, the agent, the middleman, and the money-lender
       are very commonly of Jewish race and great Jewish capitalists
       largely control the money markets of Europe at a time when
       capital is the special object of socialistic attacks."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          Israel among the Nations
          (The Forum, December, 1893).

       "Until 1881 the lives and property of Jews had been respected.
       Their liberties were restricted, not obsolete. In that year
       all was changed. The Pale of Settlement, especially in the
       South, became a centre of riot. Crimes were charged against,
       and violence was offered to, those who had no means of
       retaliation; and whose only defence was passive endurance. The
       restlessness of the country, the low moral tone of the most
       ignorant and unreasonable peasantry in the world, commercial
       jealousy, and official intrigues were responsible for the
       outbreak. The Jews had thriven; that was a crime. As the
       Government had refused them the privileges of citizenship,
       they had no right to rise above their neighbours. A rescript,
       for which General Ignatieff was responsible, took cognisance,
       not of the sufferings of the Jews, but of the condition of the
       Christians. Commissioners … were appointed, in all towns
       inhabited by Jews, to inquire
       (1) into the manner of mal-practices by which the presence of
       Jews became injurious to the Christian population;
       (2) into the best methods of preventing Jews from evading old
       restrictions;
       (3) what new laws were required to stop the pernicious conduct
       of Jews in business.
       The inquiry resulted in the May Laws of 1882. These laws,
       which were so severe that hesitation was felt in applying them
       throughout the Pale, were supposed to be of only temporary
       application. They were known as laws for the time, and only
       came into full operation in 1890. … The May Laws define the
       Jews' duties to the State. These consist of military service,
       and pecuniary contributions.
    {1932}
       In common with all Russians, Jews are subject to the Law of
       Conscription. Unlike Christians, they may not provide a
       substitute. They may not follow any trade, or profession,
       until they have produced evidence of registration in the
       recruiting district. While subject to military service, Jews
       cannot rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer.
       … The journal of statistics gives the proportion of Jews to
       the population as 3.95 per cent., whereas the percentage on
       the conscription rolls is 5.80. Thus the Hebrew is ground
       between the upper and nether millstone. … In December 1890
       Russians were forbidden to sell, lease, or mortgage real
       estate to Jews throughout the Empire, a measure hitherto
       applied only to Poland. Where Jews have acquired such property
       they will be compelled to dispose thereof. The Jewish
       artisans, apothecaries' assistants, dentists, and midwives,
       with all apprentices, are to be expelled from all places
       outside the Pale. Exceptions to this are obtainable only by
       special permission from the Minister of the Interior. Even
       then the children of such must be removed to the Pale as soon
       as they come of age, or marry an unprivileged Jew. This Pale
       of Settlement, which stretches along the frontier, from the
       Baltic to the Black Sea, is a hell of seething wretchedness.
       Here five millions of Jews are compelled to live, and die, in
       a Ghetto of filth and misery, mocked with a feast of Tantalus.
       Beyond are lands where corn rots for lack of ingatherers; yet
       they are cabined and confined. Inability to bribe a corrupt
       mass of administrators has led to the expulsion of poor Jews
       from villages within the Pale, into crowded towns, such as
       Tchernizo, where the population has consequently risen from
       5,000 to 20,000. … In September [1890] the Jews were
       expelled from Trans-caspian territory; in October, Jews, not
       having the right to live in St. Petersburg, were ordered to be
       transferred, with their families, to their proper places of
       abode; in January the Jews were ordered to be expelled from
       the Terke region of the Caucasus; in February the Jews in
       Novgorod were expelled. It has been declared expedient to
       expel them from the Cossack Stanitzas of the Caucasus. Three
       years ago the Jews were forbidden to live on Crown lands.
       Eighty-seven families were recently ordered to leave Saraka
       districts; because they had settled there after the passing of
       the Ignatieff laws. Artisans are henceforth to be confined to
       limits of residence within the Pale. It is the same with
       millers; therefore mills are idle, and the price of corn has
       declined. In Courland and Livonia, descendants of Jewish
       families, which were established when those provinces were
       incorporated into Russia, may remain; but no others may
       settle. … Jews who have lived eight years in a village may
       be interned therein, and may not move, even walking distance,
       without leave. Jews leaving one village for another lose their
       rights, and must go to the Ghetto of the nearest town. This is
       practically a sentence of death. Executions are going on, not
       upon scaffolds, but in dusky Ghettos, where the victims of
       oppression pine without hope in the world."

          C. N. Barham,
          Persecution of the Jews in Russia
          (Westminster Review, volume 136, 1891), pages 139-144.

          ALSO IN:
          Persecution of the Jews in Russia:
          issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee;

          D. F. Schloss,
          Persecution of the Jews in Roumania.

       ----------JEWS: End----------

    JEYPORE, OR JEYPOOR.

          See RAJPOOTS.

    JEZIREH, Al.

          See MESOPOTAMIA.

    JEZREEL, Battle of.

          See MEGIDDO.

    JINGIZ-KHAN, The conquests of.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
          and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

    JINGOES.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1878 EXCITEMENT IN ENGLAND.

    JIVARA, OR JIVARO, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    JOACHIM I.,
       Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1499-1535.

       Joachim II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1535-1571.

       Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, 1598-1608.

    JOAN OF ARC, The mission of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

    JOANNA,
       Queen of Castile, A. D. 1504-1555.

       Joanna I., Queen of Naples, 1343-1381.

       Joanna II., Queen of Naples, 1414-1435.

    JOGLARS.

          See TROUBADOURS.

    JOHN
       (of Brienne), Latin Emperor at Constantinople
       (Romania), A. D. 1228-1237.

       John (of Luxemburg), King of Bohemia, A. D. 1310-1346.

       John, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1481-1513.

       John, King of England, 1199-1216.

       John (Don) of Austria: His victories over the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571,
          and 1572-1573.

          In the Netherlands.
          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577, and 1577-1581.

       John, Elector of Brandenburg, 1486-1499.

       John (called The Fearless), Duke of Burgundy, 1404-1418.

       John I., King of Aragon, 1387-1395.

       John I., King of Castile and Leon, 1379-1390.

       John I., nominal King of France
       (an infant who lived seven days), 1316.

       John I., King of Navarre, 1441-1479;

       John II., of Aragon, 1458-1479;

       John I., of Sicily, 1458-1479.

       John I., King of Portugal, 1383-1433.

       John I., King of Sicily, 1458-1479.

       John II. (Comnenus),
       Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1118-1143.

       John II., King of Castile and Leon, 1407-1454.

       John II. (called The Good), King of France, 1350-1364.

       John II., King of Portugal, 1481-1495.

       John III. (Vataces), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1222-1255.

       John III., King of Portugal, 1521-1557.

       John III., King of Sweden, 1568-1592.

       John IV., Pope, 640-642.

       John IV. (Lascaris), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1259-1260.

       John IV., King of Portugal, 1640-1656.

       John V., Pope, 685-686.

       John V. (Cantacuzene),
       Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1342-1355.

       John V., King of Portugal, 1706-1750.

       John VI., Pope, 701-705.

       John VI. (Palæologus),
       Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1355-1391.

       John VI., King of Portugal, 1816-1826.

       John VII., Pope, 705-707.

       John VII.
       (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1425-1448.

       John VIII., Pope, 872-882.

       John IX., Pope, 898-900.

       John X., Pope, 914-928.

       John XI., Pope, 931-936.

       John XII., Pope, 956-964.

       John XIII., Pope, 965-972.

       John XIV., Pope, 983-984.

       John XV., Pope, 985-996.

       John XVI., Antipope, 997-998.

       John XVII., Pope, 1003, June to December.

       John XVIII., Pope, 1003-1009.

       John XIX., Pope, 1024-1033.

       John XXI. (so styled, though 20th of the name),
       Pope, 1276-1277.

       John XXII., Pope, 1316-1334.

       John XXIII., Pope, 1410-1410.

       John Albert, King of Poland, 1493-1501.

       John d'Albret and Catherine,
       King and Queen of Navarre, 1503-1512.

       John Balliol, King of Scotland, 1292-1296.

       John Casimir, King of Poland, 1648-1668.

       John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.

          See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

       John George, Elector of Brandenburg, 1571-1598.

       John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, 1608-1619.

       John Sobieski, King of Poland, 1674-1697.

       John Swerkerson, King of Sweden, 1216-1222.

       John Zimisces, Emperor in the East
       (Byzantine, or Greek), 969-976.

    {1933}

    JOHN COMPANY, The.

       A name applied to the English East India Company.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

    JOHNNIES.

          See BOYS IN BLUE.

    JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

    JOHNSON, Andrew:
       Military Governor of Tennessee.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

       Election to the Vice Presidency.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

       Succession to the Presidency.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 15TH).

       Reconstruction Policy.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY),
          to 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

       Impeachment of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY).

    JOHNSON, Sir William, and the Six Nations.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    JOHNSON-CLARENDON CONVENTION.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

    JOHNSTON, General Albert Sidney.
       Command of Confederate forces in the west.
       Battle of Shiloh.
       Death.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE),
          and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    JOHNSTON, General Joseph E.
       At the first Battle of Bull Run.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

       Command in northern Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

       Command on the Peninsula.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
          to (MAY: VIRGINIA).

       Command in the west.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       Command in Georgia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
          (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

       The Atlanta campaign.
       Relieved of command.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
          (MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

       Command in the Carolinas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
          (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

       Surrender.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 26TH).

    JOHNSTOWN FLOOD, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

    JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871.

    JOLIET'S EXPLORATIONS.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    JOMSBORG.

       Jomsborg, a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, became, in
       the later part of the 10th and early part of the 11th
       centuries, a noted fastness of the piratical heathen Danes,
       who found there "a secure refuge from the new religion and the
       civilization it brought with it," which their country was then
       submitting to. They founded at Jomsborg "a state to which no
       man might belong save on proof of courage, where no woman
       might enter within the walls, and where all booty was in
       common."

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          pages 366-367.

       "The impregnable castle of a certain body corporate, or
       'Sea-Robbery Association (limited),' which, for some
       generations, held the Baltic in terror, and plundered far
       beyond the Belt—in the ocean itself, in Flanders and the
       opulent trading havens there,—above all, in opulent anarchic
       England, which, for forty years from about this time, was the
       pirates' Goshen; and yielded, regularly every summer, slaves,
       danegelt, and miscellaneous plunder, like no other country
       Jomsburg or the viking-world had ever known."

          T. Carlyle,
          Early Kings of Norway,
          chapter 5.

       The pirate-nest at Jomsborg was broken up, about the middle of
       the tenth century, by Magnus the Good, of Norway.

    JONES, John Paul, Naval exploits of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776;
          and 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

    JONESBORO', Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

    JONGLEURS.

          See TROUBADOURS.

    JOPPA.

          See JAFFA.

    JOSEPH,
       King of Portugal, A. D. 1750-1777.

       Joseph I.,
       King of Hungary, 1687-1711;
       King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1705-1711.

       Joseph II., King of Hungary and Bohemia,
       and Germanic Emperor, 1765-1790.

       Joseph Bonaparte,
       King of Naples, 1806-1808;
       King of Spain, 1808-1812.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
          and SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

    JOSEPHINE, Empress, Napoleon's divorce from.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

    JOTAPATA, Siege of.

       The Jewish city of Jotapata, defended by the historian
       Josephus, was besieged by Vespasian for forty-seven days, A.
       D. 67, and taken.

          Josephus,
          Jewish War,
          book 3, chapter 7-8.

    JOUBERT, Campaigns of.

          See FRANCE: A. D.1796-1797(OCTOBER-APRIL);
          1798-1799; 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

    JOURDAN, Campaigns of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793(JULY-DECEMBER);
          1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
          1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    JOUST.

       See TOURNEY.

    JOVIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 363-364.

    JOVIANS AND HERCULIANS.

          See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

    JOYOUS ENTRY OF BRABANT, The.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1559-1562.

    JUAN.

          See JOHN.

    JUAREZ, The Mexican government of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861, to 1867-1888.

    JUBILEE, Papal institution of the.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

    JUDAH, Kingdom of.

          See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL, AND JUDAH, and after.

    JUDAS MACCABÆUS.

          See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

    JUDGES OF ISRAEL.

          See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

    JUDGMENT OF GOD.

          See ORDEAL; also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

    {1934}

    JUDICIAL COMBAT.

          See WAGER OF BATTLE.

    JUGANTES, The.

          See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

    JUGERUM.

       "A Roman jugerum [of land] was somewhat less than two-thirds
       of a statute acre."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 7, footnote (volume 1).

    JUGURTHINE WAR, The.

          See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

    JULIAN (called The Apostate),
       Roman Emperor, A. D. 361-363.
       Restorer of Paganism.

          See ROME: A. D. 361-363.

    JULIAN CALENDAR.
    JULIAN ERA.

          See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

    JULIAN FAMILY, The.

       "The Julian Family is that of the dictator Cæsar; his name was
       transmitted, by adoption, out of the direct line, but always
       within the circle of his kindred, to the five first heads of
       the Roman empire; Augustus reigned from the year 30 B. C. to
       the year 14 of our era; Tiberius, from 14 to 37 A. D.;
       Caligula, from 37 to 41; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Nero, from
       54 to 68."

          J. C. L. Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 2.

    JULIAN LAW, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

    JULIAN LAWS, The.

       "Cæsar [during his year of consulship, B. C. 59, before he
       went to Gaul] carried, with the help of the people, the body
       of admirable laws which are known to jurists as the 'Leges
       Juliæ,' and mark an epoch in Roman history. … There was a
       law declaring the inviolability of the persons of magistrates
       during their term of authority, reflecting back on the murder
       of Saturninus, and touching by implication the killing of
       Lentulus and his companions. There was a law for the
       punishment of adultery, most disinterestedly singular if the
       popular accounts of Cæsar's habits had any grain of truth in
       them. There were laws for the protection of the subject from
       violence, public or private; and laws disabling persons who
       had laid hands illegally on Roman citizens from holding office
       in the Commonwealth. There was a law, intended at last to be
       effective, to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be
       bribed. There were laws against defrauders of the revenue;
       laws against debasing the coin; laws against sacrilege; laws
       against corrupt State contracts; laws against bribery at
       elections. Finally, there was a law, carefully framed, 'De
       repetundis.' to exact retribution from pro-consuls or
       pro-prætors of the type of Verres, who had plundered the
       provinces."

          J. A. Froude,
          Cæsar,
          chapter 13.

    JULIAN LINE, The.

          See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

    JULIANUS.

          See JULIAN.

       Julianus, Didius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

    JÜLICH-CLEVE CONTEST, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    JULIOMAGUS.
       Modern Angers.

          See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

    JULIUS II.,
       Pope, A. D. 1503-1513.

       Julius III., Pope, 1550-1555.

       Julius Nepos, Roman Emperor (Western), 474-475.

    JULY FIRST.
       Dominion Day.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

    JULY FOURTH, Independence Day.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

    JULY MONARCHY, The.

       The reign of Louis Philippe, which was brought about by the
       revolution of July, 1830 (see FRANCE: A.D. 1815-1830, and
       1830-1840), is commonly known in France as the July Monarchy.

    JUNIN, Battle of (1824).

          See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

    JUNIUS LETTERS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.

    JUNONIA.

          See CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.

    JUNTA.

       A Spanish word signifying council, assembly, association.

    JUNTA, The Apostolic.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    JURISFIRMA, The process of.

          See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

    JUROIPACH, Fortress of.

       A fortress in the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of
       the Caucasus and the Caspian, which the Persians and the
       Romans undertook at one time to maintain jointly. "This
       fortress, known as Juroipach or Biraparach, commanded the
       usual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed
       to issue from their vast arid steppes upon the rich and
       populous regions of the south for the purpose of plundering
       raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened
       almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt
       that the two nations were alike interested in preventing them."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 19.

    JURY, Trial by.

       "The fabric of our judicial legislation commences with the
       Assize of Clarendon.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

       … In the provisions of this assize for the repression of
       crime we find the origin of trial by jury, so often attributed
       to earlier times. Twelve lawful men of each hundred, with four
       from each township, were sworn to present those who were known
       or reputed as criminals within their district for trial by
       ordeal. The jurors were thus not merely witnesses, but sworn
       to act as judges also in determining the value of the charge;
       and it is this double character of Henry's [Henry II.] jurors
       that has descended to our 'grand jury.' … Two later steps
       brought the jury to its modern condition. Under Edward I.
       witnesses acquainted with the particular fact in question were
       added in each case to the general jury, and by the separation
       of these two classes of jurors at a later time the last became
       simply 'witnesses,' without any judicial power, while the
       first ceased to be witnesses at all, and became our modern
       jurors, who are only judges of the testimony given."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of English People,
          chapter 2, section 8.

          See LAW.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 13, section 164.

          W. Forsyth,
          History of Trial by Jury.

    JUSTICIAR.

       The chief minister of the Norman kings of England. At first
       the Justiciar was the lieutenant or viceroy of the king during
       the absence of the latter from the kingdom; afterward a
       permanent minister of justice and finance.

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, page 346.

    JUSTIN I.,
       Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 518-527.

       Justin II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 565-578.

    JUSTINIAN I.,
       Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 527-565.

       Justinian II. (called Rhinotmetus),
       Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 685-695, and 704-711.

    JUSTINIAN, The Institutes, Pandects and Novels of.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    {1935}

    JUSTIZA, OR JUSTICIARY, of Aragon.

          See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

    JÜTERBOGK, OR DENNEWITZ, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    JUTES, The.

          See ANGLES AND JUTES;
          also, ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

    JUTHUNGI, The.

          See ALEMANNI, FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE.

    JUVAVIUM.

          See SALZBURG.

    JUVENAL IA, The.

       This was a festival instituted by Nero, to commemorate his
       attainment of the age of manhood. "His beard was clipped, and
       the first tender down of his cheek and chin enclosed in a
       golden casket and dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol. This
       ceremony was followed by music and acting," in which the
       emperor, himself, performed.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 53.

    JUVERNA.

          See IRELAND: THE NAME.

    KAABA, OR CAABA, at Mecca, The.

          See CAABA.

    KABALA, OR CABALA, The.

          See CABALA.

    KABALA, Battle of.

          See SICILY: B. C. 383.

    KABELJAUWS.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
          also, 1482-1493.

    KABYLES, The.

          See LIBYANS; also, AMORITES.

    KADESH.

       A strong fortress of the ancient Hittites on the Orontes. The
       name signifies "the holy city."

    KADESH-BARNEA.

       An important locality in Biblical history. "It looms up as the
       objective point of the Israelites in their movement from Sinai
       to the Promised Land. It is the place of their testing, of
       their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It
       is their rallying centre for the forty-years of their
       wandering, and the place of their re-assembling for their
       final move into the land of their longings."

          H. C. Trumbull,
          Kadesh-Barnea,
          part 1.

       Mr. Trumbull identifies the site with the oasis of Ayn Qadees,
       in the Wilderness of Zin.

    KADIASKERS.

          See SUBLIME PORTE.

    KADISIYEH, Battle of.

          See CADESIA.

    KADMEIA, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 383.

    KADMEIANS, OR CADMEIANS.

          See BŒOTIA.

    KADMONITES, The.

          See SARACENS.

    KAFIRS.
    KAFIR WARS.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
          and A. D. 1811-1868;
          also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

    KAGHUL, Battle of (1770).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

    KAH-KWAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

    KAINARDJI, OR
    KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Treaty of (1774).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

    KAIRWAN, The founding of.

       Acbah, the first of the Moslem conquerors of Northern Africa
       who penetrated as far westward as the domain of ancient
       Carthage, but who did not take that city, secured his footing
       in the region [A. D. 670-675] by founding a new city,
       thirty-three leagues southeast of Carthage and twelve leagues
       from the sea. The site chosen was a wild, thickly wooded
       valley, in the midst of which the Arab leader is said to have
       cleared a space, erected walls around it, and then, planting
       his lance in the center, cried to his followers: "This is your
       Caravan." Hence the name, Kairwan or Caerwan, or Cairoan.
       Fixing his seat of government at Kairwan, building mosques and
       opening markets, Acbah and his successors soon made the new
       city a populous and important capital.

          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and his Successors,
          volume 2, chapter 44.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 51.

          A. A. Boddy,
          Kairwan the Holy.

    KAISAR-I-HIND.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

    KAISER, Origin of the title.

          See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

    KAISERSLAUTERN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    KALAPOOIAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.

    KALB, Baron De, and the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

    KALEVALA,
    KALEWALA, The.

       "To a certain class of modern philologists, no poem in the
       world is more familiar than the Kalewala, the long epic, which
       is to the mythology and traditional lore of the Finns what the
       Iliad and Odyssey of Homer are to the heroic story of ancient
       Greece. It is the source from which nearly all the information
       connected with the religious creed, the moral notions, the
       customs, and the domestic details of a most remarkable race is
       to be obtained. If we would know how the Greeks of the heroic
       age prayed, fought, eat, drank, sported, and clothed
       themselves, we turn to the pages of Homer. If we would obtain
       similar knowledge on the subject of the Finns, we consult the
       Kalewala. Though the traditions of the Finnish heroes are
       possibly as old as those of Achilles and Ajax, the arrangement
       of them into a continuous poem is a work of very recent date.
       No Wolfian controversy will arise respecting the construction
       of the Kalewala, for it is not more than twenty-five years
       since the Peisistratid who first put together the isolated
       songs, or Runes, published the result of his labours.
       Fragments of Finnish poetry, collected from the oral
       traditions of the people, had already made their appearance,
       though even the first important collection of these, which was
       made by Dr. Zacharias Topelius, dates no further back than
       1822. … But it is with Dr. Lönnrot that the existence of the
       epic as an epic, with the title 'Kalewala,' begins. He
       published it in thirty-two Runes,—that is to say, books or
       cantos, for the word, which previously denoted an independent
       poem, now sinks into little more than a sign of division,
       though here and there, it must be confessed, an abrupt
       transition occurs, to which a parallel would not be found in
       the Iliad or the Odyssey. In 1849 a second edition of the
       Kalewala was published, likewise under the superintendence of
       Dr. Lönnrot, containing fifty cantos and nearly 23,000 lines."

          J. Oxenford,
          Kalewala
          (Temple Bar, December, 1860).

    {1936}

       "Besides its fresh and simple beauty of style, its worth as a
       storehouse of every kind of primitive folk-lore, being as it
       is the production of an Urvolk, a nation that has undergone no
       violent revolution in language or institutions—the Kalevala
       has the peculiar interest of occupying a position between the
       two kinds of primitive poetry, the ballad and the epic. …
       Sixty years ago, it may be said, no one was aware that Finland
       possessed a national poem at all. Her people—who claim
       affinity with the Magyars of Hungary, but are possibly a
       back-wave of an earlier tide of population—had remained
       untouched by foreign influences since their conquest by
       Sweden, and their somewhat lax and wholesale conversion to
       Christianity: events which took place gradually between the
       middle of the twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries.
       … The annexation of Finland by Russia, in 1809, awakened
       national feeling, and stimulated research into the songs and
       customs which were the heirlooms of the people. … From the
       north of Norway to the slopes of the Altai, ardent explorers
       sought out the fragments of unwritten early poetry. These
       runes, or runots, were sung chiefly by old men called Runoias,
       to beguile the weariness of the long dark winters. The custom
       was for two champions to engage in a contest of memory,
       clasping each other's hands, and reciting in turn till he
       whose memory first gave in slackened his hold. The Kalevala
       contains an instance of this practice, where it is said that
       no one was so hardy as to clasp hands with Wäinämöinen, who is
       at once the Orpheus and the Prometheus of Finnish mythology.
       These Runoias, or rhapsodists, complain, of course, of the
       degeneracy of human memory; they notice how any foreign
       influence, in religion or politics, is destructive to the
       native songs of a race. 'As for the lays of old time, a
       thousand have been scattered to the wind, a thousand buried in
       the snow. … As for those which the Munks (the Teutonic
       knights) swept away, and the prayer of the priest
       over-whelmed, a thousand tongues were not able to recount
       them.' In spite of the losses thus caused, and in spite of the
       suspicious character of the Finns, which often made the task
       of collection a dangerous one, enough materials remained to
       furnish Dr. Lönnrot, the most noted explorer, with thirty-five
       Runots, or cantos. These were published in 1835, but later
       research produced the fifteen cantos which make up the
       symmetrical fifty of the Kalevala. In the task of arranging
       and uniting these, Dr. Lönnrot played the part generally
       ascribed to Pisistratus in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey.
       He is said to have handled with singular fidelity the
       materials which now come before us as one poem, not without a
       certain unity and continuous thread of narrative. It is this
       unity which gives the Kalevala a claim to the title of epic,
       although the element of permanence which is most obvious in
       the Greek epics, and in the earliest Hebrew records, is here
       conspicuously absent. … Among the Finns we find no trace of
       an aristocracy; there is scarcely a mention of kings, or
       priests; the heroes of the poem are really popular heroes,
       fishers, smiths, husbandmen, 'medicine-men' or wizards;
       exaggerated shadows of the people, pursuing on a heroic scale,
       not war, but the common daily business of primitive and
       peaceful men. In recording their adventures, the Kalevala,
       like the shield of Achilles, reflects all the life of a race,
       the feasts, the funerals, the rites of seed-time and harvest,
       of marriage and death, the hymn, and the magical incantation.
       Were this all, the epic would only have the value of an
       exhaustive collection of the popular ballads which, as we have
       seen, are a poetical record of all the intenser moments in the
       existence of unsophisticated tribes. But it is distinguished
       from such a collection, by presenting the ballads as they are
       produced by the events of a continuous narrative, and thus it
       takes a distinct place between the aristocratic epics of
       Greece, or of the Franks, and the scattered songs which have
       been collected in Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, and
       Italy. Besides the interest of its unique position as a
       popular epic, the Kalevala is very precious, both for its
       literary beauties and for the confused mass of folk-lore which
       it contains. … What is to be understood by the word
       'Kalevala'? The affix 'la' signifies 'abode.' Thus, 'Tuonela'
       is 'the abode of Tuoni,' the god of the lower world; and as
       'kaleva' means 'heroic,' 'magnificent,' 'Kalevala' is 'The
       Home of Heroes,' like the Indian 'Beerbhoom,' or 'Virbhûmi.'
       The poem is the record of the adventures of the people of
       Kalevala—of their strife with the men of Pohjola, the place
       of the world's end."

          A. Lang,
          Kalevala
          (Fraser's May, June, 1872).

       A complete translation of the Kalevala into English verse, by
       John Martin Crawford, was published in New York, in 1888.

          Project Gutenberg
          Kalevala: the Epic Poem of Finland—
          Complete by Lönnrot and Crawford
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186

    KALISCH, Battle of (1706).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

    KALISCH, OR CALISCH, Treaty of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

    KALMUKS, The.

          See TARTARS.

    KAMBALU, OR CAMBALU,

          See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

    KAMBULA, Battle of (1879),

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

    KAMI, OR KHEMI, OR KEM.

          See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

    KANAKAS.

          See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

    KANAWHA, Battle of the Great.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

    KANAWHA, The proposed State of.

          See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

    KANAWHAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    KANDHS, The.

          See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

       ----------KANSAS: Start--------

    KANSAS:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
          and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    KANSAS: A. D. 1803.
       Mostly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    KANSAS: A. D. 1854.
       Territorial organization.
       The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
       Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

    KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
       The battle-ground of the struggle against Slavery-extension.
       Border-ruffians and Free State settlers.

       "The attention of the whole country had now been turned to the
       struggle provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the repeal
       of the Missouri Compromise. The fertile soil of Kansas had
       been offered as a prize to be contended for by Free and Slave
       States, and both had accepted the contest. The Slave State
       settlers were first in the field. The slave-holders of Western
       Missouri, which shut off Kansas from the Free States, had crossed
       the border, preempted lands, and warned Free State immigrants
       not to pass through Missouri.
    {1937}
       The first election of a delegate to Congress took place
       November 29th, 1854, and was carried by organized bands of
       Missourians, who moved over the border on election day, voted,
       and returned at once to Missouri. The spring election of 1855,
       for a Territorial Legislature, was carried in the same
       fashion. In July, 1855, the Legislature, all Pro-Slavery, met
       at Pawnee, and adopted a State Constitution. To save trouble
       it adopted the laws of the State of Missouri entire, with a
       series of original statutes denouncing the penalty of death
       for nearly fifty offenses against Slavery. All through the
       spring and summer of 1855 Kansas was the scene of almost
       continuous conflict, the Border Ruffians of Missouri
       endeavoring to drive out the Free State settlers by murder and
       arson, and the Free State settlers retaliating. The cry of
       'bleeding Kansas' went through the North. Emigration societies
       were formed in the Free States to aid, arm, equip, and protect
       intending settlers. These, prevented from passing through
       Missouri, took a more Northern route through Iowa and
       Nebraska, and moved into Kansas like an invading army. The
       Southern states also sent parties of intending settlers. But
       these were not generally slave-holders, but young men anxious
       for excitement. They did not go to Kansas, as their opponents
       did, to plow, sow, gather crops, and build up homes.
       Therefore, though their first rapid and violent movements were
       successful, their subsequent increase of resources and numbers
       was not equal to that of the Free State settlers. The
       Territory soon became practically divided into a Pro-Slavery
       district, and a Free State district. Leavenworth in the
       former, and Topeka and Lawrence in the latter, were the chief
       towns. September 5th, 1855, a Free State Convention at Topeka
       repudiated the Territorial Legislature and all its works, as
       the acts and deeds of Missourians alone. It also resolved to
       order a separate election for delegate to Congress, so as to
       force that body to decide the question, and to form a State
       government. January 15th, 1856, the Free State settlers
       [having applied to Congress for admission as a State] elected
       State officers under the Topeka Free State Constitution. The
       Federal Executive now entered the field. January 24th, 1856,
       the President [Franklin Pierce], in a Special Message to
       Congress, endorsed the Pro-Slavery Legislature, and pronounced
       the attempt to form a Free State government, without the
       approval of the Federal authorities in the Territory, to be an
       act of rebellion. He then issued a proclamation, warning all
       persons engaged in disturbing the peace of Kansas to retire to
       their homes, and placed United States troops at the orders of
       Governor Shannon to enforce the (Pro-Slavery) laws of the
       Territory. The population of Kansas was now so large that very
       considerable armies were mustered on both sides, and a
       desultory civil war was kept up until nearly the end of the
       year. During its progress two Free State towns, Lawrence and
       Ossawattomie, were sacked. July 4th, 1856, the Free State
       Legislature attempted to assemble at Topeka, but was at once
       dispersed by a body of United States troops, under orders from
       Washington. September 9th, a new Governor, Geary, of
       Pennsylvania, arrived and succeeded in keeping the peace to
       some extent by a mixture of temporizing and decided measures.
       By the end, of the year he even claimed to have established
       order in the Territory. … January 6th, 1857, the Free State
       Legislature again attempted to meet at Topeka, and was again
       dispersed by Federal interference. Its presiding officer and
       many of its members were arrested by a United States deputy
       marshal. The Territorial, or Pro-Slavery, Legislature
       quarreled with Governor Geary, who resigned, and Robert J.
       Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed in his stead. A
       resolution was passed by the House [in Congress] declaring the
       Acts of the Territorial Legislature cruel, oppressive,
       illegal, and void. It was tabled by the Senate." A new
       Congress met December 7th, 1857, "with a Democratic majority
       in both branches. In the House, James L. Orr, of South
       Carolina, a Democrat, was chosen Speaker. The debates of this
       Session were mainly upon the last scene in the Kansas
       struggle. Governor Walker had succeeded in persuading the Free
       State settlers to recognize the Territorial Legislature so far
       as to take part in the election which it had ordered. The
       result gave them control of the Legislature. But a previously
       elected Pro-Slavery Convention, sitting at Lecompton, went on
       to form a State Constitution. This was to be submitted to the
       people, but only votes 'For the Constitution with Slavery,' or
       'For the Constitution without Slavery,' were to be received.
       Not being allowed in either event to vote against the
       Constitution, the Free State settlers refused to vote at all,
       and the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery received 6,000
       majority. The new Territorial Legislature, however, ordered an
       election at which the people could vote for or against the
       Lecompton Constitution, and a majority of 10,000 was cast
       against it. … The President's Message argued in favor of
       receiving Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution
       with Slavery, on the ground that the delegates had been chosen
       to form a State Constitution, and were not obligated to submit
       it to the people at all. This view was supported by the
       Southern members of Congress, and opposed by the Republicans
       and by a part of the Democrats, headed by Senator Douglas, of
       Illinois. The Senate passed a bill admitting Kansas as a
       State, under the Lecompton Constitution. The House passed the
       bill, with the proviso that the Constitution should again be
       submitted to a popular vote. The Senate rejected the proviso.
       A conference committee recommended that the bill of the House
       should be adopted, with an additional proviso making large
       grants of public lands to the new State, if the people of
       Kansas should vote to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. In
       this form the bill was passed by both Houses, and became a
       law. … The proffered inducement of public lands was a
       failure, and in August the Lecompton Constitution was rejected
       by 10,000 majority. Kansas, therefore, still remained a
       Territory. In 1859, at an election called by the Territorial
       Legislature, the people decided in favor of another Convention
       to form a State Constitution. This body met at Wyandot, in
       July, 1859, and adopted a State Constitution prohibiting
       Slavery. The Wyandot Constitution was submitted to the people
       and received a majority of 4,000 in its favor;" but Congress
       refused the admission to Kansas under this Constitution, the
       Senate rejecting, though the House approved.

          A. Johnston,
          History of American Politics,
          chapters 18-19.

          ALSO IN:
          D. W. Wilder,
          Annals of Kansas (containing the text of the several
          Constitutions, etc.).

          E. E. Hale,
          Kansas and Nebraska,
          chapters 8-9.

          S. T. L. Robinson,
          Kansas

          J. H. Gihon,
          Governor Geary's Administration in Kansas.

          F. B. Sanborn,
          Life and Letters of John Brown,
          chapters 7-11.

          Reports of Select Committee,
          (34th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report 200).

          J. F. Rhodes,
          History of the United States from 1850,
          chapters 7-9 (volume 2).

          C. Robinson,
          The Kansas Conflict.

          See, also, JAYHAWKERS.

    {1938}

    KANSAS: A. D. 1861.
       Admission to the Union under the Wyandot Constitution.

       "As soon as a sufficient number of Southern members of
       Congress [from the seceding States] had withdrawn to give the
       Republicans a majority in both Houses, Kansas was admitted as
       a State [January 29, 1861] under the Wyandot Free State
       Constitution."

          A. Johnston,
          History of American Politics,
          2d edition, page 185.

    KANSAS: A. D. 1863.
       Quantrell's guerrilla raid.
       The sacking of Lawrence.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

       ----------KANSAS: End----------

    KANSAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    KAPOHN, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

    KAPOLNA, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    KAPPEL, Battle of (1531).
       The Kappeler Milchsuppe.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

    KARA GEORG, The career of.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

    KARAISM.
    KARAITES.

       The Jewish sect of the Karaites originated in the teaching of
       one Anan ben David, in the 8th century, whose radical doctrine
       was the rejection of the Talmud and a return to the Bible "for
       the ordering of religious life." Hence "the system of religion
       which Anan founded received the name of the Religion of the
       Text, or Karaism,"

          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 23.

    KARAKORUM.

       The early capital of the Mongol empire of Jingis Khan and his
       successors was at Karakorum, believed to have been situated
       near the river Orkhon, or Orgon. Ogotai built a great palace
       there, in 1235, called Ordu Balik, or the city of the Ordu.

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          volume 1. pages 155 and 182.

          See, also,
          MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

    KARANKAWAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KARANKAWAN FAMILY.

    KARIGAUM, Defense of (1817).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

    KARKAR, Battle of.

       Fought B. C. 854, by Shalmaneser of Assyria, with the
       confederate, kings of Damascus, Israel and their Syrian
       neighbors; the latter defeated.

    KARL.

          See ETHEL.—ETHELING.

    KARLINGS, OR CARLINGS.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

    KARLOWITZ, OR CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

    KARLSBAD, OR CARLSBAD, Congress of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

    KARMATHIANS, The.

          See CARMATHIANS.

    KARNATTAH.

       The Moorish name of Granada, signifying "the cream of the
       West."

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

    KAROKS, OR CAHROCS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

    KAROLINGIA AND KAROLINGIANS.

          See CAROLINGIA; and FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

       ----------KARS: Start--------

    KARS: A. D. 1854-1856.
       Siege and capture by the Russians.
       Restoration to Turkey.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855 and 1854-1856.

    KARS: A. D. 1877.
       Siege and capture by the Russians.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

    KARS: A. D. 1878.
       Cession to Russia.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1878 THE TREATIES.

       ----------KARS: End--------

    KASDIM, OR CASDIM.

          See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

       ----------KASHMERE: Start--------

    KASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.
       Conquest by Runjet Singh.

          See SIKHS.

    KASHMERE: A. D. 1846.

       Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
       Gholab Singh.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

       ----------KASHMERE: Start--------

       ----------KASKASKIA: Start--------

    KASKASKIA, French settlement of.

          See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.

    KASKASKIA: A. D. 1778.
       Taken by the Virginian General Clark.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

       ----------KASKASKIA: End----------

    KASKASKIAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    KASSOPIANS.

          See EPIRUS.

    KATABA, OR CATAWBAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY,
          and, SIOUAN FAMILY.

    KATANA, Naval Battle of.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

    KATZBACH, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

    KAUS, OR KWOKWOOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

    KAWS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    KAZAN, The Khanate of.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

    KEARNEYITES.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

    KEARNEY'S EXPEDITION AND CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO.

          See NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

    KEDAR, Tribe of.

       "The Arabs of the tribe of Kedar are often mentioned in the
       Bible, especially with reference to the trade with Phœnicia.
       They furnished the caravans across the desert of Dahna, to
       convey the merchandise of Hadramaut, Marah, and Oman to Syria.
       They inhabited the southern portion of Yemama, on the borders
       of the desert."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
          book 7, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

    KEECHIES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    KEEHEETSAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    KEEWATIN, District of.

       "In 1876 an act was passed by the Dominion Parliament [Canada]
       erecting into a separate government under the name of the
       District of Keewatin the portion of the North-West Territory
       lying to the north of Manitoba. The district contains about
       395,000 acres, and is principally occupied by Icelandic
       colonists. The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is ex-officio
       Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin."

          J. E. C. Munro,
          The Constitution of Canada,
          page 35.

    {1939}

    KEFT.

          The ancient Egyptian name of Phœnicia.

       ----------KEHL: Start--------

    KEHL: A. D. 1703.
       Taken by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

    KEHL: A. D. 1733.
       Taken by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

       ----------KEHL: End--------

    KEITH, George, The schism and the controversies of.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

    KELLY'S FORD, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    KELTS, The.

          See CELTS, THE.

    KEM, OR KAMI, OR KHEMI.

          See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

    KENAI, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET,
          and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

    KENDALL, Amos, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

    KENESAW MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

    KENITES, The.

          See AMALEKITES, THE.

    KENT, Kingdom of.

       Formed by the Jutes in the southeast corner of Britain. The
       only other settlement of the Jutes in England was in the Isle
       of Wight and on the neighboring coast of Hampshire.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

    KENT, Weald of.

          See ANDERIDA.

    KENT'S HOLE.

       One of the most noted of the caves which have been carefully
       explored for relics of early man, coeval with extinct animals.
       It is in Devonshire, England, near Torquay.

          W. B. Dawkins,
          Cave Hunting.

       ----------KENTUCKY: Start----------

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1748.
       First English exploration from Virginia.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.
       Absence of Indian inhabitants.
       Early exploration and settlement by the whites.
       The colony of Transylvania.

       In the wars that were waged between the Indian tribes of the
       South, before the advent of white settlers, Kentucky became "a
       sort of border-land such as separated the Scots and English in
       their days of combat. … The Chickasaws alone held their
       ground, being the most northern of the sedentary Southern
       Indians. Their strongholds on the bluffs of the Mississippi
       and the inaccessibility of this country on account of its
       deep, sluggish, mud-bordered streams, seem to have given them
       a sufficient measure of protection against their enemies, but
       elsewhere in the State the Indians were rooted out by their
       wars. The last tenants of the State, east of the Tennessee
       River, were the Shawnees,—that combative folk who ravaged
       this country with their ceaseless wars from the head-waters of
       the Tennessee to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to
       Alabama. It was no small advantage to the early settlers of
       Kentucky that they found this region without a resident Indian
       population, for, bitter as was the struggle with the claimants
       of the soil, it never had the danger that would have come from
       a contest with the natives in closer proximity to their homes.
       … As Kentucky was unoccupied by the Indians, it was
       neglected by the French. … Thus the first settlers found
       themselves, in the main, free from these dangers due to the
       savages and their Gallic allies. The land lay more open to
       their occupancy than any other part of this country ever did
       to its first European comers. … In 1765 Colonel George
       Croghan, who had previously visited the Ohio with Gist, made a
       surveying journey down that stream from Pittsburg to the
       Mississippi. … In 1766 a party of five persons, including a
       mulatto slave, under the command of Captain James Smith,
       explored a large part of what is now Tennessee, and probably
       extended their journey through Southern Kentucky. Journeys to
       Kentucky now became frequent. Every year sent one or more
       parties of pioneers to one part or another of the country. In
       1769 Daniel Boone and five companions, all from the Yadkin
       settlements in North Carolina, came to Eastern Kentucky. One
       of the party was killed, but Boone remained, while his
       companions returned to their homes. Thus it will be seen that
       Boone's first visit was relatively late in the history of
       Kentucky explorations. Almost every part of its surface had
       been traversed by other explorers before this man, who passes
       in history as the typical pioneer, set foot upon its ground.
       In the time between 1770 and 1772 George Washington, then a
       land-surveyor, made two surveys in the region which is now the
       northeast corner of Kentucky. … The first distinct effort to
       found a colony was made by James Harrod and about forty
       companions, who found their way down the Ohio near to where
       Louisville now stands, and thence by land to what is now
       Mercer County, in Central Kentucky, where they established, on
       June 16, 1774, a village which they called, in honor of their
       leader, Harrodsburg. Earlier attempts at settlement were made
       at Louisville, but the fear of Indians caused the speedy
       abandonment of this post. … In 1775 other and stronger
       footholds were gained. Boone built a fort in what is now
       Madison County, and Logan another at St. Asaphs, in Lincoln
       County. The settlement of Kentucky was greatly favored by the
       decisive victory gained by Lord Dunmore's troops over the
       Indians from the north of the Ohio, at the mouth of the
       Kanawha.

          See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1774.

       … That the process of possessing the land was going on with
       speed may be seen from the fact that Henderson and Company,
       land-agents at Boonesborough, issued from their office in the
       new-built fort entry certificates of surveys for 560,000 acres
       of land. The process of survey was of the rudest kind, but it
       served the purpose of momentary definition of the areas, made
       it possible to deal with the land as a commodity, and left the
       tribulations concerning boundaries to the next generation.
       These land deeds were given as of the 'colony of
       Transylvania,' which was in fact the first appellation of
       Kentucky, a name by which it was known for several years
       before it received its present appellation. At this time, the
       last year that the work of settling Kentucky was done under
       the authority of his majesty King George III., there were
       probably about 150 men who had placed themselves in
       settlements that were intended to be permanent within the
       bounds of what is now the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There may
       have been as many more doing the endless exploring work which
       preceded the choice of a site for their future homes. The men
       at Boone's Station claimed, and seem to have been awarded, a
       sort of hegemony among the settlements.
    {1940}
       On the 23d of May, at the call of Colonel Henderson, the
       land-agent of the proprietors, delegates from these
       settlements met at Boonesborough, and drew up a brief code of
       nine laws for the government of the young Commonwealth. …
       The Boonesborough parliament adjourned to meet in September,
       but it never reassembled. The venture which led to its
       institution fell altogether to ruin, and the name of
       Transylvania has been almost entirely forgotten. … The
       colony of Transylvania rested on a purchase of about
       17,000,000 acres, or about one half the present area of
       Kentucky, which was made by some people of North Carolina from
       the Overhill Cherokee Indians, a part of the great tribe that
       dwelt on the Holston River. For this land the unfortunate
       adventurers paid the sum of £10,000 of English money. …
       Immediately after the Boonesborough parliament the position of
       the Transylvania company became very insecure; its own people
       began to doubt the validity of the titles they had obtained
       from the company, because, after a time, they learned from
       various sources that the lands of this region of Kentucky had
       been previously ceded to the English government by the Six
       Nations, and were included in the Virginia charter. In the
       latter part of 1775, eighty men of the Transylvania settlement
       signed a memorial asking to be taken under the protection of
       Virginia; or, if that colony thought it best, that their
       petition might be referred to the General Congress. … The
       proprietors of the colony made their answer to this rebellion
       by sending a delegate to the Federal Congress at Philadelphia,
       who was to request that the colony of Transylvania be added to
       the number of the American colonies. … Nothing came of this
       protest. Congress refused to seat their delegate, Patrick
       Henry and Jefferson, then representing Virginia, opposing the
       efforts of the proprietors. The Governor of North Carolina
       issued a proclamation declaring their purchase illegal. The
       colony gradually fell to pieces, though the State of Virginia
       took no decided action with reference to it until, in 1778,
       that Commonwealth declared the acts of the company void, but,
       in a generous spirit, offered compensation to Colonel
       Henderson and the other adventurers. The Transylvania company
       received 200,000 acres of valuable lands, and their sales to
       actual settlers were confirmed by an act of the Virginia
       Assembly. Thus the strongest, though not the first, colony of
       Kentucky, was a misadventure and quickly fell to pieces."

          N. S. Shaler,
          Kentucky,
          chapters 5-7.

          ALSO IN;
          T. Roosevelt,
          The Winning of the West,
          volume 1, chapters 6 and 8-12.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1768.
       The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
       Pretended cession of the country south of the Ohio.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1774.
       The western Territorial claims of Virginia.
       Lord Dunmore's war with the Indians.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
       A county of Virginia.
       Indian warfare of the Revolution.
       Aspirations towards State independence.

       "In the winter of 1775 Kentucky was formed into a county of
       Virginia. … About this time Harrodsburg, Boonesborough and
       Logan's Fort were successively assailed by the Indians. They
       withstood the furious attacks made upon them; not, however,
       without great loss. During the succeeding summer they were
       considerably reinforced by a number of men from North
       Carolina, and about 100 under Colonel Bowman from Virginia. In
       1778 Kentucky was invaded by an army of Indians and Canadians
       under the command of Captain Duquesne; and the expedition of
       Colonel George Rodgers Clark against the English post of
       Vincennes and Kaskaskia took place this year. In February of
       this year Boone, with about 30 men, was engaged in making salt
       at the Lower Blue Licks, when he was surprised by about 200
       Indians. The whole party surrendered upon terms of
       capitulation. The Indians carried them to Detroit, and
       delivered them all up to the commandant, except Boone, whom
       they carried to Chilicothe. Boone soon effected his escape.
       … After … some weeks … Captain Duquesne, with about 500
       Indians and Canadians, made his appearance before
       Boonesborough, and besieged the fort for the space of nine
       days, but finally decamped with the loss of 30 men killed, and
       a much greater number wounded. … About the first of April,
       1779, Robert Patterson erected a block house, with some
       adjacent defenses, where the city of Lexington now stands.
       This year, the celebrated land law of Kentucky was passed by
       the Legislature of Virginia, usually called the Occupying
       Claimant Law. The great defect of this law was, that Virginia,
       by this act, did not provide for the survey of the country at
       the expense of the State. … Each one holding a warrant could
       locate it where he pleased, and survey it at his own cost. …
       The consequence of this law was … a flood of emigration
       during the years 1780 and 1781. During this period the
       emigrants were greatly annoyed by the frequent incursions of
       the Indians, and their entire destruction sometimes seemed
       almost inevitable. This law was a great feast for the lawyers
       of that day. … In November, 1780, Kentucky was divided into
       three counties, bearing the names of Fayette, Lincoln, and
       Jefferson. … In 1782, Indian hostility was earlier, more
       active and shocking than it had ever been in the country
       before; a great battle was fought upon Hinkston's Fork of the
       Licking, near where Mount Sterling now stands, in which the
       Indians were victorious. In this battle, Estill, who commanded
       the whites, and nearly all of his officers, were killed. Near
       the Blue Licks another battle was soon afterwards fought with
       Captain Holder, in which the whites were again defeated; in
       both these last mentioned battles the contending foe were
       Wyandottes. … Peace was made with Great Britain in 1783, and
       hostilities ceased; hostilities with the Indians also for a
       time seemed suspended, but were soon renewed with greater
       violence than ever. During the cessation of hostilities with
       the Indians, settlements in Kentucky advanced rapidly. … As
       early as 1784 the people of Kentucky became strongly impressed
       with the necessity of the organization of a regular
       government, and gaining admission into the Union as a separate
       and independent State; but their efforts were continually
       perplexed and baffled for the space of eight years before
       their desire was fully accomplished. And though they were
       often tempted by Spain with the richest gifts of fortune if
       she would declare herself an independent State, and although
       the Congress of the Confederated States continually turned a
       deaf ear to her reiterated complaints and grievances, and
       repulsed her in every effort to obtain constitutional
       independence, she maintained to the last the highest respect
       for law and order, and the most unswerving affection for the
       Government. … With the view to admission into the Union as
       an independent State, there were elected and held nine
       Conventions in Kentucky within the space of eight years."

          W. B. Allen,
          History of Kentucky,
          chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. M. Brown,
          Political Beginnings of Kentucky.

    {1941}

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1778-1779.
       Conquest of the Northwest by the Virginian General Clark, and
       its annexation to the Kentucky District.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1781-1784.
       Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia and New York and
       their cession to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1785-1800.
       The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi.
       Discontent of the settlers.
       Intrigues of Wilkinson.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.
       Separation from Virginia and admission to the Union as a
       State.

       "In the last days of the Continental Congress, Virginia, after
       some struggles, having reluctantly consented to her
       organization on that condition as an independent state,
       Kentucky had applied to that body for admission into the
       confederacy. That application had been referred to the new
       federal government about to be organized, a delay which had
       made it necessary to recommence proceedings anew; for the
       Virginia Assembly had fixed a limitation of time, which, being
       over-past, drove back the separatists to the original
       starting-point. On a new application to the Virginia
       Legislature, a new act had authorized a new Convention, being
       the third held on that subject: to take the question of
       separating into consideration. But this act had imposed some
       new terms not at all agreeable to the Kentuckians, of which
       the principal was the assumption by the new state of a portion
       of the Virginia debt, on the ground of expenses incurred by
       recent expeditions against the Indians. The Convention which
       met under this act proceeded no further than to vote a
       memorial to the Virginia Legislature requesting the same terms
       formerly offered. That request was granted, and a fourth
       Convention was authorized again to consider the question of
       separation, and, should that measure be still persisted in, to
       fix the day when it should take place. Having met during the
       last summer [1790], this Convention had voted unanimously in
       favor of separation; had fixed the first day of June, 1792, as
       the time; and had authorized the meeting of a fifth Convention
       to frame a state Constitution. In anticipation of these
       results, an act of Congress was, now passed [February 4, 1791]
       admitting Kentucky into the Union from and after the day above
       mentioned, not only without any inspection of the state
       Constitution, but before any such Constitution had been
       actually formed." In the Constitution subsequently framed for
       the new state of Kentucky, by the Convention appointed as
       above, an article on the subject of slavery "provided that the
       Legislature should have no power to pass laws for the
       emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners,
       nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a
       full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from
       bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of anyone
       of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and
       description should be continued in slavery by the laws of
       Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the
       introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws
       to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          volume 4, chapters 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. M. Brown,
          The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1790-1795.
       War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
       Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
       decisive victory.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1798.
       The Nullifying resolutions.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (January-September).
       The struggle with Secession and its defeat.
       "Neutrality" ended.

       "In the days when personal leadership was more than it can
       ever be again, while South Carolina was listening to the
       teachings of John C. Calhoun, which led her to try the
       experiment of secession, Kentucky was following Henry Clay,
       who, though a slave-holder, was a strong Unionist. The
       practical effect was seen when the crisis came, after he had
       been in his grave nine years. Governor Beriah Magoffin
       convened the Legislature in January, 1861, and asked it to
       organize the militia, buy muskets, and put the State in a
       condition of armed neutrality; all of which it refused to do.
       After the fall of Fort Sumter he called the Legislature
       together again, evidently hoping that the popular excitement
       would bring them over to his scheme. But the utmost that could
       be accomplished was the passage of a resolution by the lower
       house (May 16) declaring that Kentucky should occupy 'a
       position of strict neutrality,' and approving his refusal to
       furnish troops for the National army. Thereupon he issued a
       proclamation (May 20) in which he 'notified and warned all
       other States, separate or united, especially the United and
       Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon
       Kentucky soil.' But two days later the Legislature repudiated
       this interpretation of neutrality, and passed a series of acts
       intended to prevent any scheme of secession that might be
       formed. It appropriated $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition,
       but placed the disbursement of the money and control of the
       arms in the hands of Commissioners that were all Union men. It
       amended the militia law so as to require the State Guards to
       take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,
       and finally the Senate passed a resolution declaring that
       'Kentucky will not sever connection with the National
       Government, nor take up arms with either belligerent party.'
       Lovell H. Rousseau (afterward a gallant General in the
       National service), speaking in his place in the Senate, said:
       'The politicians are having their day; the people will yet
       have theirs. I have an abiding confidence in the right, and I
       know that this secession movement is all wrong. There is not a
       single substantial reason for it; our Government had never
       oppressed us with a feather's weight.' The Rev. Robert J.
       Breckinridge and other prominent citizens took a similar
       stand, and a new Legislature, chosen in August, presented a
       Union majority of three to one.
    {1942}
       As a last resort, Governor Magoffin addressed a letter to
       President Lincoln, requesting that Kentucky's neutrality be
       respected and the National forces removed from the State. Mr.
       Lincoln, in refusing his request, courteously reminded him
       that the force consisted exclusively of Kentuckians, and told
       him that he had not met any Kentuckian except himself and the
       messengers that brought his letter who wanted it removed. To
       strengthen the first argument, Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter
       fame, who was a citizen of Kentucky, was made a General and
       given the command in the State in September. Two months later,
       a secession convention met at Russellville, in the southern
       part of the State, organized a provisional government, and
       sent a full delegation to the Confederate Congress at
       Richmond, who found no difficulty in being admitted to seats
       in that body. Being now firmly supported by the new
       Legislature, the National Government began to arrest prominent
       Kentuckians who still advocated secession, whereupon others,
       including ex-Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, fled
       southward and entered the service of the Confederacy. Kentucky
       as a State was saved to the Union, but the line of separation
       was drawn between her citizens, and she contributed to the
       ranks of both the great contending armies."

          R. Johnson,
          Short History of the War of Secession,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          N. S. Shaler,
          Kentucky,
          chapter 15.

          E. P. Thompson,
          History of First Kentucky Brigade,
          chapter 2.

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Governor Magoffin's reply to President Lincoln's call for
       troops.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (January-February).
       Expulsion of Confederate armies along the whole line.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (August-October).
       Bragg's invasion.
       Buell's pursuit.
       Battle of Perryville.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

    KENTUCKY: A. D. 1863 (July).
       John Morgan's Raid.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

       ----------KENTUCKY: End----------

    KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

    KENYER-MESÖ, Battle of (1479).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

    KERAÏT, The.

          See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

    KERAMEIKOS, The.

          See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

    KERBELA, The Moslem tragedy at.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

    KERESAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KERESAN FAMILY.

    KERESTES, OR CERESTES, Battle of (1596).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

    KERMENT, Battle of (1664).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

    KERNE.

          See RAPPAREES.

    KERNSTOWN, Battles of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA);
          and 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

    KERTCH, Attack on (1855).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

    KERYKES, The.

          See PHYLÆ.

    KESSELSDORF, Battle of (1745).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

    KEYNTON, OR EDGEHILL, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    KEYSERWERTH, Siege and storming of (1702).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

    KHAJAR DYNASTY, The.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

    KHALIF.

          See CALIPH.

    KHALSA, The.

          See SIKHS;
          also, INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845, and 1845-1849.

    KHAN.
    KHAGAN.

       "'Khan' is the modern contracted form of the word which is
       found in the middle ages as 'Khagan,' or 'Chagan,' and in the
       Persian and Arabic writers as 'Khakan' or 'Khacan.' Its
       original root is probably the 'Khak,' which meant King' in
       ancient Susianian, in Ethiopic ('Tirhakah'), and in Egyptian
       ('Hyk-sos')."

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 14, foot-note.

    KHAR, OR KHARU, The.

       "The term Khar in Egyptian texts appears to apply to the
       inhabitants of that part of Syria generally known as Phœnicia,
       and seems to be derived from the Semitic Akharu, 'the back' or
       'west.'"

          C. R. Conder,
          Syrian Stone Lore,
          chapter 1.

    KHAREJITES, The.

       A democratical party among the Mahometans, which first took
       form during the Caliphate of Ali, A. D. 657. The name given to
       the party, Kharejites, signified those who "go forth"—that is
       in secession and rebellion. It was their political creed that,
       "believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph,
       nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the
       government should be in the hands of a Council of State
       elected by the people." Ali attacked and dispersed the
       Kharejites, in a battle at Nehrwan, A. D. 658; but they
       continued for a long period to give trouble to succeeding
       Caliphs.

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapters 40 and 42, with foot-note.

    KHARTANI, Tragedy of the Cave of.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

    KHARTOUM, The Mahdi's siege of.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

    KHAZARS, OR CHAZARS, OR KHOZARS, The.

       "This important people, now heard of for the first time in
       Persian history [late in the fifth century of the Christian
       era], appears to have occupied, in the reign of Kobad, the
       steppe country between the Wolga and the Don, whence they made
       raids through the passes of the Caucasus into the fertile
       provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whether they were
       Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has been
       ingeniously argued by a living writer [H. H. Howorth], is
       doubtful; but we cannot be mistaken in regarding them as at
       this time a race of fierce and terrible barbarians."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 18.

       "After the fall of the Persian empire [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
       A. D. 632-651], they [the Khazars, or Chazars] crossed the
       Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean
       peninsula, which bore the name of Chazaria for some time. The
       Byzantine emperors trembled at the name of the Chazars, and
       flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain
       their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians,
       and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the
       people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to
       furnish them every year with a sword, and fine skins from
       every fur hunt.
    {1943}
       With the Arabs, whose near neighbours they gradually became,
       they carried on terrible wars. Like their neighbours, the
       Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse
       religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The
       Chazars became acquainted with Islamism and Christianity
       through the Arabs and Greeks. … There were also Jews in the
       land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives who had
       escaped (723) the mania for conversion which possessed the
       Byzantine Emperor Leo. … As interpreters or merchants,
       physicians or counsellors, the Jews were known and beloved by
       the Chazarian court, and they inspired the warlike Bulan with
       a love of Judaism. … It is possible that the circumstances
       under which the Chazars embraced Judaism have been embellished
       by legend, but the fact itself is too definitely proved on all
       sides to allow of there being any doubt as to its reality.
       Besides Bulan, the nobles of his kingdom, numbering nearly
       4,000, adopted the Jewish religion. Little by little it made
       its way among the people, so that most of the inhabitants of
       the towns of the Chazarian kingdom were Jews. … A successor
       of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first
       to occupy himself earnestly with the Jewish religion. He …
       founded synagogues and schools. … After Obadiah came a long
       series of Jewish Chagans, for according to a fundamental law
       of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the
       throne."

          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

    KHEDIVE.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

    KHEMI, OR KEM.

          See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

    KHITA, The.

          See HITTITES, THE.

    KHITAI.
    KHITANS, The.

          See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

    KHIVA.

          See KHUAREZM.

    KHODYA.

          See SUBLIME PORTE.

    KHOKAND,
       Russian conquest of the Khanate of (1876).

          See. RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

    KHONDS, The.

          See TURANIAN RACES.

      ----------KHORASSAN: Start--------

    KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
       Conquest and destruction by the Mongols.

       In the autumn of A. D. 1220, one division of the armies of
       Jingis Khan, commanded by his son Tului, poured into
       Khorassan. "Khorassan was then one of the richest and most
       prosperous regions on the earth's surface; its towns were very
       thickly inhabited, and it was the first and most powerful
       province of Persia. The Mongol invasion altered all this, and
       the fearful ravage and destruction then committed is almost
       incredible." On the capture of the city of Nessa the
       inhabitants were tied together with cords and then massacred
       in a body—70,000 men, women and children together—by
       shooting them with arrows. At Meru (modern Merv) the wholesale
       massacre was repeated on a vastly larger scale, the corpses
       numbering 700,000, according to one account, 1,300,000
       according to another. Even this was exceeded at Nishapoor
       ("city of Sapor"), the ancient capital of Khorassan. "To
       prevent the living hiding beneath the dead, Tului ordered
       every head to be cut off, and separate heaps to be made of
       men's, women's, and children's heads. The destruction of the
       city occupied fifteen days; it was razed to the ground, and
       its site was sown with barley; only 400 artisans escaped, and
       they were transported into the north. According to Mirkhond
       1,747,000 men lost their lives in this massacre." The
       destroying army of demons and savages moved on to Herat, then
       a beautiful city surrounded by villages and gardens. It
       surrendered, and only 12,000 of its soldiers were slain at
       that time; but a few months later, upon news of a defeat
       suffered by the Mongols, Herat rebelled, and brought down upon
       itself a most terrible doom. Captured once more, after a siege
       of six months, the city experienced no mercy. "For a whole
       week the Mongols ceased not to kill, burn, and destroy, and it
       is said that 1,600,000 people were killed; the place was
       entirely depopulated and made desert." At Bamian, in the Hindu
       Kush, "every living creature, including animals and plants as
       well as human beings, was destroyed; a heap of slain was piled
       up like a mountain."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, pages 86-91.

    KHORASSAN: A. D. 1380.
       Conquest by Timour.

          See TIMOUR.

      ----------KHORASSAN: End--------

    KHOTZIM.

       See CHOCZIM.

    KHOULIKOF, Battle of (1383).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

      ----------KHUAREZM: Start--------

    KHUAREZM, OR CHORASMIA (modern Khiva).

       "The extensive and fertile oasis in the midst of the sandy
       deserts of Central Asia, known in these days as the Khanat of
       Khiva, was called by the Greeks Chorasmia and by the Arabs
       Khwarezm [or Khuarezm]. The Chorasmians were of the Aryan
       race, and their contingent to the army of Xerxes was equipped
       precisely in the Bactrian fashion. It is probable that
       Chorasmia formed a portion of the short-lived Greco-Bactrian
       monarchy, and it certainly passed under the domination of the
       White Huns, from whom it was subsequently wrested by the
       Toorks."

          J. Hutton,
          Central Asia,
          chapter 10.

    KHUAREZM: 12th Century.
       The Khuarezmian, or Khahrezmian,
       or Korasmian, or Carizmian Empire.

       "The sovereigns of Persia were in the habit of purchasing
       young Turks, who were captured by the various frontier tribes
       in their mutual struggles, and employing them in their
       service. They generally had a body guard formed of them, and
       many of them were enfranchised and rose to posts of high
       influence, and in many cases supplanted their masters. The
       founder of the Khuarezmian power was such a slave, named
       Nushtekin, in the service of the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah. He
       rose to the position of a Teshtedar or chamberlain, which
       carried with it the government of the province of Khuarezm,
       that is of the fertile valley of the Oxus and the wide steppes
       on either side of it, bounded on the west by the Caspian and
       on the east by Bukharia." The grandson of Nushtekin became
       virtually independent of the Seljuk sultan, and the two next
       succeeding princes began and completed the overthrow of the
       Seljuk throne. The last Seljuk sultan, Togrul III., was slain
       in battle, A. D. 1193, by Takish or Tokush, the Khuarezmian
       ruler, who sent his head to the Caliph at Bagdad and was
       formally invested by the Caliph with the sovereignty of
       Khorassan, Irak Adjem and other parts of the Persian domain
       not occupied by the Atabegs and the Assassins. Takish's son
       extended his conquests in Transoxiana and Turkestan (A. D.
       1209), and acquired Samarkand, which he made his capital. "He
       controlled an army of 400,000 men, and his dominions, at the
       invasion of the Mongols, stretched from the Jaxartes to the
       Persian Gulf, and from the Indus to the Irak Arab and
       Azerbaidjan."

          H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, pages 7-8.

    {1944}

    KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.
       Destruction by the Mongols.

       In May, 1220, the Mongol army of Jingis Khan marched upon
       Urgendj, or Khuarezm—the original capital of the empire of
       Khuarezm, to which it gave its name. That city, which is
       represented by the modern Khiva, was "the capital of the rich
       cluster of cities that then bordered the Oxus, a river very
       like the Nile in forming a strip of green across two sandy
       deserts which bound it on either hand." The Mongols were
       commanded, at first, by the three elder sons of Jingis Khan:
       but two of them quarreled, and the siege was protracted
       through six months without much progress being made. Jingis
       then placed the youngest son, Ogotai, in charge of operations,
       and they were carried forward more vigorously. "The Mongols at
       length assaulted the town, fired its buildings with naptha,
       and after seven days of desperate street-fighting captured it.
       This was probably in December, 1220. They sent the artisans
       and skilled workmen into Tartary, set aside the young women
       and children as slaves, and then made a general massacre of
       the rest of the inhabitants. They destroyed the city, and then
       submerged it by opening the dykes of the Oxus. The ruins are
       probably those now known as Old Urgendj. Rasehid says that
       over 100,000 artisans and craftsmen were sent into Mongolia."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, page 85.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Hutton,
          Central Asia,
          chapter 4.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

    KHUAREZM: A. D. 1873.
       Conquest by the Russians.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

      ----------KHUAREZM: End--------

    KHUAREZMIANS IN JERUSALEM, The.

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

    KICHES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, QUICHES, and MAYAS.

    KICKAPOO INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ALGONQUIAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    KIEFT, Governor William, Administration of.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

    KIEL, Peace of.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.

       ----------KIEV: Start--------

    KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 882.
       Capital of the Russian state.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

    KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 1240.
       Destroyed by the Mongols.

       In December, 1240, the Mongols, pursuing their devastating
       march through Russia, reached Kiev. It was then a famous city,
       known among the Russians as "the mother of cities,
       magnificently placed on the high banks of the Dnieper, with
       its white walls, its beautiful gardens, and its thirty
       churches, with their gilded cupolas, which gave it its pretty
       Tartar name, Altundash Khan (i. e., the court of the Golden
       Heads): it was the metropolitan city of the old Russian
       princes, the seat of the chief patriarch of all Russia. It had
       latterly, namely, in 1204, suffered from the internal broils
       of the Russian princes, and had been much plundered and burnt.
       It was now to be for a while erased altogether." Kiev was
       taken by storm and the inhabitants "slaughtered without mercy:
       the very bones were torn from the tombs and trampled under the
       horses' hoofs. … The magnificent city, with the ancient
       Byzantine treasures which it contained, was destroyed." During
       the 14th and 15th centuries Kiev seems to have remained in
       ruins, and the modern city is said to be "but a shadow of its
       former self."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          volume 1, pages 141-142. (1876)

       ----------KIEV: End--------

    KILIDSCH.

          See TIMAR.

    KILIKIA.

          See CILICIA.

    KILKENNY, The Statute of.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.

    KILKENNY ARTICLES, The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1652.

    KILLIECRANKIE, Battle of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (JULY).

    KILPATRICK'S RAID TO RICHMOND.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

    KILSYTH, Battle of (1645).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

    KIMON, Peace of.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

    KINBURN, Battle of (1787).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    KINDERGARTEN, The.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1816-1892.

    KING, Origin of the word.

       "Cyning, by contraction King, is closely connected with the
       word 'Cyn' or 'Kin.' … I do not feel myself called upon to
       decide whether Cyning is strictly the patronymic of 'cyn,' or
       whether it comes immediately from a cognate adjective (see
       Allen, Royal Prerogative, 176: Kemble, i. 153). It is enough
       if the two words are of the same origin, as is shown by a
       whole crowd of cognates, 'cynebarn,' 'cynecyn,' 'cynedom,'
       'cynehelm,' 'cynehlaford.' … (I copy from Mr. Earle's
       Glossarial Index.) In all these words 'cyn' has the meaning of
       'royal.' The modern High-Dutch König is an odd corruption: but
       the elder form is 'Chuninc.' The word has never had an English
       feminine: Queen is simply 'Cwen,' woman, wife. … The notion
       of the King being the 'canning' or 'cunning' man [is] an idea
       which could have occurred only to a mind on which all Teutonic
       philology was thrown away."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 3, section 1, and note L (volume 1).

    KING GEORGE'S WAR.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: 1745: and 1745-1748.

    KING MOVEMENT, The.

          See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.

    KING OF THE ROMANS.

          See ROMANS, KING OF THE.

    KING OF THE WOOD.

          See ARICIAN GROVE.

    KING PHILIP'S WAR.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675: 1675: and 1676-1678.

    KING WILLIAM'S WAR.

       The war in Europe, of "the Grand Alliance" against Louis XIV.
       of France, frequently called "the War of the League of
       Augsburg," extended to the American colonies of England and
       France, and received in the former the name of King William's
       War.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690;
          CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
          also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
          and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

    KING'S BENCH.

          See CURIA REGIS.

    {1945}

    KING'S COLLEGE.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

    KING'S HEAD CLUB.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

    KING'S MOUNTAIN, Battle of (1780).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

    KING'S PEACE, The.

       "The peace, as it was called, the primitive alliance for
       mutual good behaviour, for the performance and enforcement of
       rights and duties, the voluntary restraint of free society in
       its earliest form, was from the beginning of monarchy [in
       early England] under the protection of the king. … But this
       position is far from that of the fountain of justice and
       source of jurisdiction. The king's guarantee was not the sole
       safeguard of the peace; the hundred had its peace as well as
       the king; the king too had a distinct peace which like that of
       the church was not that of the country at large, a special
       guarantee for those who were under special protection. …
       When the king becomes the lord, patron and 'mundborh' of his
       whole people, they pass from the ancient national peace of
       which he is the guardian into the closer personal or
       territorial relation of which he is the source. The peace is
       now the king's peace. … The process by which the national
       peace became the king's peace is almost imperceptible; and it
       is very gradually that we arrive at the time at which all
       peace and law are supposed to die with the old king, and rise
       again at the proclamation of the new."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 7, section 72 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          G. E. Howard,
          On the Development of the King's Peace
          (Nebraska University Studies, volume 1, number 3).

          Sir F. Pollock,
          Oxford Lectures, 3.

          See, also, ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

      ----------KINGSTON, Canada: Start--------

    KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1673.
       The building of Fort Frontenac.
       La Salle's seigniory.

       In 1673, Count Frontenac, governor of Canada, personally
       superintended the construction of a fort on the north shore of
       Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Cataraqui, where the city of
       Kingston now stands, the site having been recommended by the
       explorer La Salle. The following year this fort, with
       surrounding lands to the extent of four leagues in front and
       half a league in depth, was granted in seigniory to La Salle,
       he agreeing to pay the cost of its construction and to
       maintain it at his own charge. He named the post Frontenac.

          F. Parkman,
          La Salle,
          chapter. 6.

    KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1758.
       Fort Frontenac taken by the English.

             See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

      ----------KINGSTON, Canada: End--------

    KINSALE, Battle of (1601).

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

    KINSTON, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

    KIOWAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KIOWAN FAMILY.

    KIPCHAKS, The.

       "The Kipchaks were called Comans by European writers. … The
       name Coman is derived no doubt from the river Kuma, the
       country about which was known to the Persians as Kumestan. …
       A part of their old country on the Kuma is still called Desht
       Kipchak, and the Kumuks, who have been pushed somewhat south
       by the Nogays, are, I believe, their lineal descendants.
       Others of their descendants no doubt remain also among the
       Krim Tartars. To the early Arab writers the Kipchaks were
       known as Gusses, a name by which we also meet with them in the
       Byzantine annals. This shows that they belonged to the great
       section of the Turks' known as the Gusses or Oghuz Turks. …
       They first invaded the country west of the Volga at the end of
       the ninth century, from which time till their final dispersal
       by the Mongols in the thirteenth century they were very
       persistent enemies of Russia. After the Mongol conquest it is
       very probable that they became an important element in the
       various tribes that made up the Golden Horde or Khanate of
       Kipchak."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, page 17.

          See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
          and RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

    KIRCH-DENKERN, OR WELLINGHAUSEN, Battle of (1761).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

    KIRGHIZ, Russian subjugation of the.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

    KIRIRI, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

    KIRK OF SCOTLAND.

       See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

    KIRKE'S LAMBS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

    KIRKI, Battle of (1817).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

    KIRKSVILLE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    KIRRHA.

          See DELPHI.

    KISSIA.

          See ELAM.

    KIT KAT CLUB, The.

          See CLUBS.

    KITCHEN CABINET, President Jackson's.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

    KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

       "Amongst the accumulations of Neolithic age which are thought
       by many archæologists to be oldest are the well-known
       'Kjökkenmödingr' or kitchen-middens of Denmark. These are
       heaps and mounds composed principally of shells of edible
       molluscs, of which the most abundant are oyster, cockle,
       mussel, and periwinkle. Commingled with the shells occur bones
       of mammals, birds, and fish in less or greater abundance, and
       likewise many implements of stone, bone, and horn, together
       with potsherds. The middens are met with generally near the
       coast, and principally on the shores of the Lymfjord and the
       Kattegat; they would appear, indeed, never to be found on the
       borders of the North Sea. They form mounds or banks that vary
       in height from 3 or 5 feet up to 10 feet, with a width of 150
       to 200 feet, and a length of sometimes nearly 350 yards. …
       The Danish savants (Forchhammer, Steenstrupp, and Worsaae),
       who first examined these curious shell-mounds, came to the
       conclusion that they were the refuse-heaps which had
       accumulated round the dwellings of some ancient coast-tribe.
       … Shell-mounds of similar character occur in other
       countries."

          J. Geikie,
          Prehistoric Europe,
          chapter 15.

    KIT'S COTY HOUSE.

       The popular name of a conspicuous Cromlech or stone burial
       monument in Kent, England, near Addington.

    KITTIM.

       The Hebrew name of the island of Cyprus.

          See, also, JAVAN.

    KITUNAHAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KITUNAHAN FAMILY.

    KJÖKKENMÖDINGR.

          See KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

    {1946}

    KLAMATHS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

    KLEINE RATH, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

    KLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

    KLEOMENIC WAR, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

    KLERUCHS.

       "Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory
       [of the Athenians over the citizens of Chalkis, or Chalcis, in
       the island of Eubœa, B. C. 506—see ATHENS: B. C. 509-506].
       The Athenians planted a body of 4,000 of their citizens as
       Kleruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the
       wealthy Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ—proprietors
       probably in the fertile plain of Lelantum between Chalkis and
       Eretria. This is a system which we shall find hereafter
       extensively followed out by the Athenians in the days of their
       power; partly with the view of providing for their poorer
       citizens—partly to serve as garrison among a population
       either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These Attic Kleruchs
       (I can find no other name by which to speak of them) did not
       lose their birthright as Athenian citizens. They were not
       colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a
       totally different name—but they corresponded very nearly to
       the colonies formerly planted out on the conquered lands by
       Rome."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens,
          book 3, chapter 18.

          See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

    KLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER); and 1758.

    KNECHTE, The.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

    KNIGHT-SERVICE.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Orders of, and their modern imitations.
       Alcantara.

          See ALCANTARA.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       American Knights.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Avis.

          See AVIS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Bath.

          See BATH.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Black Eagle:
       A Prussian Order instituted by Frederick III., Elector of
       Brandenburg, in 1701.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Blue Ribbon.

          See SERAPHIM.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Brethren of Dobrin.

          See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Calatrava.

          See CALATRAVA.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Christ: a Papal Order, instituted by Pope John XXII., in 1319;
       also a Portuguese Order.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Crescent: instituted by René of Anjou, titular King of
       Naples, in 1448, but suppressed by Pope Paul II., in 1464;
       also a Turkish Order

          See CRESCENT.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Ecu.

          See BOURBON: THE HOUSE OF.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Elephant: a Danish Order, instituted in 1693, by King
       Christian V.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Garter.

          See GARTER.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Golden Circle.

          See GOLDEN CIRCLE.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Golden Fleece.

          See GOLDEN FLEECE.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Golden Horseshoe.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Golden Spur: instituted by Pope Paul III., in 1550.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Guelphs of Hanover.

          See GUELPHS OF HANOVER.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Holy Ghost.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Hospitallers.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Indian Empire: instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1878.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Iron Cross: a Prussian Order, instituted in 1815 by
       Frederick William III.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Iron Crown.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Legion of Honor.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Lion and the Sun: a Persian Order, instituted in 1808.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Lone Star.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Malta.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Maria Theresa.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       La Merced.

          See MERCED.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Mighty Host.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Our Lady of Montesa.

          See OUR LADY, &c.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Polar Star: a Swedish Order, of uncertain origin.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Rhodes.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Round Table.

          See ARTHUR, KING.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Andrew: a Scotch Order

          See ST. ANDREW;
          also a Russian Order, instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. George: a Russian Order, founded by Catharine II.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Gregory: an Order instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Jago or Santiago.

          See CALATRAVA.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. James of Compostella.

          See CALATRAVA.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Januarius: instituted by Charles, King of the Two
       Sicilies, in 1738.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. John.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. John of the Lateran: instituted in 1560, by Pope Pius IV.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Lazarus.

          See ST. LAZARUS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Louis.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Michael.

          See ST. MICHAEL.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Michael and St. George.

          See ST. MICHAEL, &c.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Patrick: instituted by George III. of England, in 1783.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Stephen.

          See ST. STEPHEN.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       St. Thomas of Acre.

          See ST. THOMAS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Santiago.

          See CALATRAVA.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Seraphim.

          See SERAPHIM.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Sons of Liberty.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Southern Cross.

          See SOUTHERN CROSS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Star.

          See STAR.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Star of India.

          See STAR OF INDIA.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Starry Cross.

          See STARRY CROSS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Swan.

          See SWAN.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Sword: a Swedish Order.

          See SWORD;

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Sword: a German Order.

          See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Templars.

          See TEMPLARS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Teutonic.

          See TEUTONIC KNIGHTS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Thistle: instituted by James V. of Scotland, in 1530.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The Tower and Sword.

          See TOWER AND SWORD.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       Victoria Cross.

          See VICTORIA CROSS.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The White Camellia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       The White Cross: an Order founded by the Grand Duke of
       Tuscany, in 1814.

    KNIGHTHOOD:
       White Eagle: a Polish Order, instituted in 1325 by Ladislaus
       IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

    KNIGHTS.

       See CHIVALRY;
       also, COMITATUS.

    KNIGHTS BACHELORS.

       "The word 'bachelor,' from whence has come 'bachelier,' does
       not signify 'bas chevalier,' but a knight who has not the
       number of 'bachelles' of land requisite to display a banner:
       that is to say, four 'bachelles.' The 'bachelle' was composed
       of ten 'maz,' or 'meix' (farms or domains), each of which
       contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen
       during a whole year."

          J. Froissart,
          Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
          book 1, chapter 61, foot-note (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Scott,
          Essay on Chivalry

          R. T. Hampson,
          Origines Patriciœ,
          page 338.

    {1947}

    KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

       "The name [banneret] imports the bearer of a small banner,
       and, in this respect, he differed from the baron, who bore a
       gonfanon or banner of war, and the simple knight, who bore a
       penon. The banner, properly so called, was a square flag; the
       penon, according to the illuminations of ancient manuscripts,
       was a small square, having two long triangles attached to the
       side opposite that which was fixed to the lance or spear.
       These pendant portions resembling tails were so denominated.
       Rastal defines a banneret to be a knight made upon the field
       of battle, with the ceremony of cutting off the point of his
       standard, and so making this like a banner. And such, he says,
       are allowed to display their arms on a banner in the king's
       army, like the barons. That was, no doubt, the mode of
       creation; but it appears … that a knight, or an esquire of
       four bacelles, or cow lands, and therefore, a bachelor, to
       whom the king had presented a banner on his first battle,
       became a banneret on the second; so that, in such cases, there
       would be no such ceremony necessary."

          R. T. Hampson.
          Origines Patriciœ,
          chapter 11.

    KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

       During the thirteenth century there grew up in England the
       practice of sending to the Great Council of the king a certain
       number of knights from each shire to represent the "lesser
       baronage." which had formerly possessed the privilege of
       attending the council in person, but which had become more
       neglectful of attendance as their numbers increased. In
       theory, these knights of the shire, as they came to be called,
       were representatives of that "lesser baronage" only. "But the
       necessity of holding their election in the County Court
       rendered any restriction of the electoral body physically
       impossible. The court was composed of the whole body of
       freeholders, and no sheriff could distinguish the 'aye, aye'
       of the yeoman from the 'aye, aye' of the lesser baron. From
       the first moment therefore of their attendance we find the
       knights regarded not as mere representatives of the baronage,
       but as knights of the shire, and by this silent revolution the
       whole body of the rural freeholders were admitted to a share
       in the government of the realm."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 4.

       The history of the knights of the shire is the history of the
       origin of county representation in the English Parliament. The
       representation of boroughs, or towns, has a history quite
       distinct. Of the leading part played by the knights of the
       shire in the development and establishment of the English
       Constitution Mr. Stubbs remarks ("Constitutional History of
       England," chapter 17, section 272): "Both historical evidence
       and the nature of the case lead to the conviction that the
       victory of the constitution was won by the knights of the
       shires; they were the leaders of parliamentary debate; they
       were the link between the good peers and the good towns; they
       were the indestructible element of the house of commons; they
       were the representatives of those local divisions of the realm
       which were coeval with the historical existence of the people
       of England, and the interests of which were most directly
       attacked by the abuses of royal prerogative."

          See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY
          STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

    KNOW NOTHING PARTY, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

    KNOX, General Henry, in the Cabinet of President Washington.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

    KNOX, John, and the Reformation in Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557, to 1558-1560.

       ----------KNOXVILLE: Start--------

    KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (September).
       Evacuated by the Confederates and occupied by the Union
       forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (November-December).
       Longstreet's siege.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER; TENNESSEE).

       ----------KNOXVILLE: End--------

    KNUT, OR CANUTE, ERICSSON, King of Sweden, A. D. 1167-1199.

    KNYDUS, OR CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

          See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

    KOASSATI, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    KOLARIANS, The.

          See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    KOLDING, Battle of (1849).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

    KOLIN, Battle of.

       See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

    KOLOMAN, King of Hungary, A. D. 1095-1114.

    KOLUSCHAN FAMILY, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.

    KOMANS
    COMANS
    CUMANS, The.

          See PATCHINAKS; KIPCHAKS; COSSACKS;
          also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

    KOMORN, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    KONDUR, OR CONDORE, Battle of (1758).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

    KONIEH, Battle of (1832).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

    KÖNIGGRÄTZ, OR SADOWA, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    KONSAARBRUCK, Battle of (1675).

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

    KOORDS
    KURDS, The.

          See CARDUCHI.

    KORAN, The.

       "The Koran, as Mr. Kingsley quaintly, but truly, says, 'after
       all is not a book, but an irregular collection of Mohammed's
       meditations and notes for sermons.' It is not a code, it is
       not a journal, it is a mere gathering together of irregular
       scraps, written on palm-leaves and bones of mutton, which
       Abu-Bekr [the bosom friend of Mahomet and the first of the
       Caliphs or successors of the Prophet] put together without the
       slightest regard to chronological order, only putting the long
       fragments at the beginning, and the short fragments at the
       end. But so far from having the Koran of Mahomet, we have not
       even the Koran of Abu-Bekr. Caliph Othman [the third Caliph],
       we know, gave enormous scandal by burning all the existing
       copies, which were extremely discordant, and putting forth his
       own version as the 'textus ab omnibus receptus.' How much then
       of the existing Koran is really Mahomet's; how much has been
       lost, added, transposed, or perverted; when, where, and why
       each fragment was delivered, it is often impossible even to
       conjecture. And yet these baskets of fragments are positively
       worshipped."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lecture 2.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Lane-Poole,
          Studies in a Mosque,
          chapter 4.

          Sir W. Muir,
          The Coran.

          T. Nöldeke,
          Sketches from Eastern History,
          chapter 2.

          The Koran;
          translated by G. Sale.

          See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    KORASMIANS, The.

          See KHUAREZM.

    {1948}

    KOREISH, The.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

      ----------KORKYRA: Start--------

    KORKYRA, OR CORCYRA.

       The Greek island now known as Corfu, separated from the coast
       of Epirus by a strait only two to seven miles in breadth, bore
       in ancient times the name of Korkyra, or, rather, took that
       name from its ruling city. "Korkyra [the city] was founded by
       the Corinthians, at the same time (we are told) as Syracuse.
       … The island was generally conceived in antiquity as the
       residence of the Homeric Phæakians, and it is to this fact
       that Thucydides ascribes in part the eminence of the Korkyræan
       marine. According to another story, some Eretrians from Eubœa
       had settled there, and were compelled to retire. A third
       statement represents the Liburnians as the prior
       inhabitants,—and this perhaps is the most probable, since the
       Liburnians were an enterprising, maritime, piratical race, who
       long continued to occupy the more northerly islands in the
       Adriatic along the Illyrian and Dalmatian coast. … At the
       time when the Corinthians were about to colonize Sicily, it
       was natural that they should also wish to plant a settlement
       at Korkyra, which was a post of great importance for
       facilitating the voyage from Peloponnesus to Italy, and was
       further convenient for traffic with Epirus, at that period
       altogether non-Hellenic. Their choice of a site was fully
       justified by the prosperity and power of the colony, which,
       however, though sometimes in combination with the mother-city,
       was more frequently alienated from her and hostile, and
       continued so from an early period throughout most part of the
       three centuries from 700-400 B. C. … Notwithstanding the
       long-continued dissensions between Korkyra and Corinth, it
       appears that four considerable settlements on this same line
       of coast were formed by the joint enterprise of both,—Leukas
       and Anaktorium to the south of the mouth of the Ambrakiotic
       Gulf—and Apollonia and Epidamnus [afterwards called
       Dyrrhachium], both in the territory of the Illyrians at some
       distance to the north of the Akrokeraunian promontory [modern
       Cape Glossa, on the Albanian coast]. … Leukas, Anaktorium
       and Ambrakia are all referred to the agency of Kypselus the
       Corinthian. … The six colonies just named—Korkyra,
       Ambrakia, Anaktorium, Leukas [near the modern St. Maura],
       Apollonia, and Epidamnus—form an aggregate lying apart from
       the rest of the Hellenic name, and connected with each other,
       though not always maintained in harmony, by analogy of race
       and position, as well as by their common origin from Corinth."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 23.

          See, also, IONIAN ISLANDS.

    KORKYRA: B. C. 435-432.
       Quarrel with Corinth.
       Help from Athens.
       Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

          See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

    KORKYRA: B. C. 432.
       Great sea-fight with the Corinthians.
       Athenian aid.

          See GREECE: B. C. 432.

    KORKYRA: Modern history.

          See IONIAN ISLANDS;
          and CORFU.

       ----------KORKYRA: End----------

    KORONEA, OR CORONEA, Battle of (B. C. 394).

          See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

    KOS.

          See Cos.

    KOSCIUSKO, and the Polish revolt.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

    KOSSÆANS, OR COSSÆANS, The.

       A brave but predatory people in ancient times, occupying the
       mountains between Media and Persia, who were hunted down by
       Alexander the Great and the males among them exterminated.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 94.

    KOSSOVA, Battle of (1389).

          See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

    KOSSUTH, Louis, and the Hungarian struggle for independence.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844, 1847-1849;
          and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    KOSSUTH: In America.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-'1851.

    KOTZEBUE, Assassination of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

    KOTZIM.

          See CHOZIM.

    KOULEVSCHA, Battle of (1829).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

    KOYUNJIK.

          See NINEVEH.

    KRALE.

          See CRAL.

    KRANNON, OR CRANNON, Battle of (B. C. 322).

          See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

    KRASNOE, Battle of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
          and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    KRETE.

          See CRETE.

    KRIM, The Khanate of.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

    KRIM TARTARY.

          See CRIMEA.

    KRIMESUS, The Battle of the.

          See SYRACUSE, THE FALL OF THE DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT.

    KRISSA.
    KRISSÆAN WAR.

          See DELPHI.

    KRONIUM, Battle of.

       See SICILY: B. C. 383.

    KROTON.

          See SYBARIS.

    KRYPTEIA, The.

       A secret police and system of espionage maintained at Sparta
       by the ephors.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 6.

    KSHATRIYAS.

          See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

    KU KLUX KLAN, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    KUBLAI KHAN, The Empire of.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
          and CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

    KUFA, The founding of.

          See BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

    KULANAPAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KULANAPAN FAMILY.

    KULM, OR CULM, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

    KULTURKAMPF, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

    KUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).

          See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

    KUNBIS.

          See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

    KUNERSDORF, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    KURDISTAN: A. D. 1514.
       Annexed to the Ottoman Empire.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    KURDS, OR KOORDS.

          See CARDUCHI, THE.

    KUREEM KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1759-1779.

    KURFÜRST.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    KURUCS, Insurrection of the.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

    KUSAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

    {1949}

    KUSH.
    KUSHITES.

          See CUSH.—CUSHITES.

    KUTAYAH, Peace of (1833).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

    KUTCHINS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

    KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Battle and Treaty of (1774).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

    KYLON, Conspiracy of.

       See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

    KYMRY, OR CYMRY, The.

       The name which the Britons of Wales and Cumberland gave to
       themselves during their struggle with the Angles and Saxons,
       meaning "Cym-bro (Combrox) or the compatriot, the native of
       the country, the rightful owner of the soil. … From the
       occupation by the English of the plain of the Dee and the
       Mersey, the Kymry dwelt in two lands, known in quasi-Latin as
       Cambria, in Welsh Cymru, which denotes the Principality of
       Wales, and Cumbria, or the kingdom of Cumberland. … Kambria
       was regularly used for Wales by such writers as Giraldus in
       the twelfth century, … but the fashion was not yet
       established of distinguishing between Cambria and Cumbria as
       we do."

          J. Rhys,
          Celtic Britain,
          chapter 4.

       The term Cymry or Kymry is sometimes used in a larger sense to
       denote the whole Brythonic branch of the Celtic race, as
       distinguished from the Goidelic, or Gaelic; but that use of it
       does not seem to be justified. On the question whether the
       name Kymry, or Cymry, bears any relation to that of the
       ancient Cimbri.

          See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES.

    KYNOSSEMA, Battle of.

          See CYNOSSEMA.

    KYNURIANS, OR CYNURIANS, The.

       One of the three races of people who inhabited the
       Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece before the Dorian
       conquest,—the other two races being the Arcadians and the
       Achæans. "They were never (so far as history knows them) an
       independent population. They occupied the larger portion of
       the territory of Argolis, from Orneæ, near the northern or
       Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian
       border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines
       rather than asserts) to the Ionic race—they had been so long
       subjects of Argos in his time that almost all evidence of
       their ante-Dorian condition had vanished."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 4.

    KYRENE.

          See CYRENAICA.

    KYZICUS.

          See CYZICUS.

    LABARUM, The.

       "The chief banner of the Christian emperors [Roman] was the
       so-called 'labarum.' Eusebius describes it as a long lance
       with a cross-piece; to the latter a square silk flag was
       attached, into which the images of the reigning emperor and
       his children were woven. To the point of the lance was
       fastened a golden crown enclosing the monogram of Christ and
       the sign of the cross."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 107.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 20.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A.D. 312-337.

    LA BICOQUE, Battle of (1522).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

    LABOR ORGANIZATION.

          See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

    LABRADOR, The Name.

       "Labrador—Laboratoris Terra—is so called from the
       circumstance that Cortereal in the year 1500 stole thence a
       cargo of Indians for slaves."

          F. Parkman,
          Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
          chapter 1, foot-note.

    LABYRINTHS.
    MAZES.

       "The Labyrinths of the classical age and the quaint devices of
       later times, the Mazes, of which they were the prototypes,
       present to the archaeologist a subject of investigation which
       hitherto has not received that degree of attention of which it
       appears so well deserving. … Labyrinths may be divided into
       several distinct classes, comprising complicated ranges of
       caverns, architectural labyrinths or sepulchral buildings,
       tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles or cut in turf,
       and topiary labyrinths or mazes formed by clipped hedges. …
       Of the first class we may instance the labyrinth near Nauplia
       in Argolis, termed that of the Cyclops, and described by
       Strabo; also the celebrated Cretan example, which from the
       observations of modern travellers is supposed to have
       consisted of a series of caves, resembling in some degree the
       catacombs of Rome or Paris. It has been questioned, however,
       whether such a labyrinth actually existed. … Of
       architectural labyrinths, the most extraordinary specimen was
       without doubt that at the southern end of the lake Mœris in
       Egypt, and about thirty miles from Arsinoe. Herodotus, who
       describes it very distinctly, says that … it consisted of
       twelve covered courts, 1,500 subterranean chambers, in which
       the bodies of the Egyptian princes and the sacred crocodiles
       were interred, and of as many chambers above ground, which
       last only he was permitted to enter."

          E. Trollope,
          Notices of Ancient and Mediaeval Labyrinths
          (Archaeological Journal, volume 15).

          ALSO IN:
          Herodotus,
          History,
          book 2, chapter 148.

    LA CADIE,
    ACADIA.

          See NOVA SCOTIA.

    LACEDÆMON.

          See SPARTA: THE CITY.

    LACEDÆMONIAN EMPIRE, The.

          See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

    LACONIA.

          See SPARTA: THE CITY.

    LACONIA, the American Province.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    LACUSTRINE HABITATIONS.

          See LAKE DWELLINGS.

    LADE, Naval Battle of (B. C. 495).

          See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

    LADIES' PEACE, The.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    LADISLAS, King of Naples, A. D. 1386-1414.

    LADISLAUS I. (called Saint),
       King of Hungary, A. D. 1077-1095.

       Ladislaus II., King of Hungary, 1162.

       Ladislaus III., King of Hungary, 1204-1205.

       Ladislaus IV. (called The Cuman),
       King of Hungary, 1272-1290.

       Ladislaus V. (called The Posthumous),
       King, of Hungary and Bohemia, 1439-1457.

       Ladislaus VI. (Jagellon),
       King of Hungary, 1440-1444;
       King of Poland, 1434-1444.

    {1950}

    LADOCEA, OR LADOKEIA, Battle of.

       Fought in what was called the Cleomenic War, between
       Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and the Achæan League, B. C. 226.
       The battle was fought near the city of Megalopolis, in
       Arcadia, which belonged to the League and which was threatened
       by Cleomenes. The latter won a complete victory, and Lydiades,
       of Megalopolis, one of the noblest of the later Greeks, was
       slain.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 62.

    LADY, Original use of the title.

       "Hlæfdige," the Saxon word from which our modern English word
       "lady" comes, was the highest female title among the
       West-Saxons, being reserved for the king's wife.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          volume 1, note F.

    LADY OF THE ENGLISH.

       By the custom of the West Saxons, the king's wife was called
       Lady, not Queen, and when the Wessex kingdom widened to cover
       England, its queen was known as the Lady of the English.

    LÆNLAND.

       "Either book land or folkland could be leased out by its
       holders [in early England]; and, under the name of 'lænland,'
       held by free cultivators."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 5, section 36 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. M. Kemble,
          The Saxons in England,
          book 1, chapter 11.

    LÆTI.
    LÆT.
    LAZZI.

       "Families of the conquered tribes of Germany, who were
       forcibly settled within the 'limes' of the Roman provinces, in
       order that they might repeople desolated districts, or replace
       the otherwise dwindling provincial population—in order that
       they might bear the public burdens and minister to the public
       needs, i. e., till the public land, pay the public tribute,
       and also provide for the defence of the empire. They formed a
       semi-servile class, partly agricultural and partly military;
       they furnished corn for the granaries and soldiers for the
       cohorts of the empire, and were generally known in later times
       by the name of Læti or Liti."

          F. Seebohm,
          English Village Community,
          chapter 8.

       "There seems to be no reason for questioning that the eorl,
       ceorl and læt of the earliest English laws, those of
       Ethelbert, answer exactly to the edhiling, the friling and the
       lazzus of the old Saxons. Whether the Kentish læts were of
       German origin has been questioned. Lappenberg thinks they were
       'unfree of kindred race.' K. Maurer thinks them a relic of
       ancient British population who came between the free wealh and
       the slave. … The name (lazzus= slow or lazy) signifies
       condition, not nationality. … The wer-gild of the Kentish
       læt was 40, 60, or 80 shillings, according to rank, that of
       the ceorl being 200."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 4, section 31, foot-note (volume 1).

    LA FAVORITA, Battle of (1797).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    LAFAYETTE IN THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778 (JUNE), (JULY-NOVEMBER);
          1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY),
          and (MAY-OCTOBER).

    LAFAYETTE:
       And the French Revolution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY), to 1792 (AUGUST).

    LA FÈRE, Siege and capture by Henry IV. of France (1596).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    LA FÈRE-CHAMPENOISE, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    LAGIDE PRINCES.

       The Egyptian dynasty founded by Ptolemy Soter, the Macedonian
       general, is sometimes called the Lagide dynasty and its
       princes the Lagide princes, with reference to the reputed
       father of Ptolemy, who bore the name of Lagus.

    LAGOS, Naval Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

    LAGTHING.

          See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

    LA HOGUE, Naval Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

    LAKE DWELLINGS.

       "Among the most interesting relics of antiquity which have yet
       been discovered are the famous lake-dwellings of Switzerland,
       described by Dr. Keller and others. … Dr. Keller … has
       arranged them in three groups, according to the character of
       their substructure.

       [1] Those of the first group, the Pile Dwellings, are, he
       tells us, by far the most numerous in the lakes of Switzerland
       and Upper Italy. In these the substructure consists of piles
       of various kinds of wood, sharpened sometimes by fire,
       sometimes by stone hatchets or celts, and in later times by
       tools of bronze, and probably of iron, the piles being driven
       into the bottom of the lake at various distances from the
       shore. …

       [2] The Frame Pile-Dwellings are very rare. 'The distinction
       between this form and the regular pile-settlement consists in
       the fact that the piles, instead of having been driven into
       the mud of the lake, had been fixed by a mortise-and-tenon
       arrangement into split trunks, lying horizontally on the bed
       of the lake.' …

       [3] In the Fascine Dwellings, as Dr. Keller terms his third
       group of lake-habitations, the substructure consisted of
       successive layers of sticks or small stems of trees built up
       from the bottom of the lake till they reached above the
       lake-level. …

       Lake-dwellings have been met with in many other regions of
       Europe besides Switzerland and Italy, as in Bavaria, Austria,
       Hungary, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, France, Wales, Ireland, and
       Scotland. The 'Crannoges' of Ireland and Scotland were rather
       artificial islands than dwellings like those described above."

          J. Geikie,
          Prehistoric Europe,
          pages 369-372.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Keller,
          Lake Dwellings.

          R. Munro,
          Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings.

          E. P. S.,
          Crannoges (in Archaeological Journal, volume 3).

    LAKE GEORGE, Battle of.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

    LAMARTINE, and the French Government of 1848.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
          and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

    LAMAS.
    LAMAISM.

       "The development of the Buddhist doctrine which has taken
       place in the Panjab, Nepal, and Tibet … has resulted at last
       in the complete establishment of Lamaism, a religion not only
       in many points different from, but actually antagonistic to,
       the primitive system of Buddhism; and this not only in its
       doctrine, but also in its church organization." Tibet is "the
       only country where the Order has become a hierarchy, and
       acquired temporal power. Here, as in so many other countries,
       civilization entered and history began with Buddhism. When the
       first missionaries went there is not, however, accurately
       known; but Nepal was becoming Buddhist in the 6th century, and
       the first Buddhist king of Tibet sent to India for the holy
       scriptures in 632 A. D. A century afterwards an adherent of
       the native devil-worship drove the monks away, destroyed the
       monasteries, and burnt the holy books; but the blood of the
       martyrs was the seed of the church—it returned triumphant
       after his death, and rapidly gained in wealth and influence.
       …
    {1951}
       As the Order became wealthy, rival abbots had contended for
       supremacy, and the chiefs had first tried to use the church as
       a means of binding the people to themselves, and then,
       startled at its progress, had to fight against it for their
       own privilege and power. When, in the long run, the crozier
       proved stronger than the sword, the Dalai Lama became in 1419
       sole temporal sovereign of Tibet."

          T. W. Rhys Davids,
          Buddhism,
          chapters 8-9.

       "Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism, a profound
       darkness had rested on [Tibet]. The inhabitants were ignorant
       and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes
       called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of
       Shamanism. … The word is said to be of Tungusic origin, and
       to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia,
       Siberia and other Northern countries. … It is easy to
       understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or
       wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate
       them by sacrifices and various magical practices. … The
       various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily
       described, and only a general idea of them can be given. …
       First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk,
       called Gethsul (Getzul). … Secondly and higher in rank we
       have the rull monk, called Gelong (or Gelon). … Thirdly we
       have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who
       has a real right to the further title Lama. … As the chief
       monk in a monastery he may be compared to the European Abbot.
       … Some of the higher Khanpo Lamas are supposed to be living
       re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints
       and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatara
       Lamas, and of such there are three degrees. … There is also
       a whole class of mendicant Lamas. … Examples of the highest
       Avataras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are
       supreme Lamas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhassa,
       and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles
       distant. … The Grand Lama at Lhassa is the Dalai Lama, that
       is, 'the Ocean-Lama, or one whose power and learning are as
       great as the ocean. … The other Grand Lama, who resides in
       the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the
       names of the Tashi Lama."

          Sir M. Monier-Williams,
          Buddhism,
          lecture 11.

       "Kublai-Khan, after subduing China [see CHINA: A. D.
       1259-1294], adopted the Buddhist doctrines, which had made
       considerable progress among the Tartars. In the year 1261 he
       raised a Buddhist priest named Mati to the dignity of head of
       the Faith in the empire. This priest is better known under the
       name of Pakbo Lama, or supreme Lama: he was a native of
       Thibet, and had gained the good graces and confidence of
       Kublai, who, at the same time that he conferred on him the
       supreme sacerdotal office, invested him with the temporal
       power in Thibet, with the titles of 'King of the Great and
       Precious Law,' and 'Institutor of the Empire.' Such was the
       origin of the Grand Lamas of Thibet, and it is not impossible
       that the Tartar Emperor, who had had frequent communications
       with the Christian missionaries, may have wished to create a
       religious organisation after the model of the Romish
       hierarchy."

          Abbé Huc,
          Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet,
          volume 2, page 10.

          ALSO IN:
          Abbé Huc,
          Journey through Tartary, Thibet and China,
          volume 2.

          W. W. Rockhill,
          The Land of the Lamas.

    LAMBALLE, Madame de, The death of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    LAMBETH, Treaty of.

       A treaty of September 11, A. D. 1217, which was, in a certain
       sense, the sequel of Magna Carta. The barons who extorted the
       Great Charter from King John in 1215 were driven subsequently
       to a renewal of war with him. They renounced their allegiance
       and offered the crown to a French prince, Louis, husband of
       Blanche of Castile, who was John's niece. The pretensions of
       Louis were maintained after John's death, against his young
       son, Henry III. The cause of the latter triumphed in a
       decisive battle fought at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, and the
       contest was ended by the treaty named above. "The treaty of
       Lambeth is, in practical importance, scarcely inferior to the
       Charter itself.

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 14, section 170 (volume 2).

    LAMEGO, The Cortes of.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

    LAMIAN WAR, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

    LAMONE, Battle of (1425).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    LAMPADARCHY, The.

          See LITURGIES.

    LANCASTER, Chancellorship of the Duchy of.

       "The Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is an office
       more remarkable for its antiquity than for its present
       usefulness. It dates from the time of Henry the Fourth, when
       the County of Lancashire was under a government distinct from
       the rest of the Kingdom. About the only duty now associated
       with the office is the appointment of magistrates for the
       county of Lancashire. In the other English and Welsh counties,
       these appointments are made by the Lord High Chancellor, who
       is the head of the Judicial system. The duties of the
       Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are thus exceedingly
       light. The holder of the office is often spoken of as 'the
       maid of all work to the Cabinet,' from the fact that he is
       accorded a place in the Cabinet without being assigned any
       special duties likely to occupy the whole of his time. Usually
       the office is bestowed upon some statesman whom it is
       desirable for special reasons to have in the Cabinet, but for
       whom no other office of equal rank or importance is
       available."

          E. Porritt,
          The Englishman at Home,
          chapter 8.

    LANCASTER, House of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.

    LANCASTRIANS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

    LANCES, Free.

       With Sir John Hawkwood and his "free company" of English
       mercenaries, "came first into Italy [about 1360] the use of
       the term 'lances,' as applied to hired troops; each 'lance'
       being understood to consist of three men; of whom one carried
       a lance, and the others were bowmen. … They mostly fought on
       foot, having between each two archers a lance, which was held
       as men hold their hunting-spears in a boar-hunt."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          volume 2, page 144.

    LAND GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA:
          A. D. 1785-1800; 1862; and 1862-1886.

    {1952}

    LAND LEAGUE, The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

    LAND QUESTION AND LAND LAWS, The Irish.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.

    LANDAMMANN.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

       ----------LANDAU: Start--------

    LANDAU: A. D. 1648.
       Cession to France.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    LANDAU: A. D. 1702-1703.
       Taken by the Imperialists and retaken by the French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1703.

    LANDAU: A. D. 1704.
       Taken by the Allies.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

    LANDAU: A. D. 1713.
       Taken and retained by France.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

       ----------LANDAU: End--------

    LANDEN, OR NEERWINDEN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

    LANDFRIEDE.
    FEHDERECHT.
    THE SWABIAN LEAGUE.
       "Landfriede—Peace of the Land.

       The expression, Public Peace, which, in deference to numerous
       and high authorities I have generally used in the text, is
       liable to important objections. 'A breach of the public peace'
       means, in England, any open disorder or outrage. But [in
       mediæval Germany] the Landfriede (Pax publica) was a special
       act or provision directed against the abuse of an ancient and
       established institution,—the Fehderecht (jus diffidationis,
       or right of private warfare). The attempts to restrain this
       abuse were, for a long time, local and temporary. … The
       first energetic measure of the general government to put down
       private wars was that of the diet of Nürnberg (1466). … The
       Fehde is a middle term between duel and war. Every affront or
       injury led, after certain formalities, to the declaration,
       addressed to the offending party, that the aggrieved party
       would be his foe, and that of his helpers and
       helpers'-helpers. … I shall not go into an elaborate
       description of the evils attendant on the right of diffidation
       or private warfare (Fehderecht); they were probably not so
       great as is commonly imagined."

          L. Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          volume 1, pages 77 (foot-note), 71, and 81.

       "The right of diffidation, or of private warfare, had been the
       immemorial privilege of the Germanic nobles—a privilege as
       clear as it was ancient, which no diet attempted to abolish,
       but which, from the mischiefs attending its exercise, almost
       everyone had endeavoured to restrain. … Not only state,
       could declare war against state, prince against prince, noble
       against noble, but any noble could legally defy the emperor
       himself." In the reign of Frederick III. (1440-1493) efforts
       were made to institute a tribunal—an imperial chamber—which
       should have powers that would operate to restrain these
       private wars; but the emperor and the college of princes could
       not agree as to the constitution of the court proposed. To
       attain somewhat the same end, the emperor then "established a
       league both of the princes and of the imperial cities, which
       was destined to be better observed than most preceding
       confederations. Its object was to punish all who, during ten
       years, should, by the right of diffidation, violate the public
       tranquillity. He commenced with Swabia, which had ever been
       regarded as the imperial domain; and which, having no elector,
       no governing duke, no actual head other than the emperor
       himself, and, consequently, no other acknowledged protector,
       was sufficiently disposed to his views. In its origin the
       Swabian league consisted only of six cities, four prelates,
       three counts, sixteen knights; but by promises, or reasoning,
       or threats, Frederic soon augmented it. The number of towns
       was raised to 22, of prelates to 13, of counts to 12, of
       knights or inferior nobles to 350. It derived additional
       strength from the adhesion of princes and cities beyond the
       confines of Swabia; and additional splendour from the names of
       two electors, three margraves, and other reigning princes. It
       maintained constantly on foot 10,000 infantry and 1,000
       cavalry,—a force generally sufficient for the preservation of
       tranquillity. Of its salutary effects some notion may be
       formed from the fact that, in a very short period,
       one-and-forty bandit dens were stormed, and that two powerful
       offenders, George duke of Bavaria, and duke Albert of Munich,
       were compelled by an armed force to make satisfaction for
       their infraction of the public peace."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          volume 2, pages 281-283.

       The final suppression of the Fehderecht was brought about in
       the succeeding reign, of Maximilian, by the institution of the
       Imperial Chamber and the organization of the Circles to
       enforce its decrees.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

    LANDO, Pope, A. D. 913-914.

       ----------LANDRECIES: Start--------

    LANDRECIES: A. D. 1647.
       Spanish siege and capture.

          See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

    LANDRECIES: A. D. 1655.
       Siege and capture by Turenne.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

    LANDRECIES: A. D. 1659.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    LANDRECIES: A. D. 1794.
       Siege and capture by the Allies.
       Recovery by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

       ----------LANDRECIES: End--------

    LANDRIANO, Battle of (1529).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    LANDSHUT, Battle of (1760).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

    LANDSHUT, Battle of (1809.)

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809, (JANUARY-JUNE).

    LANDSQUENETS.

       "After the accession of Maximilian I. [Emperor, A. D.
       1493-1519], the troops so celebrated in history under the name
       of 'Landsquenets' began to be known in Europe. They were
       native Germans, and soon rose to a high degree of military
       estimation. That Emperor, who had studied the art of war, and
       who conducted it on principles of Tactics, armed them with
       long lances; divided them into regiments, composed of ensigns
       and squads; compelled them to submit to a rigorous discipline,
       and retained them under their standards after the conclusion
       of the wars in which he was engaged. … Pikes were
       substituted in the place of their long lances, under Charles
       V."

          Sir N. W. Wraxall,
          History of France, 1574-1610,
          volume 2, page 183.

    LANDSTING.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES
          (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
          and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

    LANDWEHR, The.

          See FYRD.

    LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1075).

          See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

    LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1866.)

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    LANGOBARDI, The.

          See LOMBARDS.

    LANGPORT, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    {1953}

    LANG'S NEK, Battle of (1881).

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

    LANGSIDE, Battle of (1568).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

    LANGUE D'OC.

       "It is well known that French is in the main a descendant from
       the Latin, not the Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin
       which was spoken in Gaul. Now these Latin-speaking Gauls did
       not, for some reason, say 'est,' 'it is,' for 'yes,' as the
       Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either 'ille,' 'he,' or
       'hoc,' 'this.' When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say 'yes,'
       he nodded, and said 'he' or else 'this,' meaning 'He is so,'
       or 'This is so.' As it happens the Gauls of the north said
       'ille,' and those of the south said 'hoc,' and these words
       gradually got corrupted into two meaningless words, 'oui' and
       'oc.' It is well known that the people in the south of France
       were especially distinguished by using the word 'oc' instead
       of 'oui' for 'yes,' so that their 'dialect' got to be called
       the 'langue d'oc,' and this word Langue-doc gave the name to a
       province of France."

          C. F. Keary,
          Dawn of History,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Hueffer,
          The Troubadours,
          chapter 1.

          Sir G. C. Lewis,
          The Romance Languages,
          page 52, and after.

    LANGUEDOC.

       When, as a consequence of the Albigensian wars, the dominions
       of the Counts of Toulouse were broken up and absorbed for the
       most part in the domain of the French crown, the country which
       had been chiefly ravaged in those wars, including Septimania
       and much of the old county of Toulouse, acquired the name by
       which its language was known—Languedoc. The 'langue d'oc'
       was spoken likewise in Provence and in Aquitaine; but it gave
       a definite geographical name only to the region between the
       Rhone and the Garonne.

          See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229;
          also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

    LANNES, Marshal, Campaigns of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
          GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
          SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER),
          1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH), 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

    LANSDOWNE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

       ----------LAON: Start--------

    LAON:
       The last capital of the Carolingian kings.

       The rock-lifted castle and stronghold of Laon, situated in the
       modern department of Aisne, about 74 miles northeast from
       Paris, was the last refuge and capital—sometimes the sole
       dominion—of the Carolingian kings, in their final struggle
       with the new dynasty sprung from the Dukes of France. The
       "King of Laon" and the "King of St. Denis," as the contestants
       are sometimes called, disputed with one another for a monarchy
       which was small when the sovereignty of the two had been
       united in one. In 991 the "King of Laon" was betrayed to his
       rival, Hugh Capet, and died in prison. "Laon ceased to be a
       capital, and became a quiet country town; the castle, relic of
       those days, stood till 1832, when it was rased to the ground."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, part 2, chapter 4,
          parts 1-2 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

    LAON: A. D. 1594.
       Siege and capture by Henry IV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    LAON, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

       ----------LAON: End--------

    LAPITHÆ, The.

       A race which occupied in early times the valley of the Peneus,
       in Thessaly; "a race which derived its origin from Almopia in
       Macedonia, and was at least very nearly connected with the
       Minyans and Æolians of Ephyra."

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          book 1, chapter 1.

    LA PLATA, Provinces of.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

    LA PUERTA, Battle of (1814).

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1821.

    LARGS, Battle of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.

    LARISSA.

       There were several ancient cities in Greece and Asia Minor
       called Larissa.

          See ARGOS, and PERRHÆBIANS.

    LAROCHEJACQUELIN, Henri de, and the insurrection in La Vendée.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
          and (JULY-DECEMBER).

    LA ROCHELLE.

          See ROCHELLE.

    LA ROTHIERÈ, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    LA SALLE'S EXPLORATIONS.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    LAS CASAS, The humane labors of.

          See SLAVERY: MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

    LAS CRUCES, Battle of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

    LASSI,
    LAZZI, The.

          See LÆTI.

    LASWARI, Battle of (1803).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

    LATERAN, The.

       "The Lateran derives its name from a rich patrician family,
       whose estates were confiscated by Nero. … It afterwards
       became an imperial residence, and a portion of it … was
       given by Constantine to Pope Melchiades in 312,—a donation
       which was confirmed to St. Sylvester, in whose reign the first
       basilica was built here. … The ancient Palace of the Lateran
       was the residence of the popes for nearly 1,000 years. … The
       modern Palace of the Lateran was built from designs of Fontana
       by Sixtus V. In 1693 Innocent XII. turned it into a
       hospital,—in 1438 Gregory XVI. appropriated it as a museum."

          A. J. C. Hare,
          Walks in Rome,
          chapter 13.

    LATHES OF KENT.

       "The county of Kent [England] is divided into six 'lathes,' of
       nearly equal size, having the jurisdiction of the hundreds in
       other shires. The lathe may be derived from the Jutish
       'lething' (in modern Danish 'leding')—a military levy."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 1, foot-note.

    LATHOM HOUSE, Siege of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

    LATIFUNDIA.

       The great slave-tilled estates of the Romans, which swallowed
       up the properties of the small land-holders of earlier times,
       were called Latifundia.

    LATIN CHURCH, The.

       The Roman Catholic Church (see PAPACY) is often referred to as
       the Latin Church, in distinction from the Greek or Orthodox
       Church of the East.

    LATIN EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

          See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF.

    LATIN LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

    {1954}

    "LATIN NAME," The.

       "We must … explain what was meant in the sixth century of
       Rome [third century B. C.] by the 'Latin name.' … The Latin
       name was now extended far beyond its old geographical limits,
       and was represented by a multitude of flourishing cities
       scattered over the whole of Italy, from the frontier of
       Cisalpine Gaul to the southern extremity of Apulia. … Not
       that they were Latins in their origin, or connected with the
       cities of the old Latium: on the contrary they were by
       extraction Romans; they were colonies founded by the Roman
       people, and consisting of Roman Citizens: but the Roman
       government had resolved that, in their political relations,
       they should be considered, not as Romans, but as Latins; and
       the Roman settlers, in consideration of the advantages which
       they enjoyed as colonists, were content to descend politically
       to a lower condition than that which they had received as
       their birthright. The states of the Latin name, whether cities
       of old Latium or Roman colonies, all enjoyed their own laws
       and municipal government, like the other allies; and all were,
       like the other allies, subject to the sovereign dominion of
       the Romans. They were also so much regarded as foreigners that
       they could not buy or inherit land from Roman citizens; nor
       had they generally the right of intermarriage with Romans. But
       they had two peculiar privileges: one, that any Latin who left
       behind him a son in his own city, to perpetuate his family
       there, might remove to Rome, and acquire the Roman franchise;
       the other, that every person who had held any magistracy or
       distinguished office in a Latin state, might become at once a
       Roman citizen."

          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 41.

    LATINS, Subjugation of, by the Romans.

          See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

    LATIUM.
    THE OLD LATINS.

       "The plain of Latium must have been in primeval times the
       scene of the grandest conflicts of nature, while the slowly
       formative agency of water deposited, and the eruptions of
       mighty volcanoes upheaved, the successive strata of that soil
       on which was to be decided the question to what people the
       sovereignty of the world should belong. Latium is bounded on
       the east by the mountains of the Sabines and Aequi, which form
       part of the Apennines; and on the south by the Volscian range
       rising to the height of 4,000 feet, which is separated from
       the main chain of the Apennines by the ancient territory of
       the Hernici, the table-land of the Sacco (Trerus, a tributary
       of the Liris), and stretching in a westerly direction
       terminates in the promontory of Terracina. On the west its
       boundary is the sea, which on this part of the coast forms but
       few and indifferent harbours. On the north it imperceptibly
       merges into the broad highlands of Etruria. The region thus
       enclosed forms a magnificent plain traversed by the Tiber, the
       'mountain-stream' which issues from the Umbrian, and by the
       Anio, which rises in the Sabine mountains. Hills here and
       there emerge, like islands, from the plain; some of them steep
       limestone cliffs, such as that of Soracte in the north-east,
       and that of the Circeian promontory on the south-west, as well
       as the similar though lower height of the Janiculum near Rome;
       others volcanic elevations, whose extinct craters had become
       converted into lakes which in some cases still exist; the most
       important of these is the Alban range, which, free on every
       side, stands forth from the plain between the Volscian chain
       and the river Tiber. Here settled the stock which is known to
       history under the name of the Latins, or, as they were
       subsequently called by way of distinction from the Latin
       communities beyond the bounds of Latium, the 'Old Latins'
       ('prisci Latini'). But the territory occupied by them, the
       district of Latium, was only a small portion of the central
       plain of Italy. All the country north of the Tiber was to the
       Latins a foreign and even hostile domain, with whose
       inhabitants no lasting alliance, no public peace, was
       possible, and such armistices as were concluded appear always
       to have been for a limited period. The Tiber formed the
       northern boundary from early times. … We find, at the time
       when our history begins, the flat and marshy tracts to the
       south of the Alban range in the hands of Umbro-Sabellian
       stocks, the Rutuli and Volsci; Ardea and Velitrae are no
       longer in the number of originally Latin towns. Only the
       central portion of that region between the Tiber, the spurs of
       the Apennines, the Alban Mount, and the sea—a district of
       about 700 square miles, not much larger than the present
       canton of Zurich—was Latium proper, the 'plain,' as it
       appears to the eye of the observer from the heights of Monte
       Cavo. Though the country is a plain, it is not monotonously
       flat. With the exception of the sea-beach which is sandy and
       formed in part by the accumulations of the Tiber, the level is
       everywhere broken by hills of tufa moderate in height, though
       often somewhat steep, and by deep fissures of the ground.
       These alternating elevations and depressions of the surface
       lead to the formation of lakes in winter; and the exhalations
       proceeding in the heat of summer from the putrescent organic
       substances which they contain engender that noxious
       fever-laden atmosphere, which in ancient times tainted the
       district as it taints it at the present day."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 3.

          See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT.

    LATT, OR LIDUS, The.

          See SLAVERY: MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

    LATTER DAY SAINTS, Church of.

          See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

    LAUD, Archbishop, Church tyranny of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.

    LAUDER BRIDGE.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

    LAUDERDALE, Duke of.
       His oppression in Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.

    LAUFFENBURG, Captured by Duke Bernhard (1637).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    LAURAS.

       "The institution of Lauras was the connecting link between the
       hermitage and the monastery, in the later and more ordinary
       use of that word. … A Laura was an aggregation of separate
       cells, under the not very strongly defined control of a
       superior, the inmates meeting together only on the first and
       last days, the old and new Sabbaths, of each week, for their
       common meal in the refectory and for common worship. … The
       origin of the word 'Laura' is uncertain. … Probably it is
       another form of 'labra,' the popular term in Alexandria for an
       alley or narrow court."

          I. G. Smith,
          Christian Monasticism,
          pages 38-39.

    {1955}

    LAUREATE, English Poets.

       "From the appointment of Chaucer about five hundred years have
       elapsed, and during that period a long line of poets have held
       the title of Laureate. For the first two hundred years they
       were somewhat irregularly appointed, but from the creation of
       Richard Edwards in 1561, they come down to the present time
       without interruption. The selection of the Laureate has not
       always been a wise one, but the list contains the names of a
       few of our greatest authors, and the honour was certainly
       worthily bestowed upon Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, John
       Dryden, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, and Alfred
       Tennyson. As the custom of crowning successful poets appears
       to have been in use since the origin of poetry itself, the
       office of Poet Laureate can certainly boast of considerable
       antiquity, and the laurel wreath of the Greeks and Romans was
       an envied trophy long before our Druidical forefathers held
       aloft the mistletoe bough in their mystic rites. From what
       foreign nation we first borrowed the idea of a King of the
       Poets is doubtful."

          W. Hamilton, Origin of the Office of Poet Laureate
          (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 8).

       The following is a list of the Poets Laureate of England, with
       the dates of their appointment:

       Geoffrey Chaucer, 1368;
       Sir John Gower, 1400;
       Henry Scogan;
       John Kay;
       Andrew Bernard, 1486;
       John Skelton, 1489;
       Robert Whittington, 1512;
       Richard Edwards, 1561;
       Edmund Spenser, 1590;
       Samuel Daniel, 1598;
       Ben Jonson, 1616;
       Sir William Davenant, 1638;
       John Dryden, 1670;
       Thomas Shadwell, 1688;
       Nahum Tate, 1692;
       Nicholas Rowe, 1715;
       Rev. Laurence Eusden, 1718;
       Colley Cibber, 1730;
       William Whitehead, 1757;
       Thomas Warton, 1785;
       Henry James Pye, 1790;
       Robert Southey, 1813;
       William Wordsworth, 1843;
       Alfred Tennyson, 1850.

          W. Hamilton,
          The Poets Laureate of England.

    LAURIUM, Silver Mines of.

       These mines, in Attica, were owned and worked at an early time
       by the Athenian state, and seem to have yielded a large
       revenue, more or less of which was divided among the citizens.
       It was by persuading the Athenians to forego that division
       that Themistocles secured money to build the fleet which made
       Athens a great naval power. The mines were situated in the
       southern part of Attica, in a district of low hills, not far
       from the promontory of Sunium.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 39.

    LAUSITZ.

          See BRANDENBURG.

    LAUTULÆ, Battle of.

          See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

    LAW, John, and his Mississippi Scheme.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
          and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

       ----------LAW: Start----------

    LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the
          New York University Law School.]

       The subject is here treated with reference to the history of
       the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure,
       rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are
       discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of
       law thus considered which enter into our present systems are
       given the preference in space,—purely historical matters,
       such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated
       in the references placed at the end of this article:

       ----------ADMIRALTY LAW: Start----------

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1183.
       Law as to Shipwrecks.

       "The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt
       as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to
       renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the
       rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were
       too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance
       of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the
       unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when
       the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians,
       the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the
       continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the
       inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all
       navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their
       shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry
       or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who
       reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to
       repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the
       highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his
       death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of
       Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction
       of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked
       persons and property were placed under the special protection
       and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death
       without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."

          James Kent,
          International Law,
          edited by J. T. Abdy, page 31.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1537.
       Jurisdiction.

       The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the
       Lord High Admiral of England.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1575.
       Jurisdiction.

       "The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief
       Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the
       Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long
       controversy between these Courts as to their relative
       jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in

          Benedict's American Admiralty,
          3d edition, page 41.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1664.
       Tide-mark.

       The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as
       part of the sea, when the tide is in.

          Erastus C. Benedict,
          American Admiralty, 3d edition,
          by Robert D. Benedict, page 35,
          citing Sir John Constable's Case,
          Anderson's Rep. 89.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1789.
       United States Judiciary Act.

       The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to
       all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are
       navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons
       burthen."

          Judiciary Act,
          United States Stat. at Large,
          volume 1, page 76.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1798.
       Lord Stowell and Admiralty Law.

       "Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life,
       introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws,
       the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of
       Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine
       ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These
       authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882],
       and from that time a new direction was given to English
       studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views,
       communicated to forensic investigations.
    {1956}
       Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now
       Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have
       been read and admired in every region of the republic of
       letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most
       enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned
       out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the
       bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with
       the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a
       thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which
       concern the great social interests of mankind."

          James Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 5, lecture 42.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1841-1842.
       Jurisdiction.

       The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty
       some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common
       Law Courts.

          Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
          page 56.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1845.
       Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction.

       "It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than
       fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English
       courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt
       water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in
       1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the
       Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the
       navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of
       this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851
       that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the
       Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake
       Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and
       repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do
       with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution
       upon Federal courts."

          Lyman Trumbull,
          Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review,
          volume 27, page 324.

          See, also
          Act of 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. 726.

    ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873.
       Division of Loss in case of Collision
       settled by Judicature Act.

       "The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision
       each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts
       the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty
       of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict
       between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an
       end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s.
       25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to
       have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. …
       There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive
       injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from
       recovering more than half his loss from one of the two
       wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in
       an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the
       enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done
       by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in
       operation with the approval of the shipping community for at
       least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period;
       and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the
       Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its
       very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect
       to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is
       widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of
       shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are
       all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."

          R. G. Marsden,
          Two Points of Admiralty Law,
          Law Quarterly Review,
          volume 2, pages 357-362.

       For an enumeration of the various Maritime codes with their
       dates,

          See
          Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
          pages 91-97,
          and
          Davis' Outlines of International Law,
          pages 5, 6, &c.

       ----------ADMIRALTY LAW: End----------

       ----------COMMON LAW: Start----------

    Common Law. [Including legislation in modification of It.]

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
       Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Saxons.

       "It may be confidently asserted that trial by jury was unknown
       to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors; and the idea of its existence in
       their legal system has arisen from a want of attention to the
       radical distinction between the members or judges composing a
       court, and a body of men apart from that court, but summoned
       to attend it in order to determine conclusively the facts of
       the case in dispute. This is the principle on which is founded
       the intervention of a jury; and no trace whatever can be found
       of such an institution in Anglo-Saxon times."

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          page 45.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 630.
       The first Written Body of English Law.

       "The first written body of English Law is said to have been
       promulgated in the Heptarchy by Ethelbert, about the year 630,
       and enacted with the consent of the states of his kingdom."

          Joseph Parke,
          History of Chancery,
          page 14.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 871-1066.
       The King's Peace.

       1. The technical use of "the king's peace" is, I suspect,
       connected with the very ancient rule that a breach of the
       peace in a house must be atoned for in proportion to the
       householder's rank. If it was in the king's dwelling, the
       offender's life was in the king's hand. This peculiar sanctity
       of the king's house was gradually extended to all persons who
       were about his business, or specially under his protection;
       but when the Crown undertook to keep the peace everywhere, the
       king's peace became coincident with the general peace of the
       kingdom, and his especial protection was deemed to be extended
       to all peaceable subjects. In substance, the term marks the
       establishment of the conception of public justice, exercised
       on behalf of the whole commonwealth, as something apart from
       and above the right of private vengeance,—a right which the
       party offended might pursue or not, or accept composition for,
       as he thought fit. The private blood feud, it is true,
       formally and finally disappeared from English jurisprudence
       only in the present century; but in its legalized historical
       shape of the wager of battle it was not a native English
       institution.

          Sir Frederick Pollock,
          Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
          page 205.

          See, also, KING'S PEACE.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066.
       Inquisition, parent of Modern Jury.

       "When the Normans came into England they brought with them,
       not only a far more vigorous and searching kingly power than
       had been known there, but also a certain product of the
       exercise of this power by the Frankish kings and the Norman
       dukes; namely, the use of the inquisition in public
       administration, i. e., the practice of ascertaining facts by
       summoning together by public authority a number of people most
       likely, as being neighbors, to know and tell the truth, and
       calling for their answer under oath. This was the parent of
       the modern jury. …
    {1957}
       With the Normans came also another novelty, the judicial
       duel—one of the chief methods for determining controversies
       in the royal courts; and it was largely the cost, danger, and
       unpopularity of the last of these institutions which fed the
       wonderful growth of the other."

          J. B. Thayer,
          The Older Modes of Trial
          (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 45).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
       Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Normans.

       "The same remark which has already been made, with reference
       to the absence of all mention of the form of jury trial in the
       Anglo-Saxon Laws, applies equally to the first hundred years
       after the Conquest. It is incredible that so important a
       feature of our jurisprudence, if it had been known, would not
       have been alluded to in the various compilations of law which
       were made in the reigns of the early Norman kings. …
       Although the form of the jury did not then exist, the
       rudiments of that mode of trial may be distinctly traced, in
       the selection from the neighborhood where the dispute arose,
       of a certain number of persons, who after being duly sworn
       testified to the truth of the facts within their own
       knowledge. This is what distinguishes the proceeding from what
       took place among the Anglo-Saxons—namely, the choosing a
       limited number of probi homines to represent the community,
       and give testimony for them."

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          pages 82-90.

          See, also, JURY: TRIAL BY.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
       The Curia Regis.

       "As a legal tribunal the jurisdiction of the Curia was both
       civil and criminal, original and appellate. As a primary court
       it heard all causes in which the king's interests were
       concerned, as well as all causes between the tenants-in-chief
       of the crown, who were too great to submit to the local
       tribunals of the shire and the hundred. As an appellate court
       it was resorted to in those cases in which the powers of the
       local courts had been exhausted or had failed to do justice.
       By virtue of special writs, and as a special favor, the king
       could at his pleasure call up causes from the local courts to
       be heard in his own court according to such new methods as his
       advisers might invent. Through the issuance of these special
       writs the king became practically the fountain of justice, and
       through their agency the new system of royal law, which finds
       its source in the person of the king, was brought in to remedy
       the defects of the old, unelastic system of customary law
       which prevailed in the provincial courts of the people. The
       curia followed the person of the king, or the justiciar in the
       king's absence."

          Hannis Taylor,
          Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
          part 1, pages 245-246.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1215.
       Purchasing Writs.

       "The course of application to the curia regis was of this
       nature. The party suing paid, or undertook to pay, to the king
       a fine to have justitiam et rectam in his court: and thereupon
       he obtained a writ or precept, by means of which he commenced
       his suit; and the justices were authorized to hear and
       determine his claim."

          Reeves' (Finlason's) History English Law,
          volume 1, page 267.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1077.
       Trial by Battle.

       "The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any
       account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of
       Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was
       settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses …
       who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and
       battle.' This is an allusion to a common practice in the
       Middle Ages, that of challenging an adversary's witness, or
       perhaps to one method of disposing of cases where witnesses
       were allowed on opposite sides and contradicted each other.
       … Thus, as among nations still, so then in the popular
       courts and between contending private parties, the battle was
       often the ultima ratio, in cases where their rude and
       unrational methods of trial yielded no results. It was mainly
       in order to displace this dangerous … mode of proof that the
       recognitions—that is to say, the first organized form of the
       jury—were introduced. These were regarded as a special boon
       to the poor man, who was oppressed in many ways by the duel.
       It was by enactment of Henry II. that this reform was brought
       about, first in his Norman dominions (in 1150-52), before
       reaching the English throne, and afterwards in England,
       sometime after he became king, in 1154."

          J. B. Thayer,
          The Older Modes of Trial
          (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 66-67).

          See, also: WAGER OF BATTLE.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1100 (circa).
       Origin of Statutes of Limitation.

       "Our ancestors, instead of fixing a given number of years as
       the period within which legal proceedings to recover real
       property must be resorted to, had recourse to the singular
       expedient of making the period of limitation run from
       particular events or dates. From the time of Henry I. to that
       of Henry III., on a writ of right, the time within which a
       descent must be shown was the time of King Henry I. (Co. Litt.
       114b). In the twentieth year of Henry III., by the Statute of
       Merton (c. 8) the date was altered to the time of Henry II.
       Writs of 'mort d'ancestor' were limited to the time of the
       last return of King John into England; writs of novel
       disseisin to the time of the king's first crossing the sea
       into Gascony. In the previous reign, according to Glanville
       (lib. 13, c. 33), the disseisin must have been since the last
       voyage of King Henry II. into Normandy. So that the time
       necessary to bar a claim varied materially at different
       epochs. Thus matters remained until the 3 Edw. I. (Stat. West.
       1, c. 39), when, as all lawyers are aware, the time within
       which a writ of right might be brought was limited to cases in
       which the seisin of the ancestor was since the time of King
       Richard I., which was construed to mean the beginning of that
       king's reign (2 Inst. 238), a period of not less than
       eighty-six years. The legislature having thus adopted the
       reign of Richard I. as the date from which the limitation in a
       real action was to run, the courts of law adopted it as the
       period to which, in all matters of prescription or custom,
       legal memory, which till then had been confined to the time to
       which living memory could go back, should thenceforth be
       required to extend. Thus the law remained for two centuries
       and a half, by which time the limitation imposed in respect of
       actions to recover real property having long become
       inoperative to bar claims which had their origin posterior to
       the time of Richard I., and having therefore ceased
       practically to afford any protection against antiquated
       claims, the legislature, in 32d of Henry VIII. (c. 2), again
       interfered, and on this occasion, instead of dating the period
       of limitation from some particular event or date, took the
       wiser course of prescribing a fixed number of years as the
       limit within which a suit should be entertained. …
    {1958}
       It was of course impossible that as time went on the adoption
       of a fixed epoch, as the time from which legal memory was to
       run, should not be attended by grievous inconvenience and
       hardship. Possession, however long, enjoyment, however
       interrupted, afforded no protection against stale and obsolete
       claims, or the assertion of long abandoned rights. And as
       parliament failed to intervene to amend the law, the judges
       set their ingenuity to work, by fictions and presumptions, to
       atone for the supineness of the legislature. … They first
       laid down the somewhat startling rule that from the usage of a
       lifetime the presumption arose that a similar usage had
       existed from a remote antiquity. Next, as it could not but
       happen that, in the case of many private rights, especially in
       that of easements, which had a more recent origin, such a
       presumption was impossible, judicial astuteness to support
       possession and enjoyment, which the law ought to have invested
       with the character of rights, had recourse to the questionable
       theory of lost grants. Juries were first told that from user,
       during living memory, or even during twenty years, they might
       presume a lost grant or deed; next they were recommended to
       make such presumption; and lastly, as the final consummation
       of judicial legislation, it was held that a jury should be
       told, not only that they might, but also that they were bound
       to presume the existence of such a lost grant, although
       neither judge nor jury, nor anyone else, had the shadow of a
       belief that any such instrument had ever really existed. …
       When the doctrine of presumptions had proceeded far towards
       its development, the legislature at length interfered, and in
       respect of real property and of certain specified easements,
       fixed certain periods of possession or enjoyment as
       establishing presumptive rights."

          C. J. Cockburn,
          in Bryant v. Foot,
          L. R. 2 Q. B., 161;
          s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, 94).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1110 (circa).
       The King's Peace superior to the Peace of the Subject.

       "We find in the so-called laws of Henry I, that wherever men
       meet for drinking, selling, or like occasions, the peace of
       God and of the lord of the house is to be declared between
       them. The amount payable to the host is only one shilling, the
       king taking twelve, and the injured party, in case of insult,
       six. Thus the king is already concerned, and more concerned
       than anyone else; but the private right of the householder is
       distinctly though not largely acknowledged. We have the same
       feeling well marked in our modern law by the adage that every
       man's house is his castle, and the rule that forcible entry
       may not be made for the execution of ordinary civil process
       against the occupier: though for contempt of Court arising in
       a civil cause, it may, as not long ago the Sheriff of Kent had
       to learn in a sufficiently curious form. The theoretical
       stringency of our law of trespass goes back, probably, to the
       same origin. And in a quite recent American textbook we read,
       on the authority of several modern cases in various States of
       the Union, that 'a man assaulted in his dwelling is not
       obliged to retreat, but may defend his possession to the last
       extremity.'"

          F. Pollock,
          The King's Peace
          (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 40-41).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1135.
       Abeyance of the King's Peace.

       "The King's Peace is proclaimed in general terms at his
       accession. But, though generalized in its application, it
       still was subject to a strange and inconvenient limit in time.
       The fiction that the king is everywhere present, though not
       formulated, was tacitly adopted; the protection once confined
       to his household was extended to the whole kingdom. The
       fiction that the king never dies was yet to come. It was not
       the peace of the Crown, an authority having continuous and
       perpetual succession, that was proclaimed, but the peace of
       William or Henry. When William or Henry died, all authorities
       derived from him were determined or suspended; and among other
       consequences, his peace died with him. What this abeyance of
       the King's Peace practically meant is best told in the words
       of the Chronicle, which says upon the death of Henry I. (anno
       1135): 'Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every
       man that could forthwith robbed another.' Order was taken in
       this matter (as our English fashion is) only when the
       inconvenience became flagrant in a particular case. At the
       time of Henry III.'s death his son Edward was in Palestine. It
       was intolerable that there should be no way of enforcing the
       King's Peace till the king had come back to be crowned; and
       the great men of the realm, by a wise audacity, took upon them
       to issue a proclamation of the peace in the new king's name
       forthwith. This good precedent being once made, the doctrine
       of the King's Peace being in suspense was never afterwards
       heard of."

          F. Pollock,
          The King's Peace
          (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 48-49).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1154-1189.
       Origin of Unanimity of Jury.

       "The origin of the rule as to unanimity may, I think, be
       explained as follows: In the assise as instituted in the reign
       of Henry II. it was necessary that twelve jurors should agree
       in order to determine the question of disseisin; but this
       unanimity was not then secured by any process which tended to
       make the agreement compulsory. The mode adopted was called,
       indeed, an afforcement of the jury; but this term did not
       imply that any violence was done to the conscientious opinions
       of the minority. It merely meant that a sufficient number were
       to be added to the panel until twelve were at last found to
       agree in the same conclusion; and this became the verdict of
       the assise. … The civil law required two witnesses at least,
       and in some cases a greater number, to establish a fact in
       dispute; as, for instance, where a debt was secured by a
       written instrument, five witnesses were necessary to prove
       payment. These would have been called by our ancestors a
       jurata of five. At the present day, with us no will is valid
       which is not attested by at least two witnesses. In all
       countries the policy of the law determines what it will accept
       as the minimum of proof. Bearing then in mind that the jury
       system was in its inception nothing but the testimony of
       witnesses informing the court of facts supposed to lie within
       their own knowledge, we see at once that to require that
       twelve men should be unanimous was simply to fix the amount of
       evidence which the law deemed to be conclusive of a matter in
       dispute."

          W. Forsyth,
          History of Trial by Jury,
          chapter 11, section 1.

    {1959}

    A. D. 1154-1189.
       Reign of Law initiated.

       "The reign of Henry II. initiates the rule of law. The
       administrative machinery, which had been regulated by routine
       under Henry I., is now made a part of the constitution,
       enunciated in laws, and perfected by a steady series of
       reforms: The mind of Henry II. was that of a lawyer and man of
       business. He set to work from the very beginning of the reign
       to place order on a permanent basis, and, recurring to the men
       and measures of his grandfather, to complete an organization
       which should make a return to feudalism impossible."

           W. Stubbs,
           Select Charters of English Constitutional History,
           page 21.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1164-1176.
       Trial by Assize.

       "The first mention of the trial by assise in our existing
       statutes occurs in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 1164
       [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170], where it was provided that if
       any dispute arose between a layman and a clerk as to whether a
       particular tenement was the property of the Church or belonged
       to a lay fief, this was to be determined before the chief
       justiciary of the kingdom, by the verdict of twelve lawful
       men. … This was followed by the Statute of Northampton, A.
       D. 1176, which directs the justices, in case a lord should
       refuse to give to the heir the seisin of his deceased
       ancestor, 'to cause a recognition to be made by means of
       twelve lawful men as to what seisin the deceased had on the
       day of his death;' and also orders them to inquire in the same
       manner in cases of novel disseisin."

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          chapter 6, section 3.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1165 (circa).
       Justice bought and sold.

       "The king's justice was one great source of his revenue, and
       he sold it very dear. Observe that this buying and selling was
       not in itself corruption, though it is hard to believe that
       corruption did not get mixed up with it. Suitors paid heavily
       not to have causes decided in their favour in the king's
       court, but to have them heard there at all. The king's justice
       was not a matter of right, but of exceptional favour; and this
       was especially the case when he undertook, as he sometimes
       did, to review and overrule the actual decisions of local
       courts, or even reverse, on better information, his own
       previous commands. And not only was the king's writ sold, but
       it was sold at arbitrary and varying prices, the only
       explanation of which appears to be that in every case the
       king's officers took as much as they could get. Now we are in
       a position to understand that famous clause of the Great
       Charter: 'To no man will we sell, nor to none deny or delay,
       right or justice.' The Great Charter comes about half a
       century after the time of which we have been speaking; so in
       that time, you see, the great advance had been made of
       regarding the king's justice as a matter not of favour but of
       right. And besides this clause there is another which provides
       for the regular sending of the king's judges into the
       counties. Thus we may date from Magna Carta the regular
       administration of a uniform system of law throughout England.
       What is more, we may almost say that Magna Carta gave England
       a capital. For the king's court had till then no fixed seat;
       it would be now at Oxford, now at Westminster, now at
       Winchester, sometimes at places which by this time are quite
       obscure. But the Charter provided that causes between subject
       and subject which had to be tried by the king's judges should
       be tried not where the king's court happened to be, but in
       some certain place; and so the principal seat of the courts of
       justice, and ultimately the political capital of the realm,
       became established at Westminster."

          Sir F. Pollock,
          Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
          page 209.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1166.
       Assize of Clarendon.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1176.
       Justices in Eyre.

       "It has been generally supposed that justices in Eyre
       (justitiarii itinerantes) were first established in 1176, by
       Henry II., for we find it recorded that in that year, in a
       great counsel held at Northampton, the king divided the realm
       into six parts, and appointed three traveling justices to go
       each circuit, so that the number was eighteen in all. … But
       although the formal division of the kingdom into separate
       circuits may have been first made by Henry II., yet there is
       no doubt that single justiciars were appointed by William I.,
       a few years after the Conquest, who visited the different
       shires to administer justice in the king's name, and thus
       represented the curia regis as distinct from the hundred and
       county courts."

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          pages 81-82.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1189.
       Legal Memory.
       Its effect.

       "No doubt usage for the last fifty or sixty years would be
       some evidence of usage 700 years ago, but if the question is
       to be considered as an ordinary question of fact, I certainly
       for one would very seldom find a verdict in support of the
       right as in fact so ancient. I can hardly believe, for
       instance, that the same fees in courts of justice which were
       till recently received by the officers as ancient fees
       attached to their ancient offices were in fact received 700
       years ago; or that the city of London took before the time of
       Richard I. the same payments for measuring corn and coals and
       oysters that they do now. I have no doubt the city of Bristol
       did levy dues in the Avon before the time of legal memory, and
       that the mayor, as head of that corporation, got some fees at
       that time; but I can hardly bring myself to believe that the
       mayor of Bristol at that time received 5s. a year from every
       ship above sixty tons burthen which entered the Avon; yet the
       claim of the city of Bristol to their ancient mayor's dues, of
       which this is one, was established before Lord Tenterden, in
       1828. I think the only way in which verdicts in support of
       such claims, and there are many such, could have properly been
       found, is by supposing that the jury were advised that, in
       favor of the long continued user, a presumption arose that it
       was legal, on which they ought to find that the user was
       immemorial, if that was necessary to legalize it, unless the
       contrary was proved; that presumption not being one purely of
       fact, and to be acted on only when the jury really entertained
       the opinion that in fact the legal origin existed. This was
       stated by Parke B., on the first trial of Jenkins v. Harvey, 1
       C. M. & R. 894, as being his practice, and what he considered
       the correct mode of leaving the question to the jury; and that
       was the view of the majority of the judges in the Court of
       Exchequer Chamber in Shephard v. Payne, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 132;
       33 L. J. (C. P.) 158. This is by no means a modern doctrine;
       it is as ancient as the time of Littleton, who, in his
       Tenures, § 170, says that all are agreed that usage since the
       time of Richard I. is a title; some, he says, have thought it
       the only title of prescription, but that others have said
       'that there is also another title of prescription that was at
       the common law before any statute of limitation of writs, &c.,
       and that it was where a custom or usage or other thing hath
       been used for time whereof mind of man runneth not to the
       contrary.
    {1960}
       And they have said that this is proved by the pleading where a
       man will plead a title of prescription of custom. He shall say
       that such a custom hath been used from time whereof the memory
       of men runneth not to the contrary, that is as much as to say,
       when such a matter is pleaded, that no man then alive hath
       heard any proof of the contrary, nor hath no knowledge to the
       contrary; and insomuch that such title of prescription was at
       the common law, and not put out by any statute, ergo, it
       abideth as it was at the common law; and the rather that the
       said limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past.
       'Ideo quaere de hoc.' It is practically the same thing whether
       we say that usage as far back as proof extends is a title,
       though it does not go so far back as the year 1189; or that
       such usage is to be taken in the absence of proof to the
       contrary to establish that the usage began before that year;
       and certainly the lapse of 400 years since Littleton wrote has
       added force to the remark, 'the rather that the limitation of
       a writ of right is of so long time past.' But either way,
       proof that the origin of the usage was since that date, puts
       an end to the title by prescription; and the question comes
       round to be whether the amount of the fee, viz. 13s., is by
       itself sufficient proof that it must have originated since."

          J. Blackburn,
          in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161,. s. c.
          (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, page 88).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1194.
       English Law Repositories.

       "The extant English judicial records do not begin until 1194
       (Mich. 6 Rich. I.). We have a series of such records from 1384
       (6 Rich. II.). The first law treatise by Glanvill was not
       written before 1187. The law reports begin in 1292. The
       knowledge of the laws of England prior to the twelfth century
       is in many points obscure and uncertain. From that time,
       however, the growth and development of these laws can be
       traced in the parliamentary and official records, treatises,
       and law reports."

          John F. Dillon,
          The Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
          pages 28-29.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1199.
       Earliest instance of Action for Trespass.

       "A case of the year 1199 (2 Rot. Cur. Reg. 34) seems to be the
       earliest reported instance of an action of trespass in the
       royal courts. Only a few cases are recorded during the next
       fifty years. But about 1250 the action came suddenly into
       great popularity. In the 'Abbreviatio Placitorum,' twenty-five
       cases are given of the single year 1252-1253. We may infer
       that the writ, which had before been granted as a special
       favor, became at that time a writ of course. In Britton (f.
       49), pleaders are advised to sue in trespass rather than by
       appeal, in order to avoid 'la perilouse aventure de batayles.'
       Trespass in the popular courts of the hundred and county was
       doubtless of far greater antiquity than the same action in the
       Curia Regis. Several cases of the reign of Henry I, are
       collected in Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 89, 98, 102,
       127."

          J. B. Ames,
          The Disseisin of Chattels
          (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 29, note).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1208.
       Evidence: Attesting Witnesses.

       "From the beginning of our records, we find cases, in a
       dispute over the genuineness of a deed, where the jury are
       combined with the witnesses to the deed. This goes back to the
       Franks; and their custom of requiring the witness to a
       document to defend it by battle also crossed the channel, and
       is found in Glanville (lib. X., c. 12). … In these cases the
       jury and the witnesses named in the deed were summoned
       together, and all went out and conferred privately as if
       composing one body; the witnesses did not regularly testify in
       open court. Cases of this kind are found very early, e. g. in
       1208-1209 (Pl. Ab. 63, col. 1, Berk.). … In the earlier
       cases these witnesses appear, sometimes, to have been
       conceived of as a constituent part of the jury; it was a
       combination of business-witnesses and community-witnesses who
       tried the case,—the former supplying to the others their
       more exact information, just as the hundreders, or those from
       another county, did in the cases before noticed. But in time
       the jury and the witnesses came to be sharply discriminated.
       Two or three cases in the reign of Edward III. show this. In
       1337, 1338 and 1349, we are told that they are charged
       differently; the charge to the jury is to tell the truth (a
       lour ascient) to the best of their knowledge, while that to
       the witnesses is to tell the truth and loyally inform the
       inquest, without saying anything about their knowledge (sans
       lour scient); 'for the witnesses,' says Thorpe, C. J., in
       1349, 'should say nothing but what they know as certain, i.
       e., what they see and hear.' … By the Statute of York (12
       Edw. II. c. 2), in 1318, it was provided that while process
       should still issue to the witnesses as before, yet the taking
       of the inquest should not be delayed by their absence. In this
       shape the matter ran on for a century or two. By 1472 (Y. B.
       12 Edw. IV. 4, 9), we find a change. It is said, with the
       assent of all the judges, that process for the witnesses will
       not issue unless asked for. As late, certainly, as 1489 (Y. B.
       5 H. VII. 8), we find witnesses to deeds still summoned with
       the jury. I know of no later case. In 1549-1550 Brooke,
       afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Bench, argues as if
       this practice was still known: 'When the witnesses … are
       joined to the inquest,' etc.; and I do not observe anything in
       his Abridgment, published in 1568, ten years after his death,
       to indicate that it was not a recognized part of the law
       during all his time. It may, however, well have been long
       obsolescent. Coke (Inst. 6 b.) says of it, early in the
       seventeenth century, 'and such process against witnesses is
       vanished;' but when or how he does not say. We may reasonably
       surmise, if it did not become infrequent as the practice grew,
       in the fifteenth century, of calling witnesses to testify to
       the jury in open court, that, at any rate, it must have soon
       disappeared when that practice came to be attended with the
       right, recognized, if not first granted, in the statute of
       1562-1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 6), to have legal process against
       all sorts of witnesses."

          James B. Thayer,
          in Harvard Law Review,
          volume 5, pages 302-5,
          also in Sel. Cas. Ev.
          pages 771-773.

       "After the period reached in the passage above quoted, the old
       strictness as to the summoning of attesting witnesses still
       continued under the new system. As the history of the matter
       was forgotten, new reasons were invented, and the rule was
       extended to all sorts of writings."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 773.

    {1961}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215 (ante).
       Courts following the King.

       "Another point which ought not to be forgotten in relation to
       the King's Court is its migratory character. The early kings
       of England were the greatest landowners in the country, and
       besides their landed estates they had rights over nearly every
       important town in England, which could be exercised only on
       the spot. They were continually travelling about from place to
       place, either to consume in kind part of their revenues, or to
       hunt or to fight. Wherever they went the great officers of
       their court, and in particular the chancellor with his clerks,
       and the various justices had to follow them. The pleas, so the
       phrase went, 'followed the person of the king,' and the
       machinery of justice went with them."

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          History of the Criminal Law of England,
          volume 1, page 87.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215.
       Magna Charta.

       "With regard to the administration of justice, besides
       prohibiting all denials or delays of it, it fixed the court of
       Common Pleas at Westminster, that the suitors might no longer
       be harassed with following the King's person in all his
       progresses; and at the same time brought the trial of issues
       borne to the very doors of the freeholders by directing
       assizes to be taken in the proper counties, and establishing
       annual circuits. It also corrected some abuses then incident
       to the trials by wager of law and of battle; directing the
       regular awarding of inquest for life or member; prohibited the
       King's inferior ministers from holding pleas of the crown, or
       trying any criminal charge, whereby many forfeitures might
       otherwise have unjustly accrued to the exchequer: and
       regulated the time and place of holding the inferior tribunals
       of justice, the county court, sheriff's tourn, and court leet.
       … And, lastly (which alone would have merited the title that
       it bears, of the great charter,) it protected every individual
       of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty
       and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the
       judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."

          Owen Flintoff,
          Laws of England,
          page 184.

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216.
       Distinction between Common and Statute Law now begins.

       "The Chancellors, during this reign [John 1199-1216], did
       nothing to be entitled to the gratitude of posterity, and were
       not unworthy of the master whom they served. The guardians of
       law were the feudal barons, assisted by some enlightened
       churchmen, and by their efforts the doctrine of resistance to
       lawless tyranny was fully established in England, and the
       rights of all classes of the people were defined and
       consolidated. We here reach a remarkable era in our
       constitutional history: National councils had met from the
       most remote times; but to the end of this reign their acts not
       being preserved are supposed to form a part of the lex non
       scripta, or common law. Now begins the distinction between
       common and statute law, and henceforth we can distinctly trace
       the changes which our juridical system has undergone. These
       changes were generally introduced by the Chancellor for the
       time being."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 115.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216-1272.
       Henry de Bracton.

       "It is curious that, in the most disturbed period of this
       turbulent reign, when ignorance seemed to be thickening and
       the human intellect to decline, there was written and given to
       the world the best treatise upon law of which England could
       boast, till the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries, in
       the middle of the eighteenth century. It would have been very
       gratifying to me if this work could have been ascribed with
       certainty to any of the Chancellors whose lives have been
       noticed. The author, usually styled Henry de Bracton, has gone
       by the name of Brycton, Britton, Briton, Breton, and Brets;
       and some have doubted whether all these names are not
       imaginary. From the elegance of his style, and the familiar
       knowledge he displays of the Roman law, I cannot doubt that he
       was an ecclesiastic who had addicted himself to the study of
       jurisprudence; and as he was likely to gain advancement from
       his extraordinary proficiency, he may have been one of those
       whom I have commemorated, although I must confess that he
       rather speaks the language likely to come from a disappointed
       practitioner rather than of a Chancellor who had been himself
       in the habit of making Judges. For comprehensiveness, for
       lucid arrangement, for logical precision, this author was
       unrivalled during many ages. Littleton's work on Tenures,
       which illustrated the reign of Edward IV., approaches Bracton;
       but how barbarous are, in comparison, the commentaries of Lord
       Coke, and the law treatises of Hale and of Hawkins!"

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 139.

       For opposite view

          See 9 American Bar Association Report, p. 193.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1217.
       Dower.

       "The additional provision made in the edition of 1217 to the
       provisions of the earlier issues of the Charter in respect of
       widow's rights fixed the law of dower on the basis on which it
       still rests. The general rule of law still is that the widow
       is entitled for her life to a third part of the lands of which
       her husband was seized for an estate of inheritance at any
       time during the marriage. At the present day there are means
       provided which are almost universally adopted, of barring or
       defeating the widow's claim. The general rule of law, however,
       remains the same. The history of the law of dower deserves a
       short notice, which may conveniently find a place here. It
       seems to be in outline as follows. Tacitus noticed the
       contrast of Teutonic custom and Roman law, in that it was not
       the wife who conferred a dowry on the husband, but the husband
       on the wife. By early Teutonic custom, besides the
       bride-price, or price paid by the intending husband to the
       family of the bride, it seems to have been usual for the
       husband to make gifts of lands or chattels to the bride
       herself. These appear to have taken two forms. In some cases
       the husband or his father executed before marriage an
       instrument called 'libellum dotis,' specifying the nature and
       extent of the property to be given to the wife. … Another
       and apparently among the Anglo-Saxons a commoner form of dower
       is the 'morning gift.' This was the gift which on the morning
       following the wedding the husband gave to the wife, and might
       consist either of land or chattels. … By the law as stated
       by Glanvil the man was bound to endow the woman 'tempore
       desponsationis ad ostium ecclesiae.' The dower might be
       specified or not. If not specified it was the third part of
       the freehold which the husband possessed at the time of
       betrothal. If more than a third part was named, the dower was
       after the husband's death cut down to a third. A gift of less
       would however be a satisfaction of dower. It was sometimes
       permitted to increase the dower when the freehold available at
       the time of betrothal was small, by giving the wife a third
       part or less of subsequent acquisitions. This however must
       have been expressly granted at the time of betrothal.
    {1962}
       A woman could never claim more than had been granted 'ad
       ostium ecclesiae.' Dower too might be granted to a woman out
       of chattels personal, and in this case she would be entitled
       to a third part. In process of time however, this species of
       dower ceased to be regarded as legal, and was expressly denied
       to be law in the time of Henry IV. A trace of it still remains
       in the expression in the marriage service, 'with all my
       worldly goods I thee endow.'"

          Kenelm E. Digby,
          History of the Law of Real Property,
          pages 126-128 (4th edition).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
       Provisions of Oxford; no Writs except de Cursu.

       "The writ had originally no connection whatever with the
       relief sought, it had been a general direction to do right to
       the plaintiff, or as the case might be, but, long before the
       time now referred to, this had been changed. … It appears
       that even after the writ obtained by the plaintiff had come to
       be connected with the remedy sought for, … a writ to suit
       each case was framed and issued, but the Provisions of Oxford
       (1258) expressly forbade the Chancellor to frame new writs
       without the consent of the King and his Council. It followed
       that there were certain writs, each applicable to a particular
       state of circumstances and leading to a particular judgment,
       which could be purchased by an intending plaintiff. These
       writs were described as writs 'de cursu,' and additions to
       their number were made from time to time by direction of the
       King, of his Council or of Parliament."

          D. M. Kerly,
          History of Equity,
          page 9.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
       Sale of Judicial Offices.

       "The Norman Kings, who were ingenious adepts in realizing
       profit in every opportunity, commenced the sale of Judicial
       Offices. The Plantagenets followed their example. In Madox,
       chap. II., and in the 'Cottoni Posthuma, may be found
       innumerable instances of the purchase of the Chancellorship,
       and accurate details of the amount of the consideration
       monies. … What was bought must, of course, be sold, and
       justice became henceforth a marketable commodity. … The
       Courts of Law became a huckster's shop; every sort of produce,
       in the absence of money, was bartered for 'justice.'"

          J. Parke,
          History of English Chancery,
          page 23.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1265.
       Disappearance of the Office of Chief Justiciary.

       "Towards the end of this reign [Henry III.] the office of
       Chief Justiciary, which had often been found so dangerous to
       the Crown, fell into disuse. Hugh le Despenser, in the 49th of
       Henry III., was the last who bore the title. The hearing of
       common actions being fixed at Westminster by Magna Charta, the
       Aula Regia was gradually subdivided and certain Judges were
       assigned to hear criminal cases before the King himself,
       wheresoever he might be, in England. These formed the Court of
       King's Bench. They were called 'Justitiarii ad placita coram
       Rege,' and the one who was to preside 'Capitalis
       Justiciarius.' He was inferior in rank to the Chancellor, and
       had a salary of only one hundred marks a year, while the
       Chancellor had generally 500. Henceforth the Chancellor, in
       rank, power, and emolument, was the first magistrate under the
       Crown, and looked up to as the great head of the profession of
       the law."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, pages 139-140.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1275.
       Statute of Westminster the First;
       Improvement of the Law.

       "He [Robert Burnel] presided at the Parliament which met in
       May, 1275, and passed the 'Statute of Westminster the First,'
       deserving the name of a Code rather than an Act of Parliament.
       From this chiefly, Edward I. has obtained the name of 'the
       English Justinian'—absurdly enough, as the Roman Emperor
       merely caused a compilation to be made of existing
       laws,—whereas the object now was to correct abuses, to supply
       defects, and to remodel the administration of justice. Edward
       deserves infinite praise for the sanction he gave to the
       undertaking; and from the observations he had made in France,
       Sicily, and the East, he may, like Napoleon, have been
       personally useful in the consultations for the formation of
       the new Code,—but the execution of the plan must have been
       left to others professionally skilled in jurisprudence, and
       the chief merit of it may safely be ascribed to Lord
       Chancellor Burnel, who brought it forward in Parliament. The
       statute is methodically divided into fifty-one chapters. …
       It provides for freedom of popular elections, then a mutter of
       much moment, as sheriffs, coroners, and conservators of the
       peace were still chosen by the free holders in the county
       court, and attempts had been made unduly to influence the
       elections of knights of the shire, almost from the time when
       the order was instituted. … It amends the criminal law,
       putting the crime of rape on the footing to which it has been
       lately restored, as a most grievous but not a capital offence.
       It embraces the subject of 'Procedure' both in civil and
       criminal matters, introducing many regulations with a view to
       render it cheaper, more simple, and more expeditious. … As
       long as Burnel continued in office the improvement of the law
       rapidly advanced,—there having been passed in the sixth year
       of the King's reign the 'Statute of Gloucester;' in the
       seventh year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Mortmain;' in
       the thirteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of
       Westminster the Second,' the 'Statute of Winchester,' and the
       'Statute of Circumspecte agatis;' and in the eighteenth year
       of the King's reign the 'Statute of Quo Warranto,' and the
       'Statute of Quia Emptores.' With the exception of the
       establishment of estates tail, which proved such an obstacle
       to the alienation of land till defeated by the fiction of
       Fines and Common Recoveries,—these laws were in a spirit of
       enlightened legislation, and admirably accommodated the law to
       the changed circumstances of the social system,—which ought
       to be the object of every wise legislation."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, pages 143-146.

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295, and 1279.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1278.
       Foundation of Costs at Common Law.

       "The Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I c. i, is the foundation
       of the common law jurisdiction as to costs, and by that
       statute it was enacted that in any action where the plaintiff
       recovered damages, he should also recover costs. … By the
       Judicature Act, 1875, O. L. V., the Legislature gave a direct
       authority to all the judges of the Courts constituted under
       the Judicature Act, and vested in them a discretion which was
       to guide and determine them, according to the circumstances of
       each case, in the disposition of costs."

          Sydney Hastings,
          Treatise on Torts,
          page 379.

    {1963}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
       Statute of Westminster II.;
       Writs in Consimili Casu.

       "The inadequacy of the common form writs to meet every case
       was, to some extent, remedied by the 24th Chapter of the
       Statute of Westminster II., which, after providing for one or
       two particular cases to meet which no writ existed, provides
       further that 'whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in
       Chancery that in one case a writ is found, and, in like case
       falling under like law is found none, the clerks of the
       Chancery shall agree in making a writ or shall adjourn the
       Plaintiffs until the next Parliament, and the cases shall be
       written in which they cannot agree, and be referred until the
       next Parliament; and, by consent of the men learned in the Law
       a writ shall be made, that it may not happen, that the King's
       Court should fail in ministering justice unto Complainants.'
       … The words of the statute give no power to make a
       completely new departure; writs are to be framed to fit cases
       similar to, but not identical with, cases falling within
       existing writs, and the examples given in the statute itself
       are cases of extension of remedies against a successor in
       title of the raiser of a nuisance, and for the successor in
       title of a person who had been disseised of his common.
       Moreover the form of the writ was debated upon before, and its
       sufficiency determined by the judges, not by its framers, and
       they were, as English judges have always been, devoted
       adherents to precedent. In the course of centuries, by taking
       certain writs as starting points, and accumulating successive
       variations upon them, the judges added great areas to our
       common law, and many of its most famous branches, assumpsit,
       and trover and conversion for instance, were developed in this
       way, but the expansion of the Common Law was the work of the
       15th and subsequent centuries, when, under the stress of eager
       rivalry with the growing equitable jurisdiction of the
       Chancery, the judges strove, not only by admitting and
       developing actions upon the case, but also by the use of
       fictitious actions, following the example of the Roman
       Praetor, to supply the deficiencies of their system."

          D. M. Kerly,
          History of Equity,
          pages 10-11.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
       Writ of Elegit.

       The Writ of Elegit "is a judicial writ given by the statute
       Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I., c. 18, either upon a judgment for a
       debt, or damages; or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance
       taken in the king's court. By the common law a man could only
       have satisfaction of goods, chattels, and the present profits
       of lands, by the … writs of 'fieri facias,' or 'levari
       facias;' but not the possession of the lands themselves; which
       was a natural consequence of the feudal principles, which
       prohibited the alienation, and of course the encumbering of
       the fief with the debts of the owner. … The statute
       therefore granted this writ (called an 'elegit,' because it is
       in the choice or the election of the plaintiff whether he will
       sue out this writ or one of the former), by which the
       defendant's goods and chattels are not sold, but only
       appraised; and all of them (except oxen and beasts of the
       plough) are delivered to the plaintiff, at such reasonable
       appraisement and price, in part of satisfaction of his debt.
       If the goods are not sufficient, then the moiety or one-half
       of his freehold lands, which he had at the time of the
       judgment given, whether held in his own name, or by any other
       in trust for him, are also to be delivered to the plaintiff;
       to hold, till out of the rents and profits thereof the debt be
       levied, or till the defendant's interest be expired; as till
       the death of the defendant, if he be tenant for life or in
       tail."

          Wm. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, chapter 27.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1290.
       Progress of the Common Law Right of Alienation.

       "The statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., finally and
       permanently established the free right of alienation by the
       sub-vassal, without the lord's consent; … and it declared,
       that the grantee should not hold the land of his immediate
       feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee, of whom the grantor
       himself held it. … The power of involuntary alienation, by
       rendering the land answerable by attachment for debt, was
       created by the statute of Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 18, which
       granted the elegit; and by the statutes merchant or staple, of
       13 Edw. I., and 27 Edw. III., which gave the extent. These
       provisions were called for by the growing commercial spirit of
       the nation. To these we may add the statute of 1 Edw. III.,
       taking away the forfeiture or alienation by the king's tenants
       in capite, and substituting a reasonable fine in its place;
       … and this gives us a condensed view of the progress of the
       common law right of alienation from a state of servitude to
       freedom."

          J. Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 6, lecture 67.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1292.
       Fleta.

       "Fleta, so called from its composition in the Fleet prison by
       one of the justices imprisoned by Edward I., is believed to
       have been written about the year 1292, and is nothing but an
       abbreviation of Bracton, and the work called 'Britton,' which
       was composed between the years 1290 and 1300, is of the same
       character, except that it is written in the vernacular
       language, French, while Granvil, Bracton and Fleta are written
       in Latin."

          Thomas J. Semmes,
          9 American Bar Association Report,
          page 193.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1300 (circa).
       The King's Peace a Common Right.

       "By the end of the thirteenth century, a time when so much
       else of our institutions was newly and strongly fashioned for
       larger uses, the King's Peace had fully grown from an
       occasional privilege into a common right. Much, however,
       remained to be done before the king's subjects had the full
       benefit of this. … A beginning of this was made as early as
       1195 by the assignment of knights to take an oath of all men
       in the kingdom that they would keep the King's Peace to the
       best of their power. Like functions were assigned first to the
       old conservators of the peace, then to the justices who
       superseded them, and to whose office a huge array of powers
       and duties of the most miscellaneous kind have been added by
       later statutes. … Then the writ 'de securitate pacis' made
       it clear beyond cavil that the king's peace was now, by the
       common law, the right of every lawful man."

          F. Pollock,
          The King's Peace,
          (Law Quarterly Review,
          volume 1, page 49).

    A. D. 1307-1509.
       The Year Books.

       "The oldest reports extant on the English law, are the Year
       Books … , written in law French, and extend from the
       beginning of the reign of Edward II, to the latter end of the
       reign of Henry VIII, a period of about two hundred years. …
       The Year Books were very much occupied with discussions
       touching the forms of writs, and the pleadings and practice in
       real actions, which have gone entirely out of use."

          J. Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 3, lecture 21.

    {1964}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1316.
       Election of Sheriffs abolished.

       "Until the time of Edward II. the sheriff was elected by the
       inhabitants of the several counties; but a statute of the 9th
       year of that reign abolished election, and ever since, with
       few exceptions, the sheriff has been appointed, upon
       nomination by the king's councillors and the judges of certain
       ranks, by the approval of the crown. … The office of sheriff
       is still in England one of eminent honor, and is conferred on
       the wealthiest and most notable commoners in the counties."

          New American Cyclopædia,
          volume 14, page 585.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1326-1377.
       Jurors cease to be Witnesses.

       "The verdict of … the assize was founded on the personal
       knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in
       dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court.
       But there was an exception in the case of deeds which came
       into controversy, and in which persons had been named as
       witnessing the grant or other matter testified by the deed.
       … This seems to have paved the way for the important change
       whereby the jury ceasing to be witnesses themselves, gave
       their verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the
       trials. … Since the jurors themselves were originally mere
       witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between them
       and the attesting witnesses; so that it is by no means
       improbable that the latter were at first associated with them
       in the discharge of the same function, namely, the delivery of
       a verdict, and that gradually, in the course of years, a
       separation took place. This separation, at all events, existed
       in the reign of Edward III.; for although we find in the Year
       Books of that period the expression, 'the witnesses were
       joined to the assize,' a clear distinction is,
       notwithstanding, drawn between them."

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          pages 124 and 128.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1362.
       Pleading in the English tongue.
       Enrollment in Latin.

       "The Statute 36 Edward III., c. 15, A. D. 1362, enacted that
       in future all pleas should be 'pleaded, shewed, defended,
       answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue:' the
       lawyers, on the alert, appended a proviso that they should be
       'entered and enrolled' in Latin, and the old customary terms
       and forms retained."

          J. Parke,
          History of Chancery,
          page 43.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1368.
       Jury System in Civil Trials.

       "As it was an essential principle of the jury trial from the
       earliest times, that the jurors should be summoned from the
       hundred where the cause of action arose, the court, in order
       to procure their attendance, issued in the first instance a
       writ called a venire facias, commanding the sheriff or other
       officer to whom it was directed, to have twelve good and
       lawful men for the neighborhood in court upon a day therein
       specified, to try the issue joined between the parties. And
       this was accordingly done, and the sheriff had his jury ready
       at the place which the court had appointed for its sitting.
       But when the Court of Common Pleas was severed from the Curia
       Regis, and became stationary at Westminster (a change which
       took place in the reign of King John, and was the subject of
       one of the provisions of Magna Charta), it was found to be
       very inconvenient to be obliged to take juries there from all
       parts of the country. And as justices were already in the
       habit of making periodical circuits for the purpose of holding
       the assize in pleas of land, it was thought advisable to
       substitute them for the full court in banc at Westminster, in
       other cases also. The statute 13 Edw. I. c. 30, was therefore
       passed, which enacted that these justices should try other
       issues: 'wherein small examination was required,' or where
       both parties desired it, and return the inquests into the
       court above. This led to an alteration in the form of the
       venire: and instead of the sheriff being simply ordered to
       bring the jurors to the courts at Westminster on a day named,
       he was now required to bring them there on a certain day,
       'nisi prius,' that is, unless before that day the justices of
       assize came into his county, in which case the statute
       directed him to return the jury, not to the court, but before
       the justices of assize."

          W. Forsyth,
          History of Trial by Jury,
          pages 139-140.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1382.
       Peaceable Entry.

       "This remedy by entry must be pursued according to statute 5
       Rich. II., st. I., c. 8, in a peaceable and easy manner; and
       not with force or strong hand. For, if one turns or keeps
       another out of possession forcibly, this is an injury of both
       a civil and a criminal nature. The civil is remedied by an
       immediate restitution; which puts the ancient possessor in
       statu quo: the criminal injury, or public wrong, by breach of
       the king's peace, is punished by fine to the King."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, page 179.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1383-1403.
       Venue to be laid in proper Counties.

       "The statutes 6 Rich. II., c. 2, and 4 Hen. IV., c. 18, having
       ordered all writs to be laid in their proper counties, this,
       as the judges conceived, empowered them to change the venue,
       if required, and not to insist rigidly on abating the writ:
       which practice began in the reign of James the First. And this
       power is discretionally exercised, so as to prevent, and not
       to cause, a defect of justice. … And it will sometimes
       remove the venue from the proper jurisdiction, … upon a
       suggestion, duly supported, that a fair and impartial trial
       cannot be had therein."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, page 294.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1388.
       Prohibition against Citation of Roman Law
       in Common-law Tribunals.

       "In the reign of Edward III. the exactions of the court of
       Rome had become odious to the king and the people. Edward,
       supported by his Parliament, resisted the payment of the
       tribute which his predecessors from the Conquest downwards,
       but more particularly from the time of John, had been
       accustomed to pay to the court of Rome; … the name of the
       Roman Law, which in the reigns of Henry II. and III., and of
       Edward I., had been in considerable favor at court, and even
       … with the judges, became the object of aversion. In the
       reign of Richard II. the barons protested that they would
       never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law, and
       the judges prohibited it from being any longer cited in the
       common law tribunals."

          G. Spence,
          Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
          volume 1, page 346.

    {1965}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1436.
       Act to prevent interference with Common Law Process.

       "In 1436, an act was passed with the concurrence of the
       Chancellor, to check the wanton filing of bills in Chancery in
       disturbance of common law process. The Commons, after reciting
       the prevailing grievance, prayed 'that every person from this
       time forward vexed in Chancery for matter determinable by the
       common law, have action against him that so vexed him, and
       recover his damages.' The King answered, 'that no writ of
       subpoena be granted hereafter till security be found to
       satisfy the party so vexed and grieved for his damages and
       expenses, if it so be that the matter may not be made good
       which is contained in the bill.'"

           Lord Campbell,
           Lives of the Chancellors,
           volume I, page 272.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1450 (circa).
       Evidence.
       Number of Witnesses.

       "It is then abundantly plain that by this time [the middle of
       the 15th century] witnesses could testify in open court to the
       jury. That this was by no means freely done seems also plain.
       Furthermore, it is pretty certain that this feature of a jury
       trial, in our day so conspicuous and indispensable, was then
       but little considered and of small importance."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 1071.

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Thayer,
          The Jury and its Development
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 5, page 360).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1456.
       Demurrers to Evidence.

       "Very soon, as it seems, after the general practice began of
       allowing witnesses to testify to the jury, an interesting
       contrivance for eliminating the jury came into existence, the
       demurrer upon evidence. Such demurrers, like others, were
       demurrers in law; but they had the effect to withdraw from the
       jury all consideration of the facts, and, in their pure form,
       to submit to the court two questions, of which only the second
       was, in strictness, a question of law: (1) Whether a verdict
       for the party who gave the evidence could be given, as a
       matter of legitimate inference and interpretation from the
       evidence; (2) As a matter of law. Of this expedient, I do not
       observe any mention earlier than the year 1456, and it is
       interesting to notice that we do not trace the full use of
       witnesses to the jury much earlier than this."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Law and Fact in Jury Trials
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 4, page 162).

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 149.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1470.
       Evidence.
       Competency of Witnesses.

       "Fortescue (De Laud. c. 26), who has the earliest account
       (about 1470) of witnesses testifying regularly to the jury,
       gives no information as to any ground for challenging them.
       But Coke, a century and a third later, makes certain
       qualifications of the assertion of the older judges, that
       'they had not seen witnesses challenged.' He mentions as
       grounds of exclusion, legal infamy, being an 'infidel,' of
       non-sane memory, 'not of discretion,' a party interested, 'or
       the like.' And he says that 'it hath been resolved by the
       justices [in 1612] that a wife cannot be produced either
       against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne
       una.' He also points out that 'he that challengeth a right in
       the thing in demand cannot be a witness.' Here are the
       outlines of the subsequent tests for the competency of
       witnesses. They were much refined upon, particularly the
       excluding ground of interest; and great inconveniences
       resulted. At last in the fourth and fifth decades of the
       present century, in England, nearly all objections to
       competency were abolished, or turned into matters of
       privilege."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          p. 1070.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1473.
       Barring Entails.
       Taltarum's Case.

       "The common-law judges at this time were very bold men, having
       of their own authority repealed the statute De Donis, passed
       in the reign of Edward I., which authorized the perpetual
       entail of land,—by deciding in Taltarum's Case, that the
       entail might be barred through a fictitious proceeding in the
       Court of Common Pleas, called a 'Common Recovery;'—the
       estate being adjudged to a sham claimant,—a sham equivalent
       being given to those who ought to succeed to it,—and the
       tenant in tail being enabled to dispose of it as he pleases,
       in spite of the will of the donor."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, pages 309-310.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1481-1505.
       Development of Actions of Assumpsit.

       "It is probable that the willingness of equity to give
       pecuniary relief upon parol promises hastened the development
       of the action of assumpsit. Fairfax, J., in 1481, advised
       pleaders to pay more attention to actions on the case, and
       thereby diminish the resort to chancery; and Fineux, C. J.,
       remarked, in 1505, after that advice had been followed and
       sanctioned by the courts, that it was no longer necessary to
       sue a subpoena in such cases. Brooke, in his 'Abridgment,'
       adds to this remark of Fineux, C. J.: 'But note that he shall
       have only damages by this [action on the case], but by
       subpoena the chancellor may compel him to execute the estate
       or imprison him ut dicitur.'"

          J. B. Ames,
          Specific Performance of Contracts
          (The Green Bag,
          volume 1, page 26).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1484.
       Statutes to be in English.

       "In opening the volumes of our laws, as printed by authority
       'from original records and authentic manuscripts,' we are
       struck with a change upon the face of these Statutes of
       Richard III., which indicates as true a regard for the liberty
       of the subjects as the laws themselves. For the first time the
       laws to be obeyed by the English people are enacted in the
       English tongue."

          Charles Knight,
          History of England,
          volume 2, page 200.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499 (circa).
       Copyright.

       "From about the period of the introduction of printing into
       this country, that is to say, towards the end of the fifteenth
       century, English authors had, in accordance with the opinion
       of the best legal authorities, a right to the Copyright in
       their works, according to the Common Law of the Realm, or a
       right to their 'copy' as it was anciently called, but there is
       no direct evidence of the right until 1558. The Charter of the
       Stationers' Company, which to this day is charged with the
       Registration of Copyright, was granted by Philip and Mary in
       1556. The avowed object of this corporation was to prevent the
       spread of the Reformation. Then there followed the despotic
       jurisdiction of the Star Chamber over the publication of
       books, and the Ordinances and the Licensing Act of Charles II.
       At the commencement of the 18th century there was no statutory
       protection of Copyright. Unrestricted piracy was rife. The
       existing remedies of a bill in equity and an action at law
       were too cumbrous and expensive to protect the authors' Common
       Law rights, and authors petitioned Parliament for speedier and
       more effectual remedies. In consequence, the 8 Anne, c. 19,
       the first English Statute providing for the protection of
       Copyright, was passed in 1710. This Act gave to the author the
       sole liberty of publication for 14 years, with a further term
       of fourteen years, provided the author was living at the
       expiration of the first term, and enacted provisions for the
       forfeiture of piratical copies and for the imposition of
       penalties in cases of piracy.
    {1966}
       But in obtaining this Act, the authors placed themselves very
       much in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped the
       substance in snatching at the shadow, for, while on the one
       hand they obtained the remedial measures they desired, on the
       other, the Perpetual Copyright to which they were entitled at
       the Common Law was reduced to the fixed maximum term already
       mentioned, through the combined operation of the statute and
       the judicial decisions to be presently referred to. But
       notwithstanding the statute, the Courts continued for some
       time to recognise the rights of authors at Common Law, and
       numerous injunctions were granted to protect the Copyright in
       books, in which the term of protection granted by the statute
       of Anne had expired, and which injunctions therefore could
       only have been granted on the basis of the Common Law right.
       In 1769 judgment was pronounced in the great Copyright case of
       Millar v. Taylor. The book in controversy was Thomson's
       'Seasons,' in which work the period of Copyright granted by
       the statute of Anne had expired, and the question was directly
       raised, whether a Perpetual Copyright according to Common Law,
       and independent of that statute, remained in the author after
       publication. Lord Mansfield, one of the greatest lawyers of
       all times, maintained in his judgment that Copyright was
       founded on the Common Law, and that it had not been taken away
       by the statute of Anne, which was intended merely to give for
       a term of years a more complete protection. But, in 1774 this
       decision was overruled by the House of Lords in the equally
       celebrated pendent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the
       Judges consulted were equally divided on the same point, Lord
       Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone being amongst those who
       were of opinion that the Common Law right had not been taken
       away by the statute of Anne. But owing to a point of
       etiquette, namely that of being peer as well as one of the
       Judges, Lord Mansfield did not express his opinion, and in
       consequence, the House of Lords, influenced by a specious
       oration from Lord Camden, held (contrary to the opinion of the
       above-mentioned illustrious Jurists), that the statute had
       taken away all Common Law rights after publication, and hence
       that in a published book there was no Copyright except that
       given by the statute. This judgment caused great alarm amongst
       those who supposed that their Copyright was perpetual. Acts of
       Parliament were applied for, and in 1775 the Universities
       obtained one protecting their literary property."

          T. A. Romer,
          Copyright Law Reform
          (Law Magazine & Review,
          4th ser., volume 12, page 231).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499.
       Action of Ejectment.

       "The writ of 'ejectione firmæ' … , out of which the modern
       action of ejectment has gradually grown into its present form,
       is not of any great antiquity. … The Court of Common Pleas
       had exclusive jurisdiction of real actions while ejectment
       could be brought in all three of the great common law courts.
       … The practitioners in the King's Bench also encouraged
       ejectment, for it enabled them to share in the lucrative
       practice of the Common Pleas. … In the action of 'ejectione
       firmæ,' the plaintiff first only recovered damages, as in any
       other action of trespass. … The courts, consequently
       following, it is said, in the footsteps of the courts of
       equity, … introduced into this action a species of relief
       not warranted by the original writ, … viz., a judgment to
       recover the term, and a writ of possession thereupon. Possibly
       the change was inspired by jealousy of the chancery courts. It
       cannot be stated precisely when this change took place. In
       1383 it was conceded by the full court that in 'ejectione
       firmæ' the plaintiff could no more recover his term than in
       trespass he could recover damages for a trespass to be done.
       … But in 1468 it was agreed by opposing counsel that the
       term could be recovered, as well as damages. The earliest
       reported decision to this effect was in 1499, and is referred
       to by Mr. Reeves as the most important adjudication rendered
       during the reign of Henry VII., for it changed the whole
       system of remedies for the trial of controverted titles to
       land, and the recovery of real property."

          Sedgwick and Wait,
          Trial of Title to Land (2nd edition),
          sections 12-25.

       "Ejectment is the form of action now retained in use in
       England under the Statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 7, § 36,
       which abolished all other forms of real actions except dower.
       It is in general use in some form in this country, and by it
       the plaintiff recovers, if at all, upon the strength of his
       own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the tenant,
       since possession is deemed conclusive evidence of title as to
       all persons except such as can show a better one."

          Washburn,
          Real Property (5th edition),
          volume 1, page 465.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1504-1542.
       Consideration in Contracts.

       "To the present writer it seems impossible to refer
       consideration to a single source. At the present day it is
       doubtless just and expedient to resolve every consideration
       into a detriment to the promisee incurred at the request of
       the promisor. But this definition of consideration would not
       have covered the cases of the 16th century. There were then
       two distinct forms of consideration: (1) detriment; (2) a
       precedent debt. Of these detriment was the more ancient,
       having become established in substance, as early as 1504. On
       the other hand no case has been found recognizing the validity
       of a promise to pay a precedent debt before 1542. These two
       species of consideration, so different in their nature, are,
       as would be surmised, of distinct origin. The history of
       detriment is bound up with the history of special assumpsit,
       whereas the consideration based upon a precedent debt must be
       studied in the development of 'indebitatus assumpsit.'"

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, pages 1-2).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1520.
       The Law of Parol Guaranty.

       "It was decided in 1520, that one who sold goods to a third
       person on the faith of the defendant's promise that the price
       should be paid, might have an action on the case upon the
       promise. This decision introduced the whole law of parol
       guaranty. Cases in which the plaintiff gave his time or labor
       were as much within the principle of the new action as those
       in which he parted with property. And this fact was speedily
       recognized. In Saint-Germain's book, published in 1531, the
       student of law thus defines the liability of a promisor: 'If
       he to whom the promise is made have a charge by reason of the
       promise, … he shall have an action for that thing that was
       promised, though he that made the promise have no worldly
       profit by it.' From that day to this a detriment has always
       been deemed a valid consideration for a promise if incurred at
       the promisor's request."

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 14).

    {1967}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1535.
       Statute of Uses.

       "Before the passing of the Statute of Uses in the
       twenty-seventh year of Henry VIII, attempts had been made to
       protect by legislation the interests of creditors, of the
       king, and of the lords, which were affected injuriously by
       feoffments to uses. … The object of that Statute was by
       joining the possession or seisen to the use and interest (or,
       in other words, by providing that all the estate which would
       by the common law have passed to the grantee to uses should
       instantly be taken out of him and vested in 'cestui que use'),
       to annihilate altogether the distinction between the legal and
       beneficial ownership, to make the ostensible tenant, in every
       case also the legal tenant, liable to his lord for feudal dues
       and services,—wardship, marriage, and the rest. … By
       converting the use into the legal interest the Statute did
       away with the power of disposing of interests in lands by
       will, which had been one of the most important results of the
       introduction of uses. Probably these were the chief results
       aimed at by the Statute of Uses. A strange combination of
       circumstances—the force of usage by which practices had
       arisen too strong even for legislation to do away with,
       coupled with an almost superstitious adherence on the part of
       the courts to the letter of the statute—produced the curious
       result, that the effect of the Statute of Uses was directly
       the reverse of its purpose, that by means of it secret
       conveyances of the legal estate were introduced, while by a
       strained interpretation of its terms the old distinction
       between beneficial or equitable and legal ownership was
       revived. What may be called the modern law of Real Property
       and the highly technical and intricate system of conveyancing
       which still prevails, dates from the legislation of Henry
       VIII."

          Kenelm E. Digby,
          History of the Law of Real Property (4th edition),
          pages 343-345.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1540-1542.
       Testamentary Power.

       "The power of disposing by will of land and goods has been of
       slow growth in England. The peculiar theories of the English
       land system prevented the existence of a testamentary power
       over land until it was created by the Statute of Wills (32 &
       34 Hen. VIII.) extended by later statutes, and although a
       testamentary power over personal property is very ancient in
       this country, it was limited at common law by the claims of
       the testator's widow and children to their 'reasonable parts'
       of his goods. The widow was entitled to one third, or if there
       were no children to one half of her husband's personal estate;
       and the children to one third, or if there was no widow to one
       half of their father's personal estate, and the testator could
       only dispose by his will of what remained. Whether the
       superior claims of the widow and children existed all over
       England or only in some counties by custom is doubted; but …
       by Statutes of William and Mary, Will. III. and Geo. I.,
       followed by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), the customs have
       been abolished, and a testator's testamentary power now
       extends to all his real and personal property."

          Stuart C. Macaskie,
          The Law of Executors and Administrators,
          page 1.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1542.
       Liability in Indebitatus Assumpsit on an Express Promise.

       "The origin of indebitatus assumpsit may be explained in a few
       words: Slade's case [4 Rep., 92a], decided in 1603, is
       commonly thought to be the source of this action. But this is
       a misapprehension. 'Indebitatus assumpsit' upon an express
       promise is at least sixty years older than Slade's case. The
       evidence of its existence throughout the last half of the
       sixteenth century is conclusive. There is a note by Brooke,
       who died in 1558, as follows: 'where one is indebted to me,
       and he promises to pay before Michaelmas, I may have an action
       of debt on the contract, or an action on the case on the
       promise.'"

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 16).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1557.
       Statute of Uses Rendered Nugatory.

       "Twenty-two years after the passing of this statute (Mich.
       Term 4 & 5 Ph. & M.) the judges by a decision practically
       rendered the Statute nugatory by holding that the Statute will
       not execute more than one use, and that if there be a second
       use declared the Statute will not operate upon it. The effect
       of this was to bring again into full operation the equitable
       doctrine as to uses in lands."

          A. H. Marsh,
          History of the Court of Chancery,
          pages 122-123.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1580.
       Equal Distribution of Property.

       "In Holland, all property, both real and personal, of persons
       dying intestate, except land held by feudal tenure, was
       equally divided among the children, under the provisions of an
       act passed by the States in 1580. This act also contained a
       further enlightened provision, copied from Rome, and since
       adopted in other Continental Countries, which prohibited
       parents from disinheriting their children except for certain
       specified offences. Under this legal system, it became
       customary for parents to divide their property by will equally
       among their children, just as the custom of leaving all the
       property to the eldest son grew up under the laws of England.
       The Puritans who settled New England adopted the idea of the
       equal distribution of property, in case there was no
       will—giving to the eldest son, however, in some of the
       colonies a double portion, according to the Old Testament
       injunction,—and thence it has spread over the whole United
       States."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 2, page 452.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1589.
       Earliest notice of Contract of Insurance.

       "The first notice of the contract of insurance that appears in
       the English reports, is a case cited in Coke's Reports [6
       Coke's Rep., 47b], and decided in the 31st of Elizabeth; and
       the commercial spirit of that age gave birth to the statute of
       43rd Elizabeth, passed to give facility to the contract, and
       which created the court of policies of assurance, and shows by
       its preamble that the business of marine insurance had been in
       immemorial use, and actively followed. But the law of
       insurance received very little study and cultivation for ages
       afterwards; and Mr. Park informs us that there were not forty
       cases upon matters of insurance prior to the year 1756, and
       even those cases were generally loose nisi prius notes,
       containing very little information or claim to authority."

          J. Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 5, lecture 48.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1592.
       A Highwayman as a Chief-Justice.

       "In 1592, Elizabeth appointed to the office of Chief-Justice
       of England a lawyer, John Popham, who is said to have
       occasionally been a highwayman until the age of thirty. At
       first blush this seems incredible, but only because such false
       notions generally prevail regarding the character of the time.
       The fact is that neither piracy nor robbery was considered
       particularly discreditable at the court of Elizabeth.
    {1968}
       The queen knighted Francis Drake for his exploits as a pirate,
       and a law on the statute-books, passed in the middle of the
       century, gave benefit of clergy to peers of the realm when
       convicted of highway robbery. Men may doubt, if they choose,
       the stories about Popham, but the testimony of this statute
       cannot be disputed."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 1. page 366.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650-1700.
       Evidence.
       "Best Evidence Rule."

       "This phrase is an old one. During the latter part of the
       seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth, while
       rules of evidence were forming, the judges and text writers
       were in the habit of laying down two principles; namely, (1)
       that one must bring the best evidence that he can, and (2)
       that if he does this, it is enough. These principles were the
       beginning, in the endeavor to give consistency to the system
       of evidence before juries. They were never literally
       enforced,—they were principles and not exact rules; but for a
       long time they afforded a valuable test. As rules of evidence
       and exceptions to the rules became more definite, the field
       for the application of the general principle of the 'Best
       Evidence' was narrower. But it was often resorted to as a
       definite rule and test in a manner which was very misleading.
       This is still occasionally done, as when we are told in
       McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y, p. 218, that 'it is a universal
       rule founded on necessity, that the best evidence of which the
       nature of the case admits is always receivable.' Greenleaf's
       treatment of this topic (followed by Taylor) is perplexing and
       antiquated. A juster conception of it is found in Best, Evid.
       s. 88. Always the chief example of the 'Best Evidence'
       principle was the rule about proving the contents of a
       writing. But the origin of this rule about writings was older
       than the 'Best Evidence' principle; and that principle may
       well have been a generalization from this rule, which appears
       to be traceable to the doctrine of profert. That doctrine
       required the actual production of the instrument which was set
       up in pleading. In like manner, it was said, in dealing with
       the jury, that a jury could not specifically find the contents
       of a deed unless it had been exhibited to them in evidence.
       And afterwards when the jury came to hear testimony from
       witnesses, it was said that witnesses could not undertake to
       speak to the contents of a deed without the production of the
       deed itself. … Our earliest records show the practice of
       exhibiting charters and other writings to the jury."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 726.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1600.
       Mortgagee's Right to Possession.

       "When this country was colonized, about A. D. 1600, the law of
       mortgage was perfectly well settled in England. It was
       established there that a mortgage, whether by deed upon
       condition, by trust deed, or by deed and defeasance, vested
       the fee, at law, in the mortgagee, and that the mortgagee,
       unless the deed reserved possession to the mortgagor, was
       entitled to immediate possession. Theoretically our ancestors
       brought this law to America with them. Things ran on until the
       Revolution. Mortgages were given in the English form, by deed
       on condition, by deed and defeasance, or by trust deed. It was
       not customary in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay, and it is
       probable that it was not customary elsewhere, to insert a
       provision that the mortgagor, until default in payment, should
       retain possession. Theoretically, during the one hundred and
       fifty years from the first settlement to the Revolution, the
       English rules of law governed all these transactions, and, as
       matter of book law, every mortgagee of a house or a farm was
       the owner of it, and had the absolute right to take possession
       upon the delivery of the deed. But the curious thing about
       this is, that the people generally never dreamed that such was
       the law."

          H. W. Chaplin,
          The Story of Mortgage Law
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 4, page 12).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1601-1602.
       Malicious Prosecution.

       "The modern action for malicious prosecution, represented
       formerly by the action for conspiracy, has brought down to our
       own time a doctrine which is probably traceable to the
       practice of spreading the case fully upon the record, namely,
       that what is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution
       is a question for the court. That it is a question of fact is
       confessed, and also that other like questions in similar cases
       are given to the jury. Reasons of policy led the old judges to
       permit the defendant to state his case fully upon the record,
       so as to secure to the court a greater control over the jury
       in handling the facts, and to keep what were accounted
       questions of law, i. e., questions which it was thought should
       be decided by the judges out of the jury's hands. Gawdy, J.,
       in such a case, in 1601-2, 'doubted whether it were a plea,
       because it amounts to a non culpabilis. … But the other
       justices held that it was a good plea, per doubt del lay
       gents.' Now that the mode of pleading has changed, the old
       rule still holds; being maintained, perhaps, chiefly by the
       old reasons of policy."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Law and Fact in Jury Trials
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 4, page 147).

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 150.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1603.
       Earliest reported case of Bills of Exchange.

       "The origin and history of Bills of Exchange and other
       negotiable instruments are traced by Lord Chief Justice
       Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwin v. Robarts [L. R. 10 Ex.,
       pages 346-358]. It seems that bills were first brought into
       use by the Florentines in the twelfth century. From Italy the
       use of them spread to France, and eventually they were
       introduced into England. The first English reported case in
       which they are mentioned is Martin v. Boure (Cro. Jac. 3),
       decided in 1603. At first the use of Bills of Exchange seems
       to have been confined to foreign bills between English and
       foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic
       bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons
       whether traders or not. The law throughout has been based on
       the custom of merchants respecting them; the old form of
       declaration on bill used always to state that it was drawn
       'secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum.'"

          M. D. Chalmers,
          Bills of Exchange,
          page xliv., introduction.

          See, also,
          MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

    {1969}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1604.
       Death Inferred from Long Absence.

       "It is not at all modern to infer death from a long absence;
       the recent thing is the fixing of a time of seven years, and
       putting this into a rule. The faint beginning of it, as a
       common-law rule, and one of general application in all
       questions of life and death, is found, so far as our recorded
       cases show, in Doe d. George v. Jesson (January, 1805). Long
       before this time, in 1604, the 'Bigamy Act' of James I. had
       exempted from the scope of its provisions, and so from the
       situation and punishment of a felon (1) those persons who had
       married a second time when the first spouse had been beyond
       the seas for seven years, and (2) those whose spouse had been
       absent for seven years, although not beyond the seas,—'the
       one of them not knowing the other to be living within that
       time.' This statute did not treat matters altogether as if the
       absent party were dead; it did not validate the second
       marriage in either case. It simply exempted a party from the
       statutory penalty."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 3, page 151).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1609.
       First Recognition of Right to Sue for Quantum Meruit.

       "There seems to have been no recognition of the right to sue
       upon an implied 'quantum meruit' before 1609. The innkeeper
       was the first to profit by the innovation. Reciprocity
       demanded that, if the law imposed a duty upon the innkeeper to
       receive and keep safely, it should also imply a promise on the
       part of the guest to pay what was reasonable. The tailor was
       in the same case with the innkeeper, and his right to recover
       upon a quantum meruit was recognized in 1610.". [Six
       Carpenters' Case, 8 Rep., 147a.]

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 58).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1623.
       Liability of Gratuitous Bailee to be Charged in Assumpsit,
       established.

       "The earliest attempt to charge bailees in assumpsit were made
       when the bailment was gratuitous. These attempts, just before
       and after 1600, were unsuccessful, because the plaintiffs
       could not make out any consideration. The gratuitous bailment
       was, of course, not a benefit, but a burden to the defendant;
       and, on the other hand, it was not regarded as a detriment,
       but an advantage to the plaintiff. But in 1623 it was finally
       decided, not without a great straining, it must be conceded,
       of the doctrine of consideration, that a bailee might be
       charged in assumpsit on a gratuitous bailment."

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 6,
          citing Wheatley v. Low, Palm., 281; Cro. Jac. 668).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1625 (circa).
       Experiment in Legislation.
       Limitation in time.

       "The distinction between temporary and permanent Legislation
       is a very old one." It was a distinction expressed at Athens;
       but "we have no such variety of name. All are alike Acts of
       Parliament. Acts in the nature of new departures in the Law of
       an important kind are frequently limited in time, very often
       with a view of gaining experience as to the practical working
       of a new system before the Legislature commits itself to final
       legislation on the subject, sometimes, no doubt, by way of
       compromise with the Opposition, objecting to the passing of
       such a measure at all. Limitation in time often occurs in old
       Acts. Instances are the first Act of the first Parliament of
       Charles I. (1 Car. 1., c. 1), forbidding certain sports and
       pastimes on Sunday, and permitting others. The Book of Sports
       of James I. had prepared the mind of the people for that more
       liberal observance of Sunday which had been so offensive to
       the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign, but it had not been down to
       that time acknowledged by the Legislature. This was now done
       in 1625, the Act was passed for the then Parliament, continued
       from time to time, and finally (the experiment having
       apparently succeeded) made perpetual in 1641. Another instance
       is the Music Hall Act of 1752 passed it is said on the advice
       of Henry Fielding, in consequence of the disorderly state of
       the music halls of the period, and perhaps still more on
       account of the Jacobite songs sometimes sung at such places.
       It was passed for three years, and, having apparently put an
       end to local disaffection, was made perpetual in 1755. Modern
       instances are the Ballot Act, 1872, passed originally for
       eight years, and now annually continued, the Regulation of
       Railways Act, 1873, creating a new tribunal, the Railway
       Commission, passed originally for five years, and annually
       continued until made perpetual by the Railway and Canal
       Traffic Act, 1888; the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, a new
       departure in Social Legislation, expiring on the 31st
       December, 1887, and since annually continued; and the Shop
       Hours Regulation Act, 1886, a similar departure, expiring in
       1888, and continued for the present Session. … (2) Place.
       —It is in this respect that the Experimental method of
       Parliament is most conspicuous. A law is enacted binding only
       locally, and is sometimes extended to the whole or a part of
       the realm, sometimes not. The old Statute of Circumspecte
       Agatis (13 Edw. I., stat. 4) passed in 1285 is one of the
       earliest examples. The point of importance in it is that it
       was addressed only to the Bishop of Norwich, but afterwards
       seems to have been tacitly admitted as law in the case of all
       dioceses, having probably been found to have worked well at
       Norwich. It was not unlike the Rescripts of the Roman
       emperors, which, primarily addressed to an individual,
       afterwards became precedents of general law."

          James William
          (Law Magazine & Review, London 1888-9),
          4th ser., volume 14, page 306.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1630-1641.
       Public Registry.

       "When now we look to the United States, we find no difficulty
       in tracing the history of the institution on this side of the
       Atlantic. The first settlers of New York coming from Holland,
       brought it with them. In 1636, the Pilgrims of Plymouth,
       coming also from Holland, passed a law requiring that for the
       prevention of frauds, all conveyances, including mortgages and
       leases, should be recorded. Connecticut followed in 1639, the
       Puritans of Massachusetts in 1641; Penn, of course, introduced
       it into Pennsylvania. Subsequently every State of the Union
       established substantially the same system."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 2, page 463.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650 (circa).
       Law regarded as a Luxury.

       "Of all the reforms needed in England, that of the law was
       perhaps the most urgent. In the general features of its
       administration the system had been little changed since the
       days of the first Edward. As to its details, a mass of abuses
       had grown up which made the name of justice nothing but a
       mockery. Twenty thousand cases, it was said, stood for
       judgment in the Court of Chancery, some of them ten, twenty,
       thirty years old. In all the courts the judges held their
       positions at the pleasure of the crown. They and their clerks,
       the marshals, and the sheriffs exacted exorbitant fees for
       every service, and on their cause-list gave the preference to
       the suitor with the longest purse. Legal documents were
       written in a barbarous jargon which none but the initiated
       could understand.
    {1970}
       The lawyers, for centuries, had exercised their ingenuity in
       perfecting a system of pleading, the main object of which
       seems to have been to augment their charges, while burying the
       merits of a cause under a tangle of technicalities which would
       secure them from disentombment. The result was that law had
       become a luxury for the rich alone."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 2, pages 383-384.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1657.
       Perhaps the first Indebitatus Assumpsit for Money paid to
       Defendant by Mistake.

       "One who received money from another to be applied in a
       particular way was bound to give an account of his
       stewardship. If he fulfilled his commission, a plea to that
       effect would be a valid discharge. If he failed for any reason
       to apply the money in the mode directed, the auditors would
       find that the amount received was due to the plaintiff, who
       would have a judgment for its recovery. If, for example, the
       money was to be applied in payment of a debt erroneously
       supposed to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant, …
       the intended application of the money being impossible, the
       plaintiff would recover the money in Account. Debt would also
       lie in such cases. … By means of a fiction of a promise
       implied in law 'Indebitatus Assumpsit' because concurrent with
       Debt, and thus was established the familiar action of
       Assumpsit for money had and received to recover money paid to
       the defendant by mistake. Bonnel v. Fowke (1657) is, perhaps,
       the first action of the kind."

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 66).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1670.
       Personal Knowledge of Jurors.

       "The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
       where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
       and this explains the origin of the venue (vicintum), which
       appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
       day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
       summoned. … And it was said by the Court of Common Pleas in
       Bushell's case (A. D. 1670), that the jury being returned from
       the vicinage whence the cause of action arises, the law
       supposes them to have sufficient knowledge to try the matters
       in issue, 'and so they must, though no evidence were given on
       either side in court';—and the case is put of an action upon
       a bond to which the defendant pleads solvit ad diem, but
       offers no proof:—where, the court said 'the jury is directed
       to find for the plaintiff, unless they know payment was made
       of their own knowledge, according to the plea.' This is the
       meaning of the old legal doctrine, which is at first sight
       somewhat startling, that the evidence in court is not binding
       evidence to a jury. Therefore acting upon their own knowledge,
       they were at liberty to give a verdict in direct opposition to
       the evidence, if they so thought fit."

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          pages 134-136.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1678.
       The Statute of Frauds.

       "During Lord Nottingham's period of office, and partly in
       consequence of his advice, the Statute of Frauds was passed.
       Its main provisions are directed against the enforcement of
       verbal contracts, the validity of verbal conveyances of
       interests in land, the creation of trusts of lands without
       writing, and the allowance of nuncupative wills. It also made
       equitable interests in lands subject to the owner's debts to
       the same extent as legal interests were. The statute carried
       into legislative effect principles which had, so far back as
       the time of Bacon's orders, been approved by the Court of
       Chancery, and by its operation in the common law courts it
       must often have obviated the necessity for equitable
       interference. In modern times it has not infrequently been
       decried, especially so far as it restricts the verbal proof of
       contracts, but in estimating its value and operation at the
       time it became a law it must be remembered that the evidence
       of the parties to an action at law could not then be received,
       and the Defendant might have been charged upon the
       uncorroborated statement of a single witness which he was not
       allowed to contradict, as Lord Eldon argued many years
       afterwards, when the action upon the case for fraud was
       introduced at law. It was therefore a most reasonable
       precaution, while this unreasonable rule continued, to lay
       down that the Defendant should be charged only upon writing
       signed by him."

          D. M. Kerly,
          History of Equity,
          page 170.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1680.
       Habeas Corpus and Personal Liberty.

       "The language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall
       be taken or imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his
       equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old
       statutes expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or
       imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king or his
       council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of
       the common-law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I., it is
       enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained
       without cause shown. … By 16 Car. I., c. 10, if any person
       be restrained of his liberty … , he shall, upon demand of
       his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body
       before the court of king's bench or common pleas, who shall
       determine whether the cause of his commitment be just. … And
       by 31 Car. II., c. 2, commonly called the habeas corpus act,
       the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out
       and enforced, that, … no subject of England can be long
       detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law
       requires and justifies such detainer. And, … it is declared
       by 1 W. and M. St. 2, c. 2, that excessive bail ought not be
       required."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries, I., 135.

          J. Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 4, lecture 24.

       For the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY).

    A. D. 1683-1771.
       Subsequent Birth of a Child revokes a Will.

       "The first case that recognized the rule that the subsequent
       birth of a child was a revocation of a will of personal
       property, was decided by the court of delegates, upon appeal,
       in the reign of Charles II.; and it was grounded upon the law
       of the civilians [Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Show Rep., 253]. …
       The rule was applied in chancery to a devise of real estate,
       in Brown v. Thompson [I Ld. Raym. 441]; but it was received
       with doubt by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Northington. The
       distinction between a will of real and personal estate could
       not well be supported; and Lord Mansfield declared, that he
       saw no ground for a distinction. The great point was finally
       and solemnly settled, in 1771, by the court of exchequer, in
       Christopher v. Christopher [Dicken's Rep. 445], that marriage
       and a child, were a revocation of a will of land."

          J. Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 6, lecture 68.

    {1971}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1688.
       Dividing Line between Old and New Law.

       The dividing line between the ancient and the modern English
       reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed
       at the revolution in the year 1688. "The distinction between
       the old and new law seems then to be more distinctly marked.
       The cumbersome and oppressive appendages of the feudal tenures
       were abolished in the reign of Charles II., and the spirit of
       modern improvement, … began then to be more sensibly felt,
       and more actively diffused. The appointment of that great and
       honest lawyer, Lord Holt, to the station of chief justice of
       the King's Bench, gave a new tone and impulse to the vigour of
       the common law."

          J. Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 3, lecture 21.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689.
       First instance of an Action sustained for Damages for a Breach
       of Promise to Account.

       "It is worthy of observation that while the obligation to
       account is created by law, yet the privity without which such
       an obligation cannot exist is, as a rule, created by the
       parties to the obligation. … Such then being the facts from
       which the law will raise an obligation to account, the next
       question is, How can such an obligation be enforced, or, what
       is the remedy upon such an obligation? It is obvious that the
       only adequate remedy is specific performance, or at least
       specific reparation. An action on the case to recover damages
       for a breach of the obligation, even if such an action would
       lie, would be clearly inadequate, as it would involve the
       necessity of investigating all the items of the account for
       the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the damages, and
       that a jury is not competent to do. In truth, however, such an
       action will not lie. If, indeed, there be an actual promise to
       account, either an express or implied in fact, an action will
       lie for the breach of that promise; but as such a promise is
       entirely collateral to the obligation to account, and as
       therefore a recovery on the promise would be no bar to an
       action on the obligation, it would seem that nominal damages
       only could be recovered in an action on the promise, or at the
       most only such special damages as the plaintiff had suffered
       by the breach of the promise. Besides the first instance in
       which an action on such a promise was sustained was as late as
       the time of Lord Holt [Wilkyns v. Wilkyns, Carth. 89], while
       the obligation to account has existed and been recognized from
       early times."

          C. C. Langdell,
          A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, pages 250-251).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689-1710.
       Lord Holt and the Law of Bailments.

       "The most celebrated case which he decided in this department
       was that of Coggs v. Bernard, in which the question arose,
       'whether, if a person promises without reward to take care of
       goods, he is answerable if they are lost or damaged by his
       negligence?' In a short compass he expounded with admirable
       clearness and accuracy the whole law of bailment, or the
       liability of the person to whom goods are delivered for
       different purposes on behalf of the owner; availing himself of
       his knowledge of the Roman civil Jaw, of which most English
       lawyers were as ignorant as of the Institutes of Menu. … He
       then elaborately goes over the six sorts of bailment, showing
       the exact degree of care required on the part of the bailee in
       each, with the corresponding degree of negligence, which will
       give a right of action to the bailor. In the last he shows
       that, in consideration of the trust, there is an implied
       promise to take ordinary care; so that, although there be no
       reward, for a loss arising from gross negligence the bailee is
       liable to the bailor for the value of the goods. Sir William
       Jones is contented that his own masterly 'Essay on the Law of
       Bailment' shall be considered merely as a commentary upon this
       judgment; and Professor Story, in his 'Commentaries on the Law
       of Bailments,' represents it as 'a prodigious effort to
       arrange the principles by which the subject is regulated in a
       scientific order.'"

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chief Justices,
          volume 2, pages 113-114.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1703.
       Implied Promises recognized.

       "The value of the discovery of the implied promise in fact was
       exemplified … in the case of a parol submission to an award.
       If the arbitrators awarded the payment of a sum of money, the
       money was recoverable in debt, since an award, after the
       analogy of a judgment, created a debt. But if the award was
       for the performance of a collateral act, … there was,
       originally, no mode of compelling compliance with the award,
       unless the parties expressly promised to abide by the decision
       of the arbitrators. Tilford v. French (1663) is a case in
       point. So, also, seven years later, 'it was said by Twisden,
       J., [Anon., 1 Vent. 69], that if two submit to an award, this
       contains not a reciprocal promise to perform; but there must
       be an express promise to ground an action upon it.' This
       doctrine was abandoned by the time of Lord Holt, who, …
       said: 'But the contrary has been held since; for if two men
       submit to the award of a third person, they do also thereby
       promise expressly to abide by his determination, for agreeing
       to refer is a promise in itself.'"

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 62).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1706.
       Dilatory Pleas.

       "Pleas to the jurisdiction, to the disability, or in
       abatement, were formerly very often used as mere dilatory
       pleas, without any foundation of truth, and calculated only
       for delay; but now by statute 4 and 5 Ann., c. 16, no dilatory
       plea is to be admitted, without affidavit made of the truth
       thereof, or some probable matter shown to the court to induce
       them to believe it true."

           W. Blackstone,
           Commentaries,
           book 3, page 302.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1710.
       Joint Stock Companies: Bubble Act.

       "The most complicated, as well as the most modern, branch of
       the law of artificial persons relates to those which are
       formed for purposes of trade. They are a natural accompaniment
       of the extension of commerce. An ordinary partnership lacks
       the coherence which is required for great undertakings. Its
       partners may withdraw from it, taking their capital with them,
       and the 'firm' having as such no legal recognition, a contract
       made with it could be sued upon, according to the common law
       of England, only in an action in which the whole list of
       partners were made plaintiffs or defendants. In order to
       remedy the first of these inconveniences, partnerships were
       formed upon the principle of a joint-stock, the capital
       invested in which must remain at a fixed amount, although the
       shares into which it is divided may pass from hand to hand.
       This device did not however obviate the difficulty in suing,
       nor did it relieve the partners, past and present, from
       liability for debts in excess of their, past or present,
       shares in the concern.
    {1972}
       In the interest not only of the share-partners, but also of
       the public with which they had dealings, it was desirable to
       discourage the formation of such associations; and the
       formation of joint-stock partnerships, except such as were
       incorporated by royal charter, was accordingly, for a time,
       prohibited in England by the 'Bubble Act,' 6 Geo. I, c. 18. An
       incorporated trading company, in accordance with the ordinary
       principles regulating artificial persons, consists of a
       definite amount of capital to which alone creditors of the
       company can look for the satisfaction of their demands,
       divided into shares held by a number of individuals who,
       though they participate in the profits of the concern, in
       proportion to the number of shares held by each, incur no
       personal liability in respect of its losses. An artificial
       person of this sort is now recognized under most systems of
       law. It can be formed, as a rule, only with the consent of the
       sovereign power, and is described as a 'societe,' or
       'compagnie,' 'anonyme,' an 'Actiengesellschaft,' or
       'joint-stock company limited.' A less pure form of such a
       corporation is a company the shareholders in which incur an
       unlimited personal liability. There is also a form resembling
       a partnership 'en commandite,' in which the liability of some
       of the shareholders is limited by their shares, while that of
       others is unlimited. Subject to some exceptions, any seven
       partners in a trading concern may, and partners whose number
       exceeds twenty must, according to English law, become
       incorporated by registration under the Companies Acts, with
       either limited or unlimited liability as they may determine at
       the time of incorporation."

          Thomas Erskine Holland,
          Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
          page 298.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1711.
       Voluntary Restraint of Trade.

       "The judicial construction of Magna Charta is illustrated in
       the great case of Mitchell v. Reynolds (1 P. W., 181), still
       the leading authority upon the doctrine of voluntary restraint
       of trade, though decided in 1711, when modern mercantile law
       was in its infancy. The Court (Chief Justice Parker),
       distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary restraints of
       trade, says as to involuntary restraints: 'The first reason
       why such of these, as are created by grant and charter from
       the crown and by-laws generally are void, is drawn from the
       encouragement which the law gives to trade and honest
       industry, and that they are contrary to the liberty of the
       subject. Second, another reason is drawn from Magna Charta,
       which is infringed by these acts of power. That statute says:
       Nullus liber homo, etc., disseizetur de libero tenemento, vel
       libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, etc.; and these
       words have been always taken to extend to freedom of trade.'"

          Frederick N. Judson,
          14 American Bar Association Report,
          page 236.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
       Special Juries.

       "The first statutory recognition of their existence occurs so
       late as in the Act 3 Geo. II., ch. 25. But the principle seems
       to have been admitted in early times. We find in the year 1450
       (29 Hen. VI.) a petition for a special jury. … The statute
       of George II. speaks of special juries as already well known,
       and it declares and enacts that the courts at Westminster
       shall, upon motion made by any plaintiff, prosecutor, or
       defendant, order and appoint a jury to be struck before the
       proper officer of the court where the cause is depending, 'in
       such manner as special juries have been and are usually struck
       in such courts respectively upon trials at bar had in the said
       courts.'"

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          pages 143-144.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
       Written Pleadings to be in English.

       "There was one great improvement in law proceedings which,
       while he [Lord King] held the Great Seal, he at last
       accomplished. From very ancient times the written pleadings,
       both in criminal and civil suits, were, or rather professed to
       be, in the Latin tongue, and while the jargon employed would
       have been very perplexing to a Roman of the Augustan Age, it
       was wholly unintelligible to the persons whose life, property,
       and fame were at stake. This absurdity had been corrected in
       the time of the Commonwealth, but along with many others so
       corrected, had been reintroduced at the Restoration, and had
       prevailed during five succeeding reigns. The attention of the
       public was now attracted to it by a petition from the
       magistracy of the North Riding of the county of York,
       representing the evils of the old law language being retained
       in legal process and proceedings, and praying for the
       substitution of the native tongue. The bill, by the
       Chancellor's direction, was introduced in the House of
       Commons, and it passed there without much difficulty. In the
       Lords it was fully explained and ably supported by the Lord
       Chancellor, but it experienced considerable opposition. …
       Amidst heavy forebodings of future mischief the bill passed,
       and mankind are now astonished that so obvious a reform should
       have been so long deferred."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 4, page 504.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1739-1744.
       Oath according to one's Religion.

       "Lord Hardwick established the rule that persons, though not
       Christians, if they believe in a divinity, may be sworn
       according to the ceremonies of their religion, and that the
       evidence given by them so sworn is admissible in courts of
       justice, as if, being Christians, they had been sworn upon the
       Evangelists. This subject first came before him in
       Ramkissenseat v. Barker, where, in a suit for an account
       against the representatives of an East India Governor, the
       plea being overruled that the plaintiff was an alien infidel,
       a cross bill was filed, and an objection being made that he
       could only be sworn in the usual form, a motion was made that
       the words in the commission, 'on the holy Evangelists,' should
       be omitted, and that the commissioners should be directed to
       administer an oath to him in the manner most binding on his
       conscience. … The point was afterwards finally settled in
       the great case of Omychund v. Barker, where a similar
       commission to examine witnesses having issued, the
       Commissioners certified 'That they had sworn the witnesses
       examined under it in the presence of Brahmin or priest of the
       Gentoo religion, and that each witness touched the hand of the
       Brahmin,—this being the most solemn form in which oaths are
       administered to witnesses professing the Gentoo religion.'
       Objection was made that the deposition so taken could not be
       read in evidence; and on account of the magnitude of the
       question, the Lord Chancellor called in the assistance of the
       three chiefs of the common law Courts.—After a very long,
       learned, and ingenious argument, which may be perused with
       pleasure, they concurred in the opinion that the depositions
       were admissible."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 5, pages 69-70.

    {1973}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750.
       Dale v. Hall, I Wits., 281, understood to be the first
       reported case of an action of special assumpsit sustained
       against a common carrier, on his implied contract.

       "Assumpsit, … was allowed, in the time of Charles I., in
       competition with Detinue and Case against a bailee for
       custody. At a later period Lord Holt suggested that one might
       'turn an action against a common carrier into a special
       assumpsit (which the law implies) in respect of his hire.'
       Dale v. Hall (1750) is understood to have been the first
       reported case in which that suggestion was followed."

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 63).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750-1800.
       Demurrer to Evidence.

       "Near the end of the last century demurrers upon evidence were
       rendered useless in England, by the decision in the case of
       Gibson v. Hunter (carrying down with it another great case,
       that of Lickbarrow v. Mason, which, like the former, had come
       up to the Lords upon this sort of demurrer), that the party
       demurring must specify upon the record the facts which he
       admits. That the rule was a new one is fairly plain from the
       case of Cocksedge v. Fanshawe, ten years earlier. It was not
       always followed in this country, but the fact that it was
       really a novelty was sometimes not understood."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Law and Fact in Jury Trials
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 4, page 147).

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 149.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1756-1788.
       Lord Mansfield and Commercial Law.

       "In the reign of Geo. II., England had grown into the greatest
       manufacturing and commercial country in the world, while her
       jurisprudence had by no means been expanded or developed in
       the same proportion. … Hence, when questions necessarily
       arose respecting the buying and selling of goods,—respecting
       the affreightment of ships,—respecting marine
       insurances,—and respecting bills of exchange and promissory
       notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. …
       Mercantile questions were so ignorantly treated when they came
       into Westminster Hall, that they were usually settled by
       private arbitration among the merchants themselves. If an
       action turning upon a mercantile question was brought in a
       court of law, the judge submitted it to the jury, who
       determined it according to their own notions of what was fair,
       and no general rule was laid down which could afterwards be
       referred to for the purpose of settling similar disputes. …
       When he [Lord Mansfield] had ceased to preside in the Court of
       King's Bench, and had retired to enjoy the retrospect of his
       labors, he read the following just eulogy bestowed upon them
       by Mr. Justice Buller, in giving judgment in the important
       case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, respecting the effect of the
       indorsement of a bill of lading:—'Within these thirty years
       the commercial law of this country has taken a very different
       turn from what it did before. Lord Hardwicke himself was
       proceeding with great caution; not establishing any general
       principle, but decreeing on all the circumstances put
       together. Before that period we find that, in courts of law,
       all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they
       were left generally to a jury; and they produced no general
       principle. From that time, we all know, the great study has
       been to find some certain general principle, which shall be
       known to all mankind, not only to rule the particular case
       then under consideration, but to serve as a guide for the
       future. Most of us have heard these principles stated,
       reasoned upon, enlarged, and explained, till we have been lost
       in admiration at the strength and stretch of the
       understanding. And I should be very sorry to find myself under
       a necessity of differing from any case upon this subject which
       has been decided by Lord Mansfield, who may be truly said to
       be the founder of the commercial law of this country.' …
       With regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes, Lord
       Mansfield first promulgated many rules that now appear to us
       to be as certain as those which guide the planets in their
       orbits. For example, it was till then uncertain whether the
       second indorser of a bill of exchange could sue his immediate
       indorser without having previously demanded payment from the
       drawer. … He goes on to explain [in Heylyn v. Adamson, 2
       Burr., 669], … that the maker of a promissory note is in the
       same situation as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, and that
       in suing the indorser of the note it is necessary to allege
       and to prove a demand on the maker. … Lord Mansfield had
       likewise to determine that the indorser of a bill of exchange
       is discharged if he receives no notice of there having been a
       refusal to accept by the drawee (Blesard v. Herst, 6 Burr.,
       2670); and that reasonable time for giving notice of the
       dishonor of a bill or note is to be determined by the Court as
       matter of law, and is not to be left to the jury as matter of
       fact, they being governed by the circumstances of each
       particular case. (Tindal v. Brown, 1 Term. Rep., 167.) It
       seems strange to us how the world could go on when such
       questions of hourly occurrence, were unsettled. … There is
       another contract of infinite importance to a maritime people.
       … I mean that between ship-owners and merchants for the
       hiring of ships and carriage of goods. … Till his time, the
       rights and liabilities of these parties had remained undecided
       upon the contingency, not unlikely to arise, of the ship being
       wrecked during the voyage, and the goods being saved and
       delivered to the consignee at an intermediate port. Lord
       Mansfield settled that freight is due pro rata itineris—in
       proportion to the part of the voyage performed. … Lord
       Mansfield's familiarity with the general principles of ethics,
       … availed him on all occasions when he had to determine on
       the proper construction and just fulfilment of contracts. The
       question having arisen, for the first time, whether the seller
       of goods by auction, with the declared condition that they
       shall be sold to 'the highest bidder,' may employ a
       'puffer,'—an agent to raise the price by bidding,—he thus
       expressed himself: [Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp., 395] '… The
       basis of all dealings ought to be good faith; so more
       especially in these transactions, where the public are brought
       together upon a confidence that the articles set up to sale
       will be disposed of to the highest real bidder. That can never
       be the case if the owner may secretly enhance the price by a
       person employed for that purpose. … I cannot listen to the
       argument that it is a common practice, … the owner violates
       his contract with the public if, by himself or his agent, he
       bids upon his goods, and no subsequent bidder is bound to take
       the goods at the price at which they are knocked down to
       him.'"

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chief Justices,
          volume 2, pages 308-314.

    {1974}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
       Judicial Independence.

       "A glance into the pages of the Judges of England, by
       Foss, will show with what ruthless vigour the Stuarts
       exercised their prerogative of dismissing Judges whose
       decisions were displeasing to the court. Even after the
       Revolution, the prerogative of dismissal, which was supposed
       to keep the Judges dependent on the Crown, was jealously
       defended. When in 1692 a Bill passed both Houses of
       Parliament, establishing the independence of Judges by law,
       and confirming their salaries, William III. withheld his Royal
       assent. Bishop Burnet says, with reference to this exercise of
       the Veto, that it was represented to the King by some of the
       Judges themselves, that it was not fit that they should be out
       of all dependence on the Court. When the Act of Settlement
       secured that no Judge should be dismissed from office, except
       in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the
       address of both Houses of Parliament, the Royal jealousy of
       the measure is seen by the promise under which that
       arrangement was not to take effect till the deaths of William
       III. and of Anne, and the failure of their issue respectively,
       in other words, till the accession of the House of Hanover. It
       was not till the reign of George III. that the Commissions of
       the Judges ceased to be void on the demise of the Crown."

          J. G. S. MacNeill,
          Law Magazine and Review, 4th series,
          volume 16 (1890-91), page 202.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
       Stolen Bank Notes the Property of a Bona Fide Purchaser.

       "The law of bills of exchange owes much of its scientific and
       liberal character to the wisdom of the great jurist, Lord
       Mansfield. Sixteen years before the American Revolution, he
       held that bank notes, though stolen, become the property of
       the person to whom they are bona fide delivered for value
       without knowledge of the larceny. This principle is later
       affirmed again and again as necessary to the preservation of
       the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it
       all its commerce. Later there was a departure from this
       principle in the noted English case of Gill v. Cubitt, in
       which it was held that if the holder for value took it under
       circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a
       prudent and careful man, he could not recover. This case
       annoyed courts and innocent holders for years, until it was
       sat upon, kicked, cuffed, and overruled, and the old doctrine
       of 1760 re-established, which is now the undisputed and
       settled law of England and this country."

          Wm. A. McClean,
          Negotiable Paper
          (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 86).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1768.
       Only one Business Corporation Chartered in this Country before
       the Declaration of Independence.

       "Pennsylvania is entitled to the honor of having chartered the
       first business corporation in this country, 'The Philadelphia
       Contributionship for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire.' It
       was a mutual insurance company, first organized in 1752, but
       not chartered until 1768. It was the only business corporation
       whose charter antedated the Declaration of Independence. The
       next in order of time were: 'The Bank of North America,'
       chartered by Congress in 1781 and, the original charter having
       been repealed in 1785, by Pennsylvania in 1787; 'The
       Massachusetts Bank,' chartered in 1784; 'The Proprietors of
       Charles River Bridge,' in 1785; 'The Mutual Assurance Company'
       (Philadelphia), in 1786; 'The Associated Manufacturing Iron
       Co.' (N. Y.), in 1786. These were the only joint-stock
       business corporations chartered in America before 1787. After
       that time the number rapidly increased, especially in
       Massachusetts. Before the close of the century there were
       created in that State about fifty such bodies, at least half
       of them turn-pike and bridge companies. In the remaining
       States combined, there were perhaps as many more. There was no
       great variety in the purposes for which these early companies
       were formed. Insurance, banking, turn-pike roads,
       toll-bridges, canals, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing
       were the enterprises which they carried on."

          S. Williston,
          History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, pp. 165-166).

    A. D. 1776.
       Ultimate property in land.

       "When, by the Revolution, the Colony of New York became
       separated from the Crown of Great Britain, and a republican
       government was formed, The People succeeded the King in the
       ownership of all lands within the State which had not already
       been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source
       of all private titles."

          Judge Comstock,
          People v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church,
          22 N. Y., 44-46.

       "It is held that only such parts of the common law as, with
       the acts of the colony in force on April 19, 1775, formed part
       of the law of the Colony on that day, were adopted by the
       State; and only such parts of the common and statute law of
       England were brought by the colonists with them as suited
       their condition, or were applicable to their situation. Such
       general laws thereupon became the laws of the Colony until
       altered by common consent, or by legislative enactment. The
       principles and rules of the common law as applicable to this
       country are held subject to modification and change, according
       to the circumstances and condition of the people and
       government here. … By the English common law, the King was
       the paramount proprietor and source of all title to all land
       within his dominion, and it was considered to be held
       mediately or immediately of him. After the independence of the
       United States, the title to land formerly possessed by the
       English Crown in this country passed to the People of the
       different States where the land lay, by virtue of the change
       of nationality and of the treaties made. The allegiance
       formerly due, also, from the people of this country to Great
       Britain was transferred, by the Revolution, to the governments
       of the States."

          James Gerard,
          Titles to Real Estate (3rd edition),
          pages 26 and 5.

       "Hence the rule naturally follows, that no person can, by any
       possible arrangement, become invested with the absolute
       ownership of land. But as that ownership must be vested
       somewhere, or great confusion, if not disturbance, might
       result, it has, therefore, become an accepted rule of public
       law that the absolute and ultimate right of property shall be
       regarded as vested in the sovereign or corporate power of the
       State where the land lies. This corporate power has been
       naturally and appropriately selected for that purpose, because
       it is the only one which is certain to survive the generations
       of men as they pass away. Wherever that sovereign power is
       represented by an individual, as in England, there the
       absolute right of property to all land in the kingdom is
       vested in that individual whoever succeeds to the sovereignty,
       succeeds to that right of property and holds it in trust for
       the nation.
    {1975}
       In this country, where the only sovereignty recognized in
       regard to real property, is represented by the State in its
       corporate capacity, that absolute right of property is vested
       in the State."

          Anson Bingham,
          Law of Real Property,
          page 3.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1778.
       First Instance of Assumpsit upon a Vendor's Warranty.

       "A vendor who gives a false warranty may be charged to-day, of
       course, in contract; but the conception of such a warranty, as
       a contract is quite modern. Stuart v. Wilkens [3 Doug., 18],
       decided in 1778, is said to have been the first instance of an
       action of assumpsit upon a vendor's warranty."

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 8).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1783.
       Lord Mansfield laid foundation of Law of Trade-Marks.

       "The symbolism of commerce, conventionally called
       'trade-marks,' is, according to Mr. Browne, in his excellent
       work on trade-marks, as old as commerce itself. The Egyptians,
       the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all used
       various marks or signs to distinguish their goods and
       handiwork. The right to protection in such marks has come to
       be recognized throughout the civilized world. It is, however,
       during the last seventy or eighty years that the present
       system of jurisprudence has been built up. In 1742 Lord
       Hardwick refused an injunction to restrain the use of the
       Great Mogul stamp on cards. In 1783 Lord Mansfield laid the
       foundation of the law of trade-marks as at present developed,
       and in 1816, in the case of Day v. Day, the defendant was
       enjoined from infringing the plaintiff's blacking label. From
       that time to the present day there have arisen a multitude of
       cases, and the theory of the law of trade-marks proper may be
       considered as pretty clearly expounded. In 1875 the
       Trade-marks Registration Act provided for the registration of
       trade-marks, and defined what could in future properly be a
       trade-mark. In this country the Act of 1870, corrected by the
       Act of 1881, provided for the registration of trade-marks. The
       underlying principle of the law of trade-marks is that of
       preventing one man from acquiring the reputation of another by
       fraudulent means, and of preventing fraud upon the public; in
       other words, the application of the broad principles of
       equity."

          Grafton D. Cushing,
          Cases Analogous to Trade-marks
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 4, page 321).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1790.
       Stoppage in Transitu, and Rights of Third Person
       under a Bill of Lading.

       "Lord Loughborough's most elaborate common law judgment was in
       the case of Lichbarrow v. Mason, when he presided in the court
       of Exchequer Chamber, on a writ of error from the Court of
       King's Bench. The question was one of infinite importance to
       commerce—'Whether the right of the unpaid seller of goods to
       stop them while they are on their way to a purchaser who has
       become insolvent, is divested by an intermediate sale to a
       third person, through the indorsement of the bill of lading,
       for a valuable consideration?' He concluded by saying:—'From
       a review of all the cases it does not appear that there has
       ever been a decision against the legal right of the consignor
       to stop the goods in transitu before the case which we have
       here to consider. The rule which we are now to lay down will
       not disturb but settle the notions of the commercial port of
       this country on a point of very great importance, as it
       regards the security and good faith of their transactions. For
       these reasons we think the judgment of the Court of King's Bench
       ought to be reversed.' But a writ of error being brought in
       the House of Lords, this reversal was reversed, and the right
       of the intermediate purchaser as against the original seller,
       has ever since been established."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 6, pages 138-139.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1792.
       Best-Evidence rule.

       "In Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. p. 104 (1792), Lord Loughborough
       said: 'That all common law courts ought to proceed upon the
       general rule, namely, the best evidence that the nature of the
       case will admit, I perfectly agree.' But by this time it was
       becoming obvious that this 'general rule' was misapplied and
       over-emphasized. Blackstone, indeed, repeating Gilbert, had
       said in 1770, in the first editions of his Commentaries (III.
       368) as it was said in all the later ones: 'The one general
       rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this,
       that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of
       shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not
       possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be
       allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence
       existing than is produced, the very not producing it is a
       presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at
       present is concealed.' But in 1794, the acute and learned
       Christian, in editing the twelfth edition, pointed out the
       difficulties of the situation: 'No rule of law,' he said, 'is
       more frequently cited, and more generally misconceived, than
       this. It is certainly true when rightly understood; but it is
       very limited in its extent and application. It signifies
       nothing more than that, if the best legal evidence cannot
       possibly be produced, the next best legal evidence shall be
       admitted.'"

          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 732.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1794.
       First Trial by Jury in United States Supreme Court.

       "In the first trial by jury at the bar of the Supreme Court of
       the United States, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay, after remarking
       to the jury that fact was, for the jury and law for the court,
       went on to say: 'You have, nevertheless, a right to take upon
       yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well
       as the fact in controversy.' But I am disposed to think that
       the common-law power of the jury in criminal cases does not
       indicate any right on their part; it is rather one of those
       manifold illogical and yet rational results, which the good
       sense of the English people brought about, in all parts of
       their public affairs, by way of easing up the rigor of a
       strict application of rules."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Law and Fact in Jury Trials
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 4, page 171).

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Thayer,
          Select Cases on Evidence,
          page 153.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1813-1843.
       Insolvents placed under Jurisdiction of a Court, and able to
       claim Protection by a Surrender of Goods.

       "It was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the
       jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge
       on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A
       distinction was at length recognized between poverty and crime.
       This great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched
       debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set
       free. Thirty years later, its beneficent principles were
       further extended, when debtors were not only released from
       confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on
       giving up all their goods."

          T. E. May,
          Constitutional History of England
          (Widdleton's edition)
          volume 2, page 271.

          See, also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING.

    {1976}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1819.
       The Dartmouth College Case.

       "The framers of the Constitution of the United States, moved
       chiefly by the mischiefs created by the preceding legislation
       of the States, which had made serious encroachments on the
       rights of property, inserted a clause in that instrument which
       declared that 'no State shall pass any ex post-facto law, or
       law impairing the obligation of contracts.' The first branch
       of this clause had always been understood to relate to
       criminal legislation, the second to legislation affecting
       civil rights. But, before the case of Dartmouth College v.
       Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions
       respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to
       contracts. … The State court of New Hampshire, in deciding
       this case, had assumed that the college was a public
       corporation, and on that basis had rested their judgment;
       which was, that between the State and its public corporations
       there is no contract which the State cannot regulate, alter,
       or annul at pleasure. Mr. Webster had to overthrow this
       fundamental position. If he could show that this college was a
       private eleemosynary corporation, and that the grant of the
       right to be a corporation of this nature is a contract between
       the sovereign power and those who devote their funds to the
       charity, and take the incorporation for its better management,
       he could bring the legislative interference within the
       prohibition of the Federal Constitution. … Its important
       positions, … were these: 1. That Dr. Wheelock was the
       founder of this college, and as such entitled by law to be
       visitor, and that he had assigned all the visitatorial powers
       to the trustees. 2. That the charter created a private and not
       a pubic corporation, to administer a charity, in the
       administration of which the trustees had a property, which the
       law recognizes as such. 3. That the grant of such a charter is
       a contract between the sovereign power and its successors and
       those to whom it is granted and their successors. 4. That the
       legislation which took away from the trustees the right to
       exercise the powers of superintendence, visitation, and
       government, and transferred them to another set of trustees,
       impaired the obligation of that contract. … On the
       conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a
       decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was
       made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which
       Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the
       principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a
       charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it
       under the protection of the Constitution of the United States,
       takes its date. To Mr. Webster belongs the honor of having
       produced its judicial establishment."

          G. T. Curtis,
          Life of Daniel Webster,
          volume 1, pages 165-169 (5th edition).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1823.
       Indian Right of Occupancy.

       "The first case of importance that came before the court of
       last resort with regard to the Indian question had to do with
       their title to land. This was the case of Johnson v. McIntosh,
       8 Wheaton, 543. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall delivered
       the opinion of the court and held that discovery gave title to
       the country by whose subjects or by whose authority it was
       made, as against all persons but the Indians as occupants;
       that this title gave a power to grant the soil and to convey a
       title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of
       occupancy; and that the Indians could grant no title to the
       lands occupied by them, their right being simply that of
       occupancy and not of ownership. The Chief Justice says: 'It
       has never been doubted that either the United States or the
       several States had a clear title to all the lands within the
       boundary lines described in the treaty (of peace between
       England and United States) subject only to the Indians' right
       of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that
       right was vested in that government which might
       constitutionally exercise it. … The United States, then,
       have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by
       which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They
       hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was
       acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that
       discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian
       title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and
       gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the
       circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The
       power now possessed by the government of the United States to
       grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or
       its grantees. The validity of the title given by either has
       never been questioned in our courts. It has been exercised
       uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The
       existence of this power must negative the existence of any
       right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute
       title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different
       persons, or in different governments. An absolute must be an
       exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others
       not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the
       absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right
       of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the crown to
       extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute
       and complete title in the Indians.'"

          William B. Hornblower,
          14 American Bar Association Report 264-265.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1826
       Jurors from the Body of the County.

       "In the time of Fortescue, who was lord chancellor in the
       reign of Henry VI. [1422-61], with the exception of the
       requirement of personal knowledge in the jurors derived from
       near neighborhood of residence, the jury system had become in
       all its essential functions similar to what now exists. …
       The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
       where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
       and this explains the origin of the venire (vicinetum), which
       appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
       day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
       summoned. … Now, by 6 George IV., ch. 50, the jurors need
       only be good and lawful men of the body of the county."

          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          chapter 7, section 3.

    {1977}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1828.
       Lord Tenterden's Act.

       "Be it therefore enacted … , That in Actions of Debt or upon
       the Case grounded upon any Simple Contract or Acknowledgement
       or Promise by Words only shall be deemed sufficient Evidence
       of a new or continuing Contract, … unless such
       Acknowledgement or Promise shall be made or contained by or in
       some Writing to be signed by the Party chargeable thereby."

          Statutes at Large,
          volume 68, 9 George IV., c. 14.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1833.
       Wager of Law abolished, and Effect upon Detinue.

       "This form of action (detinue) was also formerly subject (as
       were some other of our legal remedies), to the incident of
       'wager of law' ('vadiatio legis'),—a proceeding which
       consisted in the defendant's discharging himself from the
       claim on his own oath, bringing with him at the same time into
       court eleven of his neighbors, to swear that they believed his
       denial to be true. This relic of a very ancient and general
       institution, which we find established not only among the
       Saxons and Normans, but among almost all the northern nations
       that broke in upon the Roman empire, continued to subsist
       among us even till the last reign, when it was at length
       abolished by 3 and 4 Will, IV. c. 42, s. 13: and as the wager
       of law used to expose plaintiffs in detinue to great
       disadvantage, it had the effect of throwing that action almost
       entirely out of use, and introducing in its stead the action
       of trover and conversion."

          Stephens,
          Commentaries,
          volume 3, pages 442-443 (8th edition).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1834.
       Real Actions abolished.

       "The statutes of 32 H. VIII., c. 2, and 21 Jac. I., c. 16 (so
       far as the latter applied to actions for the recovery of land)
       were superseded by 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 27. The latter statute
       abolished the ancient real actions, made ejectment (with few
       exceptions) the sole remedy for the recovery of land, and, for
       the first time, limited directly the period within which an
       ejectment might be brought. It also changed the meaning of
       'right of entry,' making it signify simply the right of an
       owner to the possession of land of which another person has
       the actual possession, whether the owner's estate is devested
       or not. In a word, it made a right of entry and a right to
       maintain ejectment synonymous terms, and provided that
       whenever the one ceased the other should cease also; i. e., it
       provided that whenever the statute began to run against the
       one right, it should begin to run against the other also, and
       that, when it had run twenty years without interruption, both
       rights should cease; and it also provided that the statute
       should begin to run against each right the moment that the
       right began to exist, i. e., the moment that the actual
       possession and the right of possession became separated. The
       statute, therefore, not only ignored the fact that ejectment
       (notwithstanding its origin) is in substance purely in rem
       (the damages recovered being only nominal), and assumed that
       it was, on the contrary, in substance purely in personam, i.
       e., founded upon tort, but it also assumed that every actual
       possession of land, without a right of possession, is a tort."

          C. C. Langdell,
          Summary of Equity Pleading,
          pages 144-145.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1836.
       Exemption Laws.

       "Our State legislatures commenced years ago to pass laws
       exempting from execution necessary household goods and
       personal apparel, the horses and implements of the farmer, the
       tools and instruments of the artisan, etc. Gradually the
       beneficent policy of such laws has been extended. In 1828, Mr.
       Benton warmly advocated in the Senate of the United States the
       policy of a national homestead law. The Republic of Texas
       passed the first Homestead Act, in 1836. It was the great gift
       of the infant Republic of Texas to the world. In 1849, Vermont
       followed; and this policy has since been adopted in all but
       eight States of the Union. By these laws a homestead (under
       various restrictions as to value) for the shelter and
       protection of the family is now exempt from execution or
       judicial sale for debt, unless both the husband and the wife
       shall expressly join in mortgaging it or otherwise expressly
       subjecting it to the claims of creditors."

          J. F. Dillon,
          Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
          page 360.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1837.
       Employer's liability.

       "No legal principle, with a growth of less than half a
       century, has become more firmly fixed in the common law of
       to-day, than the rule that an employer, if himself without
       fault, is not liable to an employee injured through the
       negligence of a fellow-employee engaged in the same general
       employment. This exception to the well known doctrine of
       'respondeat superior,' although sometimes considered an old
       one, was before the courts for the first time in 1837, in the
       celebrated case of Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, which it
       is said, has changed the current of decisions more radically
       than any other reported case. … The American law, though in
       harmony with the English, seems to have had an origin of its
       own. In 1841 Murray v. The South Carolina Railroad Company, 1
       Mc. & M. 385, decided that a railroad company was not liable
       to one servant injured through the negligence of another
       servant in the same employ. Although this decision came a few
       years after Priestly v. Fowler, the latter case was cited by
       neither counsel nor court. It is probable, therefore, that the
       American Court arrived at its conclusion entirely independent
       of the earlier English case,—a fact often lost sight of by
       those who in criticising the rule, assert that it all sprang
       from an ill-considered opinion by Lord Abinger in Priestly v.
       Fowler. The leading American case, however, is Farwell v.
       Boston and Worcester Railroad Company, 4 Met. 49, which,
       following the South Carolina case, settled the rule in the
       United States. It has been followed in nearly every
       jurisdiction, both State and Federal."

          Marland C. Hobbs,
          Statutory Changes in Employers Liability
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, pages 212-213).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1838.
       Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt abolished, and Debtor's
       Lands, for first time, taken in Satisfaction of Debt.

       "The law of debtor and creditor, until a comparatively recent
       period, was a scandal to a civilized country. For the smallest
       claim, any man was liable to be arrested on mesne process,
       before legal proof of the debt. … Many of these arrests were
       wanton and vexatious; and writs were issued with a facility
       and looseness which paced the liberty of every man—suddenly
       and without notice—at the mercy of any one who claimed
       payment of a debt. A debtor, however honest and solvent, was
       liable to arrest. The demand might even be false and
       fraudulent: but the pretended creditor, on making oath of the
       debt, was armed with this terrible process of the law. The
       wretched defendant might lie in prison for several months
       before his cause was heard; when, even if the action was
       discontinued or the debt disproved, he could not obtain his
       discharge without further proceedings, often too costly for a
       poor debtor, already deprived of his livelihood by
       imprisonment.
    {1978}
       No longer even a debtor,—he could not shake off his bonds.
       … The total abolition of arrests on mesne process was
       frequently advocated, but it was not until 1888 that it was at
       length accomplished. Provision was made for securing
       absconding debtors; but the old process for the recovery of a
       debt in ordinary cases, which had wrought so many acts of
       oppression, was abolished. While this vindictive remedy was
       denied, the debtor's lands were, for the first time, allowed
       to be taken in satisfaction of a debt; and extended facilities
       were afterwards afforded for the recovery of small claims, by
       the establishment of county courts."

          T. E. May,
          Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition),
          volume 2, pages 267-268.

          See, also, DEBT: LAWS CONCERNING.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1839-1848.
       Emancipation of Women.

       "According to the old English theory, a woman was a chattel,
       all of whose property belonged to her husband. He could beat
       her as he might a beast of burden, and, provided he was not
       guilty of what would be cruelty to animals, the law gave no
       redress. In the emancipation of women Mississippi led off, in
       1839, New York following with its Married Women's Act of 1848,
       which has been since so enlarged and extended, and so
       generally adopted by the other states, that, for all purposes
       of business, ownership of property, and claim to her
       individual earnings, a married woman is to-day, in America, as
       independent as a man."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 1, page 71.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1842.
       One who takes Commercial Paper as Collateral is a Holder for
       Value.

       "Take the subject of the transfer of such paper as collateral
       security for, or even in the payment of, a pre-existing
       indebtedness. We find some of the courts holding that one who
       takes such paper as collateral security for such a debt is a
       holder for value; others, that he is not, unless he extends
       the time for the payment of the secured debt or surrenders
       something of value, gives some new consideration; while still
       others hold that one so receiving such paper cannot be a
       holder for value; and some few hold that even receiving the
       note in payment and extinguishment of a pre-existing debt does
       not constitute one a holder for value. The question, as is
       known to all lawyers, was first presented to the Supreme Court
       of the United States in Swift vs. Tyson (16 Peters, 1). There,
       however, the note had been taken in payment of the debt. It
       was argued in that case that the highest court in New York had
       decided that one so taking a note was not a holder for value,
       and it was insisted in argument that the contract, being made
       in New York, was to be governed by its law; but the court,
       through Justice Story—Justice Catron alone
       dissenting—distinctly and emphatically repudiated the
       doctrine that the Federal court was to be governed on such
       questions 'by the decisions of the courts of the State where
       the contract was made, and held the holder a holder for
       value."

          Henry C. Tompkins,
          13 American Bar Association Report,
          page 255.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1845.
       Interest of Disseisee transferable.

       "It was not until 1845 that by statute the interest of the
       disseisee of land became transferable. Similar statutes have
       been enacted in many of our States. In a few jurisdictions the
       same results have been obtained by judicial legislation. But
       in Alabama, Connecticut, Dakota, Florida, Kentucky,
       Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and
       Tennessee, and presumably in Maryland and New Jersey, it is
       still the law that the grantee of a disseisee cannot maintain
       an action in his own name for the recovery of the land."

          J. B. Ames,
          The Disseisin of Chattels
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 3, page 25).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1846.
       Ultra vires.

       "When railway companies were first created with Parliamentary
       powers of a kind never before entrusted to similar bodies, it
       soon became necessary to determine whether, when once called
       into existence, they were to be held capable of exercising, as
       nearly as possible, all the powers of a natural person, unless
       expressly prohibited from doing so, or whether their acts must
       be strictly limited to the furtherance of the purpose for
       which they had been incorporated. The question was first
       raised in 1846, with reference to the right of a railway
       company to subsidise a harbour company, and Lord Langdale, in
       deciding against such a right, laid down the law in the
       following terms:—'Companies of this kind, possessing most
       extensive powers, have so recently been introduced into this
       country that neither the legislature nor the courts of law
       have yet been able to understand all the different lights in
       which their transactions ought properly to be viewed. … To
       look upon a railway company in the light of a common
       partnership, and as subject to no greater vigilance than
       common partnerships are, would, I think, be greatly to mistake
       the functions which they perform and the powers which they
       exercise of interference not only with the public but with the
       private rights of all individuals in this realm. … I am
       clearly of opinion that the powers which are given by an Act
       of Parliament, like that now in question, extend no further
       than is expressly stated in the Act, or is necessarily and
       properly required for carrying into effect the undertaking and
       works which the Act has expressly sanctioned.' [Citing Coleman
       v. Eastern Counties Rw. Co., 10 Beav., 18.] This view, though
       it has sometimes been criticised, seems now to be settled law.
       In a recent case in the House of Lords, the permission which
       the Legislature gives to the promoters of a company was
       paraphrased as follows:—'You may meet together and form
       yourselves into a company, but in doing that you must tell all
       who may be disposed to deal with you the objects for which you
       have been associated. Those who are dealing with you will
       trust to that memorandum of association, and they will see
       that you have the power of carrying on business in such a
       manner as it specifies. You must state the objects for which
       you are associated, so that the persons dealing with you will
       know that they are dealing with persons who can only devote
       their means to a given class of objects.' [Citing Riche v.
       Ashbury Carriage Co., L R., 7 E. & I., App. 684.] An act of a
       corporation in excess of its powers with reference to third
       persons is technically said to be ultra vires [perhaps first
       in South Yorkshire Rw. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 exch.
       84 (1853)]; and is void even if unanimously agreed to by all
       the corporators. The same term is also, but less properly,
       applied to a resolution of a majority of the members of a
       corporation which being beyond the powers of the corporation
       will not bind a dissentient minority of its members."

          Thomas Erskine Holland,
          Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 301.
          (Compare Article by Seymour D. Thompson in American Law
          Review, May-June, 1894).

    {1979}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848-1883.
       The New York Codes and their Adoption in other Communities.

       "The 'New York Mail' gives the following information as to the
       extent to which our New York Codes have been adopted in other
       communities. In most instances the codes have been adopted
       substantially in detail, and in others in principle: 'The
       first New York Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, went into
       effect on the 1st of July, 1848. It was adopted in Missouri in
       1849; in California in 1851; in Kentucky in 1851; in Ohio in
       1853; in the four provinces of India between 1853 and 1856; in
       Iowa in 1855; in Wisconsin in 1856; in Kansas in 1859; in
       Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1862; in Idaho
       in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Minnesota in 1866; in Nebraska
       in 1866; in Arizona in 1866; in Arkansas in 1868; in North
       Carolina in 1868; in Wyoming in 1869; in Washington Territory
       in 1869; in South Carolina in 1870; in Utah in 1870; in
       Connecticut in 1879; in Indiana in 1881. In England and
       Ireland by the Judicature Act of 1873; this Judicature Act has
       been followed in many of the British Colonies; in the Consular
       Courts of Japan, in Shanghai, in Hong Kong and Singapore,
       between 1870 and 1874. The Code of Criminal Procedure, though
       not enacted in New York till 1881, was adopted in California
       in 1850; in India at the same time with the Code of Civil
       Procedure; in Kentucky in 1854; in Iowa in 1858; in Kansas in
       1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1864;
       in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Washington Territory
       in 1869; in Wyoming in 1869; in Arkansas in 1874; in Utah in
       1876; in Arizona in 1877; in Wisconsin in 1878; in Nebraska in
       1881; in Indiana in 1881; in Minnesota in 1883. The Penal
       Code, though not enacted in New York until 1882, was adopted
       in Dakota in 1865 and in California in 1872. The Civil Code,
       not yet enacted in New York, though twice passed by the
       Legislature, was adopted in Dakota in 1866 and in California
       in 1872, and has been much used in the framing of substantive
       laws for India. The Political Code, reported for New York but
       not yet considered, was adopted in California in 1872. Thus it
       will be seen that the State of New York has given laws to the
       world to an extent and degree unknown since the
       Roman Codes followed Roman conquests.'"

          The Albany Law Journal,
          volume 39, page 261.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
       Simplification of Procedure.

       "In civil matters, the greatest reform of modern times has
       been the simplification of procedure in the courts, and the
       virtual amalgamation of law and equity. Here again America
       took the lead, through the adoption by New York, in 1848, of a
       Code of Practice, which has been followed by most of the other
       states of the Union, and in its main features has lately been
       taken up by England."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 1, page 70.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
       Reform in the Law of Evidence.

       "The earliest act of this kind in this country was passed by
       the Legislature of Connecticut in 1848. It is very broad and
       sweeping in its provisions. It is in these words: 'No person
       shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding
       at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event
       of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his
       conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be
       shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.'

          (Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849,
          page 86, section 141.
          In the margin of the page the time of the
          passage of the law is given as 1848.)

       This act was drafted and its enactment secured by the
       Honorable Charles J. McCurdy, a distinguished lawyer and the
       Lieutenant-Governor of that State. A member of Judge McCurdy's
       family, having been present at the delivery of this lecture at
       New Haven in 1892, called my attention to the above fact,
       claiming, and justly, for this act the credit of leading in
       this country the way to such legislation. But he was mistaken
       in his claim that it preceded similar legislation in England,
       although its provisions are an improvement on the contemporary
       enactments of the like kind in that country."

          John F. Dillon,
          Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
          page 374, notes.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1851.
       Bentham's Reforms in the Law of Evidence.

       "In some respects his [Bentham's] 'Judicial Evidence,' … is
       the most important of all his censorial writings on English
       Law. In this work he exposed the absurdity and perniciousness
       of many of the established technical rules of evidence. …
       Among the rules combatted were those relating to the
       competency of witnesses and the exclusion of evidence on
       various grounds, including that of pecuniary interest. He
       insisted that these rules frequently caused the miscarriage of
       justice, and that in the interest of justice they ought to be
       swept away. His reasoning fairly embraces the doctrine that
       parties ought to be allowed and even required to testify. …
       But Bentham had set a few men thinking. He had scattered the
       seeds of truth. Though they fell on stony ground they did not
       all perish. But verily reform is a plant of slow growth in the
       sterile gardens of the practising and practical lawyer.
       Bentham lived till 1832, and these exclusionary rules still
       held sway. But in 1843, by Lord Denman's Act, interest in
       actions at common law ceased, as a rule, to disqualify; and in
       1846 and 1851, by Lord Brougham's Acts, parties in civil
       actions were as a rule made competent and compellable to
       testify. I believe I speak the universal judgment of the
       profession when I say changes more beneficial in the
       administration of justice have rarely taken place in our law,
       and that it is a matter of profound amazement, as we look back
       upon it, that these exclusionary rules ever had a place
       therein, and especially that they were able to retain it until
       within the last fifty years."

          J. F. Dillon,
          Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
          pages 339-341.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1852-1854.
       Reform in Procedure.

       "A great procedure reform was effected by the Common Law
       Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 as the result of their
       labours." The main object of the Acts was to secure that the
       actual merits of every case should be brought before the
       judges unobscured by accidental and artificial questions
       arising upon the pleadings, but they also did something to
       secure that complete adaptability of the common law courts for
       finally determining every action brought within them, which
       the Chancery Commissioners of 1850 had indicated as one of the
       aims of the reformers. Power was given to the common law courts
       to allow parties to be interrogated by their opponents, to
       order discovery of documents, to direct specific delivery of
       goods, to grant injunctions, and to hear interpleader actions,
       and equitable pleas were allowed to be urged in defence to
       common law actions."

          D. M. Kerly,
          History of Equity,
          page 288.

    {1980}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854.
       "Another mode" (besides common law lien).

       "Another mode of creating a security is possible, by which not
       merely the ownership of the thing but its possession also
       remains with the debtor. This is called by the Roman lawyers
       and their modern followers 'hypotheca.' Hypothecs may arise by
       the direct application of a rule of law, by judicial decision,
       or by agreement. Those implied by law, generally described as
       'tacit hypothecs,' are probably the earliest. They are first
       heard of in Roman law in connection with that right of a
       landlord over the goods of his tenant, which is still well
       known on the Continent and in Scotland under its old name, and
       which in England takes the form of a right of Distress.
       Similar rights were subsequently granted to wives, pupils,
       minors, and legatees, over the property of husbands, tutors,
       curators, and heirs, respectively. The action by which the
       praetor Servius first enabled a landlord to claim the goods of
       his defaulting tenant in order to realize his rent, even if
       they had passed into the hands of third parties, was soon
       extended so as to give similar rights to any creditor over
       property which its owner had agreed should be held liable for
       a debt. A real right was thus created by the mere consent of
       the parties, without any transfer of possession, which
       although opposed to the theory of Roman law, became firmly
       established as applicable both to immoveable and moveable
       property. Of the modern States which have adopted the law of
       hypothec, Spain perhaps stands alone in adopting it to the
       fullest extent. The rest have, as a rule, recognized it only
       in relation to immoveables. Thus the Dutch law holds to the
       maxim 'mobilia non habent sequelam,' and the French Code,
       following the 'coutumes' of Paris and Normandy, lays down that
       'les meubles n'ont pas de suite par hypotheque.' But by the
       'Code de Commerce,' ships, though moveables, are capable of
       hypothecation; and in England what is called a mortgage, but
       is essentially a hypothec, of ships is recognized and
       regulated by the 'Merchant Shipping Acts,' under which the
       mortgage must be recorded by the registrar of the port at
       which the ship itself is registered [17 and 18 Vic. c. 104].
       So also in the old contract of 'bottomry,' the ship is made
       security for money lent to enable it to proceed upon its
       voyage."

          T. E. Holland,
          Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
          p. 203.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854-1882.
       Simplification of Titles and Transfers of Land in England.

       "For the past fifty years the project of simplifying the
       titles and transfer of land has received great attention in
       England. In the year 1854 a royal commission was created to
       consider the subject. The report of this commission, made in
       1857, was able and full so far as it discussed the principles
       of land transfer which had been developed to that date. It
       recommended a limited plan of registration of title. This
       report, and the report of the special commission of the House
       of Commons of 1879, have been the foundation of most of the
       subsequent British legislation upon the subject. Among the
       more prominent acts passed may be named Lord Westbury's Act of
       1862, which attempted to establish indefeasible titles; Lord
       Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, which provided for
       guaranteed titles upon preliminary examinations; the
       Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, which
       established the use of short forms of conveyances; and Lord
       Cairns' Settled Land Act of 1882."

          Dwight H. Olmstead,
          13 American Bar Association Report,
          page 267.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1855.
       Suits against a State or Nation.

       "In England the old common law methods of getting redress from
       the Crown were by 'petition de droit' and 'monstrans le
       droit,' in the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer,
       and in some cases by proceedings in Chancery against the
       Attorney-General. It has recently been provided by statute [23
       & 24 Vic., c. 24] that a petition of right may be entitled in
       anyone of the superior Courts in which the subject-matter of
       the petition would have been cognisable, if the same had been
       a matter in dispute between subject and subject, and that it
       shall be left with the Secretary of State for the Home
       Department, for her Majesty's consideration, who, if she shall
       think fit, may grant her fiat that right be done, whereupon an
       answer, plea, or demurrer shall be made on behalf of the
       Crown, and the subsequent proceedings be assimulated as far as
       practicable to the course of an ordinary action. It is also
       provided that costs shall be payable both to and by the Crown,
       subject to the same rules, so far as practicable, as obtain in
       proceedings between subject and subject."

          T. E. Holland,
          Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
          page 337.

       The United States Court of Claims was established in 1855. For
       State courts of claims see Note in 16 Abbott's New Cases 436
       and authorities there referred to.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1858.
       The Contractual Theory of Marriage as affecting Divorce.

       "The doctrine may be resolved into two propositions-(a) that a
       marriage celebrated abroad cannot be dissolved but by a Court
       of the foreign country; (b) that a marriage in England is
       indissoluble by a foreign Court. The first proposition has
       never been recognized in any decision in England. Even before
       the Act of 1858 it is extremely doubtful if the English Courts
       would have scrupled to decree a divorce â mensâ where the
       marriage was had in a foreign country, and certainly after the
       Statutes they did not hesitate to grant a divorce, though the
       marriage took place abroad (Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1859, 1 Sw.
       & Tr. 217). It is true that in cases where the foreign Courts
       have dissolved a marriage celebrated in their own country
       between persons domiciled in that country, these sentences
       were regarded as valid here, and some credit was given to the
       fact of the marriage having been celebrated there (Ryan v.
       Ryan, 1816, 2 Phill. 332; Argent v. Argent, 1865, 4 Sw. & Tr.
       52); but bow far it influenced the learned Judges does not
       appear; the main consideration being the circumstance of
       domicile. The second proposition has been generally supposed
       by writers both in England and America (Story, Wharton) to
       have been introduced by Lolley's Case, 1812, Ruse. & Ry. 237,
       and followed in Tovey v. Lindsay, 1813, 1 Dow. 117, and
       McCarthy v. De Caix, 1831, 2 Cl. & F. 568, and only to have
       been abandoned in 1858 (Dicey), or in 1868 in Shaw v. Gould.
       But the case of Harvey v. Farnie, 1880-1882, 5 P. D. 153; 6 P.
       D. 35, 8 App. C. 48, has now shown that the Contractual theory
       had no permanent hold whatever in this country, that it did
       not originate with Lolley's Case and was not adopted by Lord
       Eldon but that it arose from a mistaken conception of Lord
       Brougham as to the point decided in the famous Resolution, and
       was never seriously entertained by any other Judge in England,
       and we submit this is correct."

          E. H. Monnier,
          Law Magazine & Review,
          12 ser., volume 17 (London, 1891-2), page 82.

    {1981}

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1873.
       The Judicature Acts.

       "The first Judicature Act was passed in 1873 under the
       auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns. It provided for the
       consolidation of all the existing superior Courts into one
       Supreme Court, consisting of two primary divisions, a High
       Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. … Law and Equity, it
       was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every
       division of the Court, in all civil matters, the same relief
       being granted upon equitable claims or defences, … as would
       have previously been granted in the Court of Chancery; no
       proceeding in the Court was to be stayed by injunction
       analogous to the old common injunction but the power for any
       branch of the Court to stay proceedings before itself was of
       course to be retained; and the Court was to determine the
       entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the
       25th section of the Act rules upon certain of the points where
       differences between Law and Equity had existed, deciding in
       favour of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted
       generally that in the case of conflict, the rules of Equity
       should prevail."

          D. M. Kerly,
          History of Equity,
          page 293.

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1882.
       Experiments in Codification in England.

       "The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is, I believe, the first code
       or codifying enactment which has found its way into the
       English Statute Book. By a code, I mean a statement under the
       authority of the legislature, and on a systematic plan, of the
       whole of the general principles applicable to any given branch
       of the law. A code differs from a digest inasmuch as its
       language is the language of the legislature, and therefore
       authoritative; while the propositions of a digest merely
       express what is, in the opinion of an individual author, the
       law on any given subject. In other words the words
       propositions of a code are law, while the propositions of a
       digest may or may not be law."

          M. D. Chalmers,
          An Experiment in Codification
          (Law Quarterly Review,
          volume 2, page 125).

    COMMON LAW: A. D. 1889.
       Passage of Block-Indexing Act.

       "The history of Land Transfer Reform in the United States is
       confined, almost exclusively, to matters which have occurred
       in the State of New York during the past ten years, and which
       culminated in the passage of the Block-Indexing Act for the
       city, of New York of 1889. In January, 1882, a report was made
       by a special committee of the Association of the Bar of the
       city of New York, which had been appointed to consider and
       report what changes, if any, should be made in the manner of
       transferring title to land in the city and State. The
       committee reported that by reason of the accumulated records
       in the offices of the county clerk and register of deeds of
       the city, 'searches practically could not be made in those
       offices,' and recommended the appointment of a State
       commission, which should consider and report a mode of
       transferring land free from the difficulties of the present
       system. The report was adopted by the association, and during
       the same year like recommendations were made by the Chamber of
       Commerce and by real estate and other associations of the
       city."

          D. H. Olmstead,
          13 American Bar Association Report,
          pages 269-270.

       ----------COMMON LAW: End----------

       ----------CRIMINAL LAW: Start----------

    Criminal Law.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1272.
       The Ordinary Criminal Courts.

       "In a very few words the history of the ordinary courts is as
       follows: Before the Conquest the ordinary criminal court was
       the County or Hundred Court, but it was subject to the general
       supervision and concurrent jurisdiction of the King's Court.
       The Conqueror and his sons did not alter this state of things,
       but the supervision of the King's Court and the exercise of
       his concurrent jurisdiction were much increased both in
       stringency and in frequency, and as time went on narrowed the
       jurisdiction and diminished the importance of the local court.
       In process of time the King's Court developed itself into the
       Court of King's Bench and the Courts of the Justices of
       Assize, Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, or to use the
       common expression, the Assize Courts; and the County Court, so
       far as its criminal jurisdiction was concerned, lost the
       greater part of its importance. These changes took place by
       degrees during the reigns which followed the Conquest, and
       were complete at the accession of Edward I. In the reign of
       Edward III. the Justices of the Peace were instituted, and
       they, in course of time, were authorized to hold Courts for
       the trial of offenders, which are the Courts of Quarter
       Sessions. The County Court, however, still retained a separate
       existence, till the beginning of the reign of Edward IV., when
       it was virtually, though not absolutely, abolished. A vestige
       of its existence is still to be traced in Courts Leet."

          Sir James F. Stephen,
          History of the Criminal Law,
          volume 1, pages 75-76.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166.
       Disappearance of Compurgation in Criminal Cases.

       "In criminal cases in the king's courts, compurgation is
       thought to have disappeared in consequence of what has been
       called 'the implied prohibition' of the Assize of Clarendon,
       in 1166. But it remained long in the local and ecclesiastical
       courts. Palgrave preserves as the latest instances of
       compurgation in criminal cases that can be traced, some cases
       as late as 1440-1, in the Hundred Court of Winchelsea in
       Sussex. They are cases of felony, and the compurgation is with
       thirty-six neighbors. They show a mingling of the old and the
       new procedure."

          J. B. Thayer,
          The Older Modes of Trial
          (Harvard Law Review., volume 5, page 59).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166-1215.
       Jury in Criminal Cases.

       "It seems to have been possible, even before the decree of the
       Fourth Lateran Council, in … 1215, to apply the jury to
       criminal cases when ever the accused asked for it. … The
       Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, with its apparatus of an
       accusing jury and a trial by ordeal is thought to have done
       away in the king's courts with compurgation as a mode of trial
       for crime; and now the Lateran Council, in forbidding
       ecclesiastics to take part in trial by ordeal, was deemed to
       have forbidden that mode of trial."

          Jas. B. Thayer,
          The Jury and its Development
          (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 265).

    {1982}

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1176 (circa).
       "Eyres," and Criminal Jurisdiction.

       "It is enough for me to point out that, on the circuits
       instituted by Henry II, and commonly distinguished as 'eyres',
       by way of pre-eminence, the administration of criminal
       justice, was treated, not as a thing by itself, but as one
       part, perhaps the most prominent and important part, of the
       general administration of the country, which was put to a
       considerable extent under the superintendence of the justices
       in eyre. Nor is this surprising when we consider that fines,
       amercements, and forfeitures of all sorts were items of great
       importance in the royal revenue. The rigorous enforcement of
       all the proprietary and other profitable rights of the Crown
       which the articles of eyre confided to the justices was
       naturally associated with their duties as administrators of
       the criminal law, in which the king was deeply interested, not
       only because it protected the life and property of his
       subjects, but also because it contributed to his revenue."

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          History of the Criminal Law of England,
          volume 1, page 102.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1198-1199.
       Trial by Ordeal.

       "The earliest instance of the ordeal [see ORDEAL] in our
       printed judicial records occurs in 1198-9, on an appeal of
       death, by a maimed person, where two of the defendants are
       adjudged to purge themselves by the hot iron. But within
       twenty years or so this mode of trial came to a sudden end in
       England, through the powerful agency of the Church,—an event
       which was the more remarkable because Henry II., in the Assize
       of Clarendon (1166) and again in that of Northampton (1176),
       providing a public mode of accusation in the case of the
       larger crimes, had fixed the ordeal as the mode of trial. The
       old form of trial by oath was no longer recognized in such
       cases in the king's courts. It was the stranger, therefore,
       that such quick operation should have been allowed in England
       to the decree, in November, 1215, of the Fourth Lateran
       Council at Rome. That this was recognized and accepted within
       about three years (1218-19) by the English crown is shown by
       the well-known writs of Henry III., to the judges, dealing
       with the puzzling question of what to do for a mode of trial,
       'cum prohibitum sit per Ecclesiam Romanam judicium ignis et
       aquae.' I find no case of trial by ordeal in our printed
       records later than Trinity Term of the 15 John (1213)."

          J. B. Thayer,
          The Older Modes of Trial
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 5, pages 64-65).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
       Two Juries in Criminal Cases.

       "The ordeal was strictly a mode of trial. What may clearly
       bring this home to one of the present day is the well-known
       fact that it gave place, not long after the Assize of
       Clarendon, to the petit jury, when Henry III. bowed to the
       decree of the fourth Lateran Council (1215) abolishing the
       ordeal. It was at this point that our cumbrous, inherited
       system of two juries in criminal cases had its origin."

          J. B. Thayer,
          Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 3, page 159, note).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
       Had Coroners Common Law Power as to Fires?

       "Although Magna Charta took away the power of the Coroner of
       holding Pleas of the Crown, that is of trying the more
       important crimes, there was nothing to forbid him from
       continuing to receive accusations against all offenders. This
       he did, and continues to do to the present day, without
       challenge, in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths. Nor is it
       denied that he has done so and may do so in other matters,
       such as in treasure trove, wreck of the sea and deodands. The
       difficulty, of course, is to know whether the Coroner was or
       was not in the habit of holding inquests on fires. There is no
       evidence that he had not the power to do so. On the contrary,
       we think the extracts from the ancient writers which we have
       before quoted, are on the whole in favour of his having that
       power. Before Magna Charta he had the power to try all serious
       crimes; arson would unquestionably be one of them. Magna
       Charta only took a way his power of trying them, not of making
       a preliminary investigation, otherwise an inquest."

          Sherston Baker,
          Law Magazine & Review (London, 1886-7),
          4th ser., volume 12, page 268.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1272-1875.
       King's Bench.
       The Supreme Criminal Court.

       "From the reign of Edward I, to the year 1875 it [the Court of
       King's Bench] continued to be the Supreme Criminal Court of
       the Realm, with no alterations in its powers or constitution
       of sufficient importance to be mentioned except that during
       the Commonwealth it was called the Upper Bench."

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          History of Criminal Law of England,
          volume 1, page 94.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1276.
       Coroner's Jury.

       "The earliest instance that occurs of any sort of preliminary
       inquiry into crimes with a view to subsequent proceedings is
       the case of the coroner's inquest. Coroners, according to Mr.
       Stubbs, originated in the year 1194, but the first authority
       of importance about their duties is to be found in Bracton. He
       gives an account of their duties so full as to imply that in
       his day their office was comparatively modern. The Statute de
       Officio Coronatoris (4 Edward I., st. 2, A. D. 1276) is almost
       a transcript of the passage in Bracton. It gives the coroner's
       duty very fully, and is, to this day, the foundation of the
       law on the subject."

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          History of the Criminal Law of England,
          volume 1, page 217.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Forsyth,
          Trial by Jury,
          page 187.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
       Courts of Oyer and Terminer.

       "The first express mention of them with which I am acquainted
       is in the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 29 (A. D. 1285), which taken
       in connection with some subsequent authorities throws
       considerable light on their nature. They were either general
       or special. General when they were issued to commissioners
       whose duty it was to hear and determine all matters of a
       criminal nature within certain local limits, special when the
       commission was confined to particular cases. Such special
       commissions were frequently granted at the prayer of
       particular individuals. They differed from commissions of gaol
       delivery principally in the circumstance that the commission
       of Oyer and Terminer was 'ad inquirendum, audiendum, et
       terminandum,' whereas that of gaol delivery is 'ad gaolam
       nostram castri nostri de C. de prisonibus in ea existentibus
       hac vice deliberandum,' the interpretation put upon which was
       that justices of Oyer and Terminer could proceed only upon
       indictments taken before themselves, whereas justices of gaol
       delivery had to try everyone found in the prison which they
       were to deliver. On the other hand, a prisoner on bail could
       not be tried before a justice of gaol delivery, because he
       would not be in the gaol, whereas if he appeared before
       justices of Oyer and Terminer he might be both indicted and
       tried."

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          History of the Criminal Law of England,
          volume 1, page 106.

    {1983}

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1305.
       Challenging Jury for Cause.

       "The prisoner was allowed to challenge peremptorily, i. e.
       without showing cause, any number of jurors less than
       thirty-five, or three whole juries. When or why he acquired
       this right it is difficult to say. Neither Bracton nor Britton
       mention it, and it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that
       the jurors were witnesses. A man who might challenge
       peremptorily thirty-five witnesses could always secure
       impunity. It probably arose at a period when the separation
       between the duties of the jury and the witnesses was coming to
       be recognized. The earliest statute on the subject, 33 Edw. I,
       st. 4 (A. D. 1305), enacts 'that from henceforth,
       notwithstanding it be alleged by them that sue for the king
       that the jurors of those inquests, or some of them, be not
       indifferent for the king, yet such inquests shall not remain
       untaken for that cause, but if they that sue for the king will
       challenge any of those jurors, they shall assign of the
       challenge a cause certain.'"

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          History of the Criminal Law of England,
          volume 1, pages 301-302.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1344.
       Justices of the Peace.

       "In 1344 (18 Edw. Ill, st. 2, c. 2) it was enacted that 'two
       or three of the best of reputation in the counties shall be
       assigned keepers of the peace by the King's Commission, … to
       hear and determine felonies and trespasses done against the
       peace in the same counties, and to inflict punishment
       reasonably.' This was the first act by which the Conservators
       of the Peace obtained judicial power."

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          History of the Criminal Law of England,
          volume 1, page 113.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1506.
       Insanity as a Defence.

       The earliest adjudication upon the legal responsibility of an
       insane person occurred in the Year Book of the 21 Henry VII.

          American Law Review,
          volume 15, page 717.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1547.
       Two Lawful Witnesses required to Convict.

       "In all cases of treason and misprision of treason,—by
       statutes l Edw. VI. c. 12; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11, and 7 & 8
       Will. III. c. 3,—two lawful witnesses are required to convict
       a prisoner; unless he shall willingly and without violence
       confess the same. And, by the last-mentioned statute, it is
       declared, that both of such witnesses must be to the same
       overt act of treason; or one to one overt act, and the other
       to another overt act of the same species of treason, and not
       of distinct heads or kinds: and that no evidence shall be
       admitted to prove any overt act, not expressly laid in the
       indictment."

          Sir J. F. Stephen,
          Commentaries,
          volume 4, page 425 (8th edition).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1592.
       Criminal Trials under Elizabeth.

       "In prosecutions by the State, every barrier which the law has
       ever attempted to erect for the protection of innocence was
       ruthlessly cast down. Men were arrested without the order of a
       magistrate, on the mere warrant of a secretary of state or
       privy councillor, and thrown into prison at the pleasure of
       the minister. In confinement they were subjected to torture,
       for the rack rarely stood idle while Elizabeth was on the
       throne. If brought to trial, they were denied the aid of a
       counsel and the evidence of witnesses in their behalf. Nor
       were they confronted with the witnesses against them, but
       written depositions, taken out of court and in the absence of
       the prisoner, were read to the jury, or rather such portions
       of them as the prosecution considered advantageous to its
       side. On the bench sat a judge holding office at the pleasure
       of the crown, and in the jury-box twelve men, picked out by
       the sheriff, who themselves were punished if they gave a
       verdict of acquittal."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 1, page 367.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1600 (circa).
       Capital Punishment.

       "Sir James Fitz James Stephen, in his History of Criminal
       Law, estimates that at the end of the sixteenth century
       there were about 800 executions per year in England (volume 1,
       468). Another sentence in vogue in England before that time
       was to be hanged, to have the bowels burned, and to be
       quartered. Beccaria describes the scene where 'amid clouds of
       writhing smoke the groans of human victims, the crackling of
       their bones, and the flying of their still panting bowels were
       a pleasing spectacle and agreeable harmony to the frantic
       multitude.' (chapter 39.) As late as the reign of Elizabeth,
       … the sentence of death in England was to be hung, drawn and
       quartered. Campian, the Jesuit, was tortured before trial
       until his limbs were dislocated on the rack, and was carried
       helpless into Westminster Hall for trial before the Chief
       Justice of England, unable to raise an arm in order to plead
       not guilty. He was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered,
       which meant legally, that upon being hung he was to be cut
       down while yet living, and dragged at the tail of a horse, and
       then before death should release him, to be hewn in pieces,
       which were to be sent dispersed to the places where the
       offense was committed or known, to be exhibited in attestation
       of the punishment, the head being displayed in the most
       important place, as the chief object of interest. In the
       process of hanging, drawing and quartering, Froude says that
       due precautions were taken to prolong the agony. Campian's
       case is specially interesting, as showing the intervention of
       a more humane spirit to mitigate the barbarity of the law. As
       they were about to cut him down alive from the gibbet, the
       voice of some one in authority cried out: Hold, till the man
       is dead.' This innovation was the precursor of the change in
       the law so as to require the sentence to be that he be hanged
       by the neck until he is dead. It is not generally known that
       the words 'until he is dead' are words of mercy inserted to
       protect the victim from the torture and mutilation which the
       public had gathered to enjoy."

          Austin Abbott,
          Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal
          (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1641-1662.
       No Man shall be compelled to Criminate himself.

       "What … is the history of this rule? … Briefly, these
       things appear: 1st. That it is not a common law rule at all,
       but is wholly statutory in its authority. 2d. That the object
       of the rule, until a comparatively late period of its
       existence, was not to protect from answers in the king's court
       of justice, but to prevent a usurpation of jurisdiction on
       the part of the Court Christian (or ecclesiastical tribunals).
       3d. That even as thus enforced the rule was but partial and
       limited in its application. 4th. That by gradual perversion of
       function the rule assumed its present form, but not earlier
       than the latter half of the seventeenth century. … But
       nothing can be clearer than that it was a statutory rule. …
    {1984}
       The first of these were 16 Car. I., c. 2 (1641) and provided
       that no one should impose any penalty in ecclesiastical
       matters, nor should 'tender … to any … person whatsoever
       any corporal oath whereby he shall be obliged to confess or
       accuse himself of any crime or any … thing whereby he shall
       be exposed to any censure or penalty whatever.' This probably
       applied to ecclesiastical courts alone. The second (13 Car.
       II., c. 12, 1662) is more general, providing that 'no one
       shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually
       called ex officio, or any other oath, whereby such persons may
       be charged or compelled to confess any criminal matter.' …
       The Statute of 13 Car. II. is cited in Scurr's Case, but
       otherwise neither of them seems to have been mentioned; nor do
       the text-books, as a rule, take any notice of them.
       Henceforward, however, no question arises in the courts as to
       the validity of the privilege against self-crimination, and
       the statutory exemption is recognized as applying in
       common-law courts us well as in others. … This maxim, or
       rather the abuse of it in the ecclesiastical courts, helps in
       part to explain the shape which the general privilege now has
       taken. … We notice that most of the church's religious
       investigations, … were conducted by means of commissions or
       inquisitions, not by ordinary trials upon proper presentment;
       and thus the very rule of the canon law itself was continually
       broken, and persons unsuspected and unbetrayed 'per famam'
       were compelled, 'seipsum prodere,' to become their own
       accusers. This, for a time, was the burden of the complaint.
       … Furthermore, in rebelling against this abuse of the
       canon-law rule, men were obliged to formulate their reasons
       for objecting to answer the articles of inquisitions. … They
       professed to be willing to answer ordinary questions, but not
       to betray themselves to disgrace and ruin, especially as where
       the crimes charged were, as a rule, religious offences and not
       those which men generally regard as offences against social
       order. In this way the rule began to be formulated and
       limited, as applying to the disclosure of forfeitures and
       penal offences. In the course of the struggle the aid of the
       civil courts was invoked, … and towards the end of the
       seventeenth century, … it found a lodgement in the practice
       of the Exchequer, of Chancery, and of the other courts. There
       had never been in the civil courts any complaint based on the
       same lines, or any demand for such a privilege. … But the
       momentum of this right, wrested from the ecclesiastical courts
       after a century of continual struggle, fairly carried it over
       and fixed it firmly in the common-law practice also."

          John H. Wigmore,
          Nemo Tenetur seipsum Prodere
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 5, pages 71-88).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1660-1820.
       187 Capital Offenses added to Criminal Code in England.

       "From the Restoration to the death of George III.,—a period
       of 160 years,—no less than 187 capital offenses were added to
       the criminal code. The legislature was able, every year, to
       discover more than one heinous crime deserving of death. In
       the reign of George II. thirty-three Acts were passed creating
       capital offenses; in the first fifty years of George III., no
       less than sixty-three. In such a multiplication of offenses
       all principle was ignored; offenses wholly different in
       character and degree were confounded in the indiscriminating
       penalty of death. Whenever an offense was found to be
       increasing, some busy senator called for new rigor, until
       murder became in the eye of the law no greater crime than
       picking a pocket, purloining a ribbon from a shop, or
       pilfering a pewter-pot. Such law-makers were as ignorant as
       they were cruel. … Dr. Johnson,—no squeamish
       moralist,—exposed them; Sir W. Blackstone, in whom admiration
       of our jurisprudence was almost a foible, denounced them.
       Beccaria, Montesquieu, and Bentham demonstrated that certainty
       of punishment was more effectual in the repression of crime,
       than severity; but law-givers were still inexorable."

          T. E. May,
          Constitutional History of England
          (Widdleton's edition),
          volume 2, pages 553-554.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1695.
       Counsel allowed to Persons indicted for High Treason.

       "Holland, following the early example of Spain, always
       permitted a prisoner the services of a counsel; and if he was
       too poor to defray the cost, one was furnished at the public
       charge. In England, until after the fall of the Stuarts, this
       right, except for the purposes of arguing mere questions of
       law, was denied to every one placed on trial for his life. In
       1695, it was finally accorded to persons indicted for high
       treason. Even then it is doubtful, says Lord Campbell, whether
       a bill for this purpose would have passed if Lord Ashley,
       afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury and author of the
       'Characteristics,' had not broken down while delivering in the
       House of Commons a set speech upon it, and, being called upon
       to go on, had not electrified the House by observing: 'If I,
       sir, who rise only to give my opinion upon a bill now pending,
       in the fate of which I have no personal interest, am so
       confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I
       propose to say, what must the condition of that man be, who,
       without any assistance, is called to plead for his life, his
       honor, and for his posterity?'"

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 2, page 446.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1708.
       Torture.

       The fact that judicial torture, though not a common law power
       of the courts, was used in England by command of Mary,
       Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, is familiar to all. It was
       sanctioned by Lord Coke and Lord Bacon, and Coke himself
       conducted examinations by it. It was first made illegal in
       Scotland in 1708; in Bavaria and Wurtemburg in 1806; in Baden
       in 1831.

          Austin Abbott,
          Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal,
          (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1725.
       Knowledge of Right and Wrong the test of Responsibility.

       The case of Edward Arnold, in 1725, who was indicted for
       shooting at Lord Onslow, seems to be the earliest case in
       which the knowledge of right and wrong becomes the test of
       responsibility.

          American Law Review,
          volume 15, pages 720-722.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1770.
       Criminal Law of Libel.

       "In this case [Case of the North Briton Junius' Letter to the
       King, tried before Lord Mansfield and a special jury on the
       2nd June 1770] two doctrines were maintained which excepted
       libels from the general principles of the Criminal
       Law—firstly, that a publisher was criminally responsible for
       the acts of his servants, unless he was proved to be neither
       privy nor to have assented to the publication of a libel;
       secondly, that it was the province of the Court alone to judge
       of the criminality of the publication complained of. The first
       rule was rigidly observed in the Courts until the passing of
       Lord Campbell's Libel Act in 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 96). The
       second prevailed only until 1792, when Fox's Libel Act (32
       Geo. III, c. 60) declared it to be contrary to the Law of
       England. …
    {1985}
       A century's experience has proved that the law, as declared by
       the Legislature in 1792, has worked well, falsifying the
       forebodings of the Judges of the period, who predicted 'the
       confusion and destruction of the Law of England' as the result
       of a change which they regarded as the subversion of a
       fundamental and important principle of English Jurisprudence.
       Fox's Libel Act did not complete the emancipation of the
       Press. Liberty of discussion continued to be restrained by
       merciless persecution. The case of Sir Francis Burdett, in
       1820, deserves notice. Sir Francis had written, on the subject
       of the 'Peterloo Massacre' in Manchester, a letter which was
       published in a London newspaper. He was fined £2,000 and
       sentenced to imprisonment for three months. The proceedings on
       a motion for a new trial are of importance because of the
       Judicial interpretation of the Libel Act of 1792. The view was
       then stated by Best, J. (afterwards Lord Wynford), and was
       adopted unanimously by the Court, that the statute of George
       III. had not made the question of libel one of fact. If it
       had, instead of removing an anomaly, it would have created
       one. Libel, said Best, J., is a question of law, and the judge
       is the judge of the law in libel as in all other cases, the
       jury having the power of acting agreeably to his statement of
       the law or not. All that the statute does is to prevent the
       question from being left to the jury in the narrow way in
       which it was left before that time. The jury were then only to
       find the fact of the publication and the truth of the
       innuendoes, for the judges used to tell them that the intent
       was an inference of law to be drawn from the paper, with which
       the jury had nothing to do. The legislature have said that
       this is not so, but that the whole case is for the jury (4 B.
       and A. 95). The law relating to Political Libel has not been
       developed or altered in any way since the case of R. v.
       Burdett. If it should ever be revived, which does not at
       present appear probable, it will be found, says Sir James
       Stephen, to have been insensibly modified by the law as to
       defamatory libels on private persons, which has been the
       subject of a great number of highly important judicial
       decisions. The effect of these is, amongst other things, to
       give a right to everyone to criticise fairly—that is,
       honestly, even if mistakenly—the public conduct of public
       men, and to comment honestly, even if mistakenly, upon the
       proceedings of Parliament and the Courts of Justice. (History
       of the Criminal Law, II., 376.) The unsuccessful prosecution
       of Cobbett for an article in the 'Political Register,' in
       1831, nearly brought to a close the long series of contests
       between the Executive and the Press. From the period of the
       Reform Act of 1832, the utmost latitude has been permitted to
       public writings, and Press prosecutions for political libels,
       like the Censorship, have lapsed."

          J. W. Ross Brown,
          Law Magazine & Review,
          4th ser., volume 17, page 197.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1791.
       Criminals allowed Counsel.

       "When the American States adopted their first constitutions,
       five of them contained a provision that every person accused
       of crime was to be allowed counsel for his defence. The same
       right was, in 1791, granted for all America in the first
       amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This
       would seem to be an elementary principle of justice, but it
       was not adopted in England until nearly half a century later,
       and then only after a bitter struggle."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 1, page 70.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1818.
       Last Trial by Battle.

       "The last appeal of murder brought in England was the case of
       Ashford v. Thornton in 1818. In that case, after Thornton had
       been tried and acquitted of the murder of Mary Ashford at the
       Warwick Assizes her brother charged him in the court of king's
       bench with her murder, according to the forms of the ancient
       procedure. The court admitted the legality of the proceedings,
       and recognized the appellee's right to wage his body; but as
       the appellant was not prepared to fight, the case ended upon a
       plea of autrefois acquit interposed by Thornton when arraigned
       on the appeal. This proceeding led to the statute of 59 Geo.
       III., c. 46, by which all appeals in criminal cases were
       finally abolished."

          Hannis Taylor,
          Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
          part 1, page 311.

          See, also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D: 1819.
       Severity of the former Criminal Law of England.

       "Sir James Mackintosh in 1819, in moving in Parliament for a
       committee to inquire into the conditions of the criminal law,
       stated that there were then 'two hundred capital felonies on
       the statute book.' Undoubtedly this apparent severity, for the
       reasons stated by Sir James Stephen, is greater than the real
       severity, since many of the offenses made capital were of
       infrequent occurrence; and juries, moreover, often refused to
       convict, and persons capitally convicted for offenses of minor
       degrees of guilt were usually pardoned on condition of
       transportation to the American and afterwards to the
       Australian colonies. But this learned author admits that,
       'after making all deductions on these grounds there can be no
       doubt that the legislation of the eighteenth century in
       criminal matters was severe to the highest degree, and
       destitute of any sort of principle or system.'"

          J. F. Dillon,
          Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
          page 366.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1825.
       "Ticket-of-leave" system established.

       "The 'ticket-of-leave' system [was] established under the
       English laws of penal servitude. It originated under the
       authority of the governors of the penal colonies, and was the
       first sanctioned by Parliament, so far as the committee are
       aware, by an Act 5 Geo. IV., chapter 34. Subsequently, when
       transportation for crime was abolished by the Acts 16, 17
       Vict., chapter 99 (A. D. 1853) and 20, 21 Vict., chapter 3,
       and system of home prisons established, the 'license' or
       ticket-of-leave system was adopted by Parliament, in those
       acts, as a method of rewarding convicts for good conduct
       during imprisonment. By further acts passed in 1864, 1871 and
       1879, the system has been brought gradually into its present
       efficacy."

          Report of Committee on Judicial Administration,
          and Remedial Procedure
          (9 American Bar Association Report, 317).

    {1986}

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1832-1860.
       Revision of Criminal Code in England.

       "With the reform period commenced a new era in criminal
       legislation. Ministers and law officers now vied with
       philanthropists, in undoing the unhallowed work of many
       generations. In 1832, Lord Auckland, Master of the Mint,
       secured the abolition of capital punishment for offences
       connected with coinage; Mr. Attorney-general Denman exempted
       forgery from the same penalty in all but two cases, to which
       the Lords would not assent; and Mr. Ewart obtained the like
       remission for sheep-stealing, and other similar offences. In
       1833, the Criminal Law Commission was appointed, to revise the
       entire code. … The commissioners recommended numerous other
       remissions, which were promptly carried into effect by Lord
       John Russell in 1837. Even these remissions, however, fell
       short of public opinion, which found expression in an
       amendment of Mr. Ewart, for limiting the punishment of death
       to the single crime of murder. This proposal was then lost by
       a majority of one; but has since, by successive measures, been
       accepted by the legislature;—murder alone, and the
       exceptional crime of treason, having been reserved for the
       last penalty of the law. Great indeed, and rapid, was this
       reformation of the criminal code. It was computed that, from
       1810 to 1845, upwards of 1,400 persons had suffered death for
       crimes, which had since ceased to be capital."

          T. E. May,
          Constitutional History of England
          (Widdleton's edition),
          volume 2, pages 557-558.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1843.
       Lord Campbell's Libel Act, and Publisher's Liability.

       "In the 'Morning Advertiser' of the 19th of December, 1769,
       appeared Junius's celebrated letter to the king. Inflammatory
       and seditious, it could not be overlooked; and as the author
       was unknown, informations were immediately filed against the
       printers and publishers of the letter. But before they were
       brought to trial, Almon, the bookseller, was tried for selling
       the 'London Museum,' in which the libel was reprinted. His
       connection with the publication proved to be so slight that he
       escaped with a nominal punishment. Two doctrines, however,
       were maintained in this case, which excepted libels from the
       general principles of the criminal law. By the first, a
       publisher was held criminally answerable for the acts of his
       servants, unless proved to be neither privy nor assenting to
       the publication of a libel. So long as exculpatory evidence
       was admitted, this doctrine was defensible; but judges
       afterwards refused to admit such evidence, holding that the
       publication of a libel by a publisher's servant was proof of
       his criminality. And this monstrous rule of law prevailed
       until 1843, when it was condemned by Lord Campbell's Libel
       Act."

           T. E. May,
           Constitutional History of England
           (Widdleton's edition),
           volume 2, pages 113-114.

       "And be it enacted, that whensoever, upon the trial of any
       indictment or information for the publication of a libel,
       under the plea of not guilty, evidence shall have been given
       which shall establish a presumptive case of publication
       against the defendant by the act of any other person by his
       authority, it shall be competent to such defendant to prove
       that such publication was made without his authority, consent,
       or knowledge, and that the said publication did not arise from
       want of due care or caution on his part."

          Statute 6 & 7 Vic., c. 96, s. 7.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1848.
       The English Court of Criminal Appeal.

       "England has not yet got her court of Criminal Appeal,
       although the Council of Judges, in their belated scheme of
       legal reform, recommend the legislature to create one.
       Questions whether an action should be dismissed as 'frivolous
       or vexatious,' disputes about' security for costs,' and the
       'sufficiency of interrogatories' or 'particulars,' and all
       manner of trivial causes affecting property or status, are
       deemed by the law of England sufficiently important to entitle
       the parties to them, if dissatisfied with the finding of a
       court of first instance, to submit it to the touchstone of an
       appeal. But the lives and liberties of British subjects
       charged with the commission of criminal offences are in
       general disposed of irrevocably by the verdict of a jury,
       guided by the directions of a trial judge. To this rule,
       however, there are two leading exceptions. In the first place,
       any convicted prisoner may petition the sovereign for a
       pardon, or for the commutation of his sentence; and the royal
       prerogative of mercy is exercised through, and on the advice
       of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the
       second place, the English machine juridical notwithstanding
       its lack of a properly constituted Court of Criminal Appeal,
       is furnished with a kind of 'mechanical equivalent' therefor,
       in the 'Court for Crown Cases Reserved,' which was established
       by act of Parliament in 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 78)."

          The English Court of Criminal Appeal
          (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 345).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1854.
       Conflict between United States Constitution and a Treaty.

       "About 1854, M. Dillon, French consul at San Francisco,
       refused to appear and testify in a criminal case. The
       Constitution of the United States (Amendment VI.), in criminal
       cases grants accused persons compulsory process for obtaining
       witnesses, while our treaties of 1853, with France (Art. II.)
       says that consuls 'shall never be compelled to appear as
       witnesses before the courts.' Thus there was a conflict
       between the Constitution and the treaty, and it was held that
       the treaty was void. After a long correspondence the French
       Consuls were directed to obey a subpoena in future."

          Theodore D. Woolsey,
          Introduction to the Study of International Law
          [6th edition],
          page 157, note.

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1877.
       "Indeterminate Sentences."

       "This practice, so far as the committee can ascertain, has
       been adopted in the states of New York and Ohio only. … The
       Ohio statute has been taken mainly from that which was adopted
       in New York, April 12, 1877."

          Report of Committee on Judicial Administrations, and
          Remedial Procedure
          (9 American Bar Association Report, page 313).

    CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1893.
       Criminal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.

       "The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v.
       Rodgers, … 150 U. S., … in declaring that the term 'high
       seas' in the criminal law of the United States is applicable
       as well to the open waters of the great lakes as to the open
       waters of the ocean, may be said, in a just sense, not to have
       changed the law, but to have asserted the law to be in force
       upon a vast domain over which its jurisdiction was heretofore
       in doubt. The opinion of Justice Field will take its place in
       our jurisprudence in company with the great cases of the
       Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.), 443, and its successors, and
       with them marks the self adapting capacity of the judicial
       power to meet the great exigencies of justice and good
       government."

          University Law Review,
          volume 1, page 2.

       ----------CRIMINAL LAW: End----------

       ----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: Start--------

    {1987}

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
       No distinction between Lay and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

       "In the time of our Saxon ancestors, there was no sort of
       distinction between the lay and the ecclesiastical
       jurisdiction: the county court was as much a spiritual as a
       temporal tribunal; the rights of the church were ascertained
       and asserted at the same time, and by the same judges, as the
       rights of the laity. For this purpose the bishop of the
       diocese, and the alderman, or, in his absence, the sheriff of
       the county, used to sit together in the county court, and had
       there the cognizance of all causes, as well ecclesiastical as
       civil: a superior deference being paid to the bishop's opinion
       in spiritual matters, and to that of the lay judges in temporal.

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, page 61.

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1087.
       Separation of Ecclesiastical from Civil Courts.

       "William I. (whose title was warmly espoused by the
       monasteries, which he liberally endowed, and by the foreign
       clergy whom he brought over in shoals from France and Italy,
       and planted in the best preferments of the English church),
       was at length prevailed upon to … separate the
       ecclesiastical court from the civil: whether actuated by
       principles of bigotry, or by those of a more refined policy,
       in order to discountenance the laws of King Edward, abounding
       with the spirit of Saxon liberty, is not altogether certain.
       But the latter, if not the cause, was undoubtedly the
       consequence, of this separation: for the Saxon laws were soon
       overborne by the Norman justiciaries, when the county court
       fell into disregard by the bishop's withdrawing his presence,
       in obedience to the charter of the conqueror; which prohibited
       any spiritual cause from being tried in the secular courts,
       and commanded the suitors to appear before the bishop only,
       whose decisions were directed to conform to the canon law."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, pages 62-63.

       "The most important ecclesiastical measure of the reign, the
       separation of the church jurisdiction from the secular
       business of the courts of law, is unfortunately, like all
       other charters of the time, undated. Its contents however show
       the influence of the ideas which under the genius of
       Hildebrand were forming the character of the continental
       churches. From henceforth the bishops and archdeacons are no
       longer to hold ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred-court, but
       to have courts of their own; to try causes by canonical, not
       by customary law, and allow no spiritual questions to come
       before laymen as judges. In case of contumacy the offender may
       be excommunicated and the king and sheriff will enforce the
       punishment. In the same way laymen are forbidden to interfere
       in spiritual causes. The reform is one which might very
       naturally recommend itself to a man like Lanfranc."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, section 101.

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1100.
       Reunion of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

       "King Henry the First, at his accession, among other
       restorations of the laws of King Edward the Confessor, revived
       this of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. …
       This, however, was ill-relished by the popish clergy,… and,
       therefore, in their synod at Westminster, 3 Hen. I., they
       ordained that no bishop should attend the discussion of
       temporal causes; which soon dissolved this newly effected
       union."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries, book 3, page 63.

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1135.
       Final Separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

       "And when, upon the death of King Henry the First, the usurper
       Stephen was brought in and supported by the clergy, we find
       one article of the oath which they imposed upon him was, that
       ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical causes should be
       subject only to the bishop's jurisdiction. And as it was about
       that time that the contest and emulation began between the
       laws of England and those of Rome, the temporal courts
       adhering to the former, and the spiritual adopting the latter
       as their rule of proceeding, this widened the breach between
       them, and made a coalition afterwards impracticable; which
       probably would else have been effected at the general
       reformation of the church."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, page 64.

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
       Temporal Courts assume Jurisdiction of Defamation.

       "To the Spiritual Court appears also to have belonged the
       punishment of defamation until the rise of actions on the
       case, when the temporal courts assumed jurisdiction, though
       not, it seems, to the exclusion of punishment by the church.
       The punishment of usurers, cleric and lay, also belonged to
       the ecclesiastical judges, though their movables were
       confiscated to the king, unless the usurer 'vita comite digne
       poenituerit, et testamento condito quae legare decreverit a se
       prorsus alienaverit.' That is, it seems, the personal
       punishment was inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Court, but the
       confiscation of goods (when proper) was decreed by the King's
       Court."

          Melville M. Bigelow,
          History of Procedure,
          page 51.

    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1857-1859.
       Ecclesiastical Courts deprived of Matrimonial and Testamentary
       Causes.

       "Matrimonial causes, or injuries respecting the rights of
       marriage, are another … branch of the ecclesiastical
       jurisdiction. Though, if we consider marriages in the light of
       mere civil contracts, they do not seem to be properly of
       spiritual cognizance. But the Romanists having very early
       converted this contract into a holy sacramental ordinance, the
       church of course took it under her protection,' upon the
       division of the two jurisdictions. … One might … wonder,
       that the same authority, which enjoined the strictest celibacy
       to the priesthood, should think them the proper judges in
       causes between man and wife. These causes, indeed, partly from
       the nature of the injuries complained of, and partly from the
       clerical method of treating them, soon became too gross for
       the modesty of a lay tribunal. … Spiritual jurisdiction of
       testamentary causes is a peculiar constitution of this island;
       for in almost all other (even in popish) countries all matters
       testamentary are under the jurisdiction of the civil
       magistrate. And that this privilege is enjoyed by the clergy
       in England, not as a matter of ecclesiastical right, but by
       the special favor and indulgence of the municipal law, and as
       it should seem by some public act of the great council, is
       freely acknowledged by Lindewode, the ablest canonist of the
       fifteenth century. Testamentary causes, he observes, belong to
       the ecclesiastical courts 'de consuetudine Angliae, et super
       consensu regio et suorum procerum in talibus ab antiquo
       concesso.'"

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, pages 91-95.

    {1988}

       Jurisdiction in testamentary causes was taken away from the
       ecclesiastical courts by Statutes 20 and 21 Vic., c. 77 and 21
       and 22 Vic., chapters 56 and 95, and was transferred to the
       court of Probate. Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes was
       transferred to the Divorce Court by Statute 20 and 21 Vic., 85.

       ----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: End--------

       ----------EQUITY: Start--------

    Equity.

    EQUITY: A. D. 449-1066.
       Early Masters in Chancery.

       "As we approach the era of the Conquest, we find distinct
       traces of the Masters in Chancery, who, though in sacred
       orders, were well trained in jurisprudence, and assisted the
       chancellor in preparing writs and grants, as well as in the
       service of the royal chapel. They formed a sort of college of
       justice, of which he was the head. They all sate in the
       Wittenagemote, and, as 'Law Lords', are supposed to have had
       great weight in the deliberations of that assembly."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 53.

    EQUITY: A. D. 596.
       Chancellor, Keeper of the Great Seal.

       "From the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity by
       the preaching of St. Augustine, the King always had near his
       person a priest, to whom was entrusted the care of his chapel,
       and who was his confessor. This person, selected from the most
       learned and able of his order, and greatly superior in
       accomplishments to the unlettered laymen attending the Court,
       soon acted as private secretary to the King, and gained his
       confidence in affairs of state. The present demarcation
       between civil and ecclesiastical employments was then little
       regarded, and to this same person was assigned the business of
       superintending writs and grants, with the custody of the great
       seal."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 27.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1066.
       Master of the Rolls.

       "The office of master, formerly called the Clerk or Keeper of
       the Rolls, is recognized at this early period, though at this
       time he appears to have been the Chancellor's deputy, not an
       independent officer."

          Geo. Spence,
          Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
          volume 1, page 100.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1066-1154.
       Chancellor as Secretary of State.

       Under the Norman Kings, the Chancellor was a kind of secretary
       of state. His functions were political rather than judicial.
       He attended to the royal correspondence, kept the royal
       accounts, and drew up writs for the administration of justice.
       He was also the keeper of the seal.

          Montague's Elements of Constitutional History of England,
          page 27.

          See, also, CHANCELLOR.

    A. D. 1067.
       First Lord Chancellor.

       "The first keeper of the seals who was endowed with the title
       of Lord Chancellor was Maurice, who received the great seal in
       1067. The incumbents of the office were for a long period
       ecclesiastics; and they usually enjoyed episcopal or
       archiepiscopal rank, and lived in the London palaces attached
       to their sees or provinces. The first Keeper of the seals of
       England was Fitzgilbert, appointed by Queen Matilda soon after
       her coronation, and there was no other layman appointed until
       the reign of Edward III."

          L. J. Bigelow,
          Bench and Bar,
          page 23.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1169.
       Uses and Trusts.

       "According to the law of England, trusts may be created 'inter
       vivos' as well as by testament, and their history is a curious
       one, beginning, like that of the Roman 'fidei commissa,' with
       an attempt to evade the law. The Statutes of Mortmain, passed
       to prevent the alienation of lands to religious houses, led to
       the introduction of 'uses,' by which the grantor alienated his
       land to a friend to hold 'to the use' of a monastery, the
       clerical chancellors giving legal validity to the wish thus
       expressed. Although this particular device was put a stop to
       by 15 Ric. II. c. 5, 'uses' continued to be employed for other
       purposes, having been found more malleable than what was
       called, by way of contrast, 'the legal estate.' They offered
       indeed so many modes of escaping the rigour of the law, that,
       after several other statutes had been passed with a view of
       curtailing their advantages, the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 enacted
       that, where anyone was seised to a use, the legal estate
       should be deemed to be in him to whose use he was seised. The
       statute did not apply to trusts of personal property, nor to
       trusts of land where any active duty was cast upon the
       trustee, nor where a use was limited 'upon a use,' i. e. where
       the person in whose favour a use was created was himself to
       hold the estate to the use of some one else. There continued
       therefore to be a number of cases in which, in spite of the
       'Statute of Uses,' the Court of Chancery was able to carry out
       its policy of enforcing what had otherwise been merely moral
       duties. The system thus arising has grown to enormous
       dimensions, and trusts, which, according to the definition of
       Lord Hardwicke, are 'such a confidence between parties that no
       action at law will lie, but there is merely a case for the
       consideration of courts of equity,' are inserted not only in
       wills, but also in marriage settlements, arrangements with
       creditors, and numberless other instruments necessary for the
       comfort of families and the development of commerce."

          T. E. Holland,
          Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
          page 217.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1253.
       A Lady Keeper of the Seals.

       "Having occasion to cross the sea and visit Gascony, A. D.
       1253, Henry III. made her [Queen Eleanor] keeper of the seal
       during his absence, and in that character she in her own
       person presided in the 'Aula Regia,' hearing causes, and, it
       is to be feared, forming her decisions less in accordance with
       justice than her own private interests. Never did judge set
       law and equity more fearfully at naught."

          L. J. Bigelow,
          Bench and Bar,
          page 28.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1258.
       No Writs except De Cursu.

       "In the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were promulgated;
       two separate clauses of which bound the chancellor to issue no
       more writs except writs 'of course' without command of the
       King and his Council present with him. This, with the growing
       independence of the judiciary on the one hand, and the
       settlement of legal process on the other, terminated the right
       to issue special writs, and at last fixed the common writs in
       unchangeable form; most of which had by this time become
       developed into the final form in which for six centuries they
       were treated as precedents of declaration."

          M. M. Bigelow,
          History of Procedure,
          page 197.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1272-1307.
       The Chancellor's functions.

       "In the reign of Edward I. the Chancellor begins to appear in
       the three characters in which we now know him; as a great
       political officer, as the head of a department for the issue
       of writs and the custody of documents in which the King's
       interest is concerned, as the administrator of the King's
       grace."

          Sir William H. Anson,
          Law and Custom of the Constitution,
          part 2, page 146.

    {1989}

    EQUITY: A. D. 1330.
       Chancery stationary at Westminster.

       "There was likewise introduced about this time a great
       improvement in the administration of justice, by rendering the
       Court of Chancery stationary at Westminster. The ancient kings
       of England were constantly migrating,—one principal reason
       for which was, that the same part of the country, even with
       the aid of purveyance and pre-emption, could not long support
       the court and all the royal retainers, and render in kind due
       to the King could be best consumed on the spot. Therefore, if
       he kept Christmas at Westminster, he would keep Easter at
       Winchester, and Pentecost at Gloucester, visiting his many
       palaces and manors in rotation. The Aula Regis, and afterwards
       the courts into which it was partitioned, were ambulatory
       along with him—to the great vexation of the suitors. This
       grievance was partly corrected by Magna Charta, which enacted
       that the Court of Common Pleas should be held 'in a certain
       place,'—a corner of Westminster Hall being fixed upon for
       that purpose. In point of law, the Court of King's Bench and
       the Court of Chancery may still be held in any county of
       England,—'wheresoever in England the King or the Chancellor
       may be.' Down to the commencement of the reign of Edward III.,
       the King's Bench and the Chancery actually had continued to
       follow the King's person, the Chancellor and his officers
       being entitled to part of the purveyance made for the royal
       household. By 28 Edw. 1., c. 5, the Lord Chancellor and the
       Justices of the King's Bench were ordered to follow the King,
       so that he might have at all times near him sages of the law
       able to order all matters which should come to the Court. But
       the two Courts were now by the King's command fixed in the
       places where, unless on a few extraordinary occasions, they
       continued to be held down to our own times, at the upper end
       of Westminster Hall, the King's Bench on the left hand, and
       the Chancery on the right, both remaining open to the Hall,
       and a bar erected to keep off the multitude from pressing on
       the judges."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 181.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1348.
       "Matters of Grace" committed to the Chancellor.

       "In the 22nd year of Edward III, matters which were of grace
       were definitely committed to the Chancellor for decision, and
       from this point there begins to develop that body of
       rules—supplementing the deficiencies or correcting the
       harshness of the Common Law—which we call Equity."

          Sir W. R. Anson,
          Law and Custom of the Constitution,
          part 2, page 147.

          ALSO IN:
          Kerly's History of the Court of Chancery,
          page 31.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1383.
       Early Instance of Subpoena.

       "It is said that John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, who was
       Keeper of the Rolls about the 5th of Richard II., considerably
       enlarged this new jurisdiction; that, to give efficacy to it,
       he invented, or more properly, was the first who adopted in
       that court, the writ of subpoena, a process which had before
       been used by the council, and is very plainly alluded to in
       the statutes of the last reign, though not under that name.
       This writ summoned the party to appear under a penalty, and
       answer such things as should be objected against him; upon
       this a petition was lodged, containing the articles of
       complaint to which he was then compelled to answer. These
       articles used to contain suggestions of injuries suffered, for
       which no remedy was to be had in the courts of common law, and
       therefore the complainant prayed advice and relief of the
       chancellor."

          J. Reeves,
          History English Law (Finlason's edition),
          volume 3, page 384.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1394.
       Chancery with its own Mode of Procedure.

       "From the time of passing the stat. 17 Richard II. we may
       consider that the Court of Chancery was established as a
       distinct and permanent court, having separate jurisdiction,
       with its own peculiar mode of procedure similar to that which
       had prevailed in the Council, though perhaps it was not wholly
       yet separated from the Council."

          George Spence,
          Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
          volume 1, page 345.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1422.
       Chancery Cases appear in Year Books.

       "It is beyond a doubt that this [chancery] court had begun to
       exercise its judicial authority in the reigns of Richard II.,
       Henry IV. and V. … But we do not find in our books any
       report of cases there determined till 37 Henry VI., except
       only on the subject of uses; which, as has been before
       remarked, might give rise to the opinion, that the first
       equitable judicature was concerned in the support of uses."

          J. Reeves,
          History English Law (Finlason's edition),
          volume 3, page 553.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1443.
       No distinction between Examination and Answer.

       The earliest record of written answers is in 21 Henry VI.
       Before that time little, if any, distinction was made
       between the examination and the answer.

          Kerly,
          History of Courts of Chancery,
          page 51.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
       Distinction between Proceeding by Bill and by Petition.

       "A written statement of the grievance being required to be
       filed before the issuing of the subpoena, with security to pay
       damages and costs,—bills now acquired form, and the
       distinction arose between the proceeding by bill and by
       petition. The same regularity was observed in the subsequent
       stages of the suit. Whereas formerly the defendant was
       generally examined viva voce when he appeared in obedience to
       the subpoena, the practice now was to put in a written answer,
       commencing with a protestation against the truth or
       sufficiency of the matters contained in the bill, stating the
       facts relied upon by the defendant, and concluding with a
       prayer that he may be dismissed, with his costs. There were
       likewise, for the purpose of introducing new facts, special
       replications and rejoinders, which continued till the reign of
       Elizabeth, but which have been rendered unnecessary by the
       modern practice of amending the bill and answer. Pleas and
       demurrers now appear. Although the pleadings were in English,
       the decrees on the bill continued to be in Latin down to the
       reign of Henry VIII. Bills to perpetuate testimony, to set out
       metes and bounds, and for injunctions against proceedings at
       law, and to stay waste, became frequent."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 309.

    {1990}

    EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
       Jurisdiction of Chancery over Trusts.

       "The equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery may be
       considered as making its greatest advances in this reign
       [Edw. IV.]. The point was now settled, that there being a
       feoffment to uses, the 'cestui que' use, or person
       beneficially entitled, could maintain no action at law, the
       Judges saying that he had neither 'jus in re' nor 'jus ad
       rem,' and that their forms could not be moulded so as to
       afford him any effectual relief, either as to the land or the
       profits. The Chancellors, therefore, with general applause,
       declared that they would proceed by subpoena against the
       feoffee to compel him to perform a duty which in conscience
       was binding upon him, and gradually extended the remedy
       against his heir and against his alienee with notice of the
       trust, although they held, as their successors have done, that
       the purchaser of the legal estate for valuable consideration
       without notice might retain the land for his own benefit. They
       therefore now freely made decrees requiring the trustee to
       convey according to the directions of the 'cestui que trust,'
       or person beneficially interested; and the most important
       branch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court over trusts
       was firmly and irrevocably established."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 309.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1538.
       Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.

       "Between the death, resignation, or removal of one chancellor,
       and the appointment of another, the Great Seal, instead of
       remaining in the personal custody of the Sovereign, was
       sometimes entrusted to a temporal keeper, either with limited
       authority (as only to seal writs), or with all the powers,
       though not with the rank of Chancellor. At last the practice
       grew up of occasionally appointing a person to hold the Great
       Seal with the title of 'Keeper,' where it was meant that he
       should permanently hold it in his own right and discharge all
       the duties belonging to it. Queen Elizabeth, ever sparing in
       the conferring of dignities, having given the Great Seal with
       the title of 'Keeper' to Sir Nicholas Bacon, objections were
       made to the legality of some of his acts,—and to obviate
       these, a statute was passed declaring that 'the Lord Keeper of
       the Great Seal for the time being shall have the same place,
       pre-eminence, and jurisdiction as the Lord Chancellor of
       England.' Since then there never have been a Chancellor and
       Keeper of the Great Seal concurrently, and the only difference
       between the two titles is, that the one is more sounding than
       the other, and is regarded as a higher mark of royal favor."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 1, page 40.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. R. Anson,
          Law and Custom of the Constitution,
          volume 2, page 150.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1558.
       Increase of Business in the Court of Chancery.

       "The business of the Court of Chancery had now so much
       increased that to dispose of it satisfactorily required a
       Judge regularly trained to the profession of the law, and
       willing to devote to it all his energy and industry. The
       Statute of Wills, the Statute of Uses, the new modes of
       conveyancing introduced for avoiding transmutation of
       possession, the questions which arose respecting the property
       of the dissolved monasteries, and the great increase of
       commerce and wealth in the nation, brought such a number of
       important suits into the Court of Chancery, that the holder of
       the Great Seal could no longer satisfy the public by
       occasionally stealing a few hours from his political
       occupations, to dispose of bills and petitions, and not only
       was his daily attendance demanded in Westminster Hall during
       term time, but it was necessary that he should sit, for a
       portion of each vacation, either at his own house, or in some
       convenient place appointed by him for clearing off his
       arrears."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 2, page 95.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1567-1632.
       Actions of Assumpsit in Equity.

       "The late development of the implied contract to pay 'quantum
       meruit,' and to indemnify a surety, would be the more
       surprising, but for the fact that Equity gave relief to
       tailors and the like, and to sureties long before the common
       law held them. Spence, although at a loss to account for the
       jurisdiction, mentions a suit brought in Chancery, in 1567, by
       a tailor, to recover the amount due for clothes furnished. The
       suit was referred to the Queen's tailor, to ascertain the
       amount due, and upon his report a decree was made. The learned
       writer adds that 'there were suits for wages and many others
       of like nature.' A surety who had no counter-bond filed a bill
       against his principal in 1632, in a case which would seem to
       have been one of the earliest of the kind, for the reporter,
       after stating that there was a decree for the plaintiff, adds
       'quod nota.'"

          J. B. Ames,
          History of Assumpsit
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, pages 59-60).

    EQUITY: A. D. 1592.
       All Chancellors, save one, Lawyers.

       "No regular judicial system at that time prevailed in the
       court; but the suitor when he thought himself aggrieved, found
       a desultory and uncertain remedy, according to the private
       opinion of the chancellor, who was generally an ecclesiastic,
       or sometimes (though rarely) a statesman: no lawyer having sat
       in the court of chancery from the times of the chief justices
       Thorpe and Knyvet, successively chancellors to King Edward
       III. in 1372 and 1373, to the promotion of Sir Thomas More by
       King Henry VIII., in 1530. After which the great seal was
       indiscriminately committed to the custody of lawyers or
       courtiers, or churchmen, according as the convenience of the
       times and the disposition of the prince required, till
       Sargeant Puckering was made lord keeper in 1592; from which
       time to the present the court of chancery has always been
       filled by a lawyer, excepting the interval from 1621 to 1625,
       when the seal was entrusted to Dr. Williams, then dean of
       Westminster, but afterwards bishop of Lincoln; who had been
       chaplain to Lord Ellesmere when chancellor."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, chapter 4.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1595.
       Injunctions against Suits at Law.
       Opposition of common law courts.

       "The strongest inclination was shown to maintain this
       opposition to the court of equity, not only by the courts, but
       by the legislature. The stat. 27 Elizabeth, c, l., which, in
       very general words, restrains all application to other
       jurisdictions to impeach or impede the execution of judgments
       given in the king's courts, under penalty of a praemunire, has
       been interpreted, as well as stat. Richard II., c. 5, not only
       as imposing a restraint upon popish claims of judicature, but
       also of the equitable jurisdiction in Chancery; and in the
       thirty-first and thirty-second years of this reign, a
       counsellor-at-law was indicted in the King's Bench on the
       statute of praemunire, for exhibiting a bill in Chancery after
       judgment had gone against his client in the King's Bench.
       Under this and the like control, the Court of Chancery still
       continued to extend its authority, supported, in some degree,
       by the momentum it acquired in the time of Cardinal Wolsey."

          J. Reeves,
          History English Law (Finlason's edition.),
          volume 5, pages 386-387.

    {1991}

    EQUITY: A. D. 1596.
       Lord Ellesmere and his Decisions.

       Kerly says the earliest chancellors' decisions that have come
       down to us are those of Lord Ellesmere. He was the first
       chancellor to establish equity upon the basis of precedents.
       But compare Reeves (Finlason's), History English Law, volume
       3, page 553, who mentions decisions in the Year Books.

          Kerly,
          History of the Court of Chancery,
          page 98.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1601.
       Cy Pres Doctrine.

       "There is no trace of the doctrine being put into practice in
       England before the Reformation, although in the earliest
       reported cases where it has been applied it is treated as a
       well recognized rule, and as one owing its origin to the
       traditional favour with which charities had always been
       regarded. Much of the obscurity which covers the introduction
       of the doctrine into our Law may perhaps be explained by the
       fact that, in the earliest times, purely charitable gifts, as
       they would now be understood, were almost unknown. The piety
       of donors was most generally displayed in gifts to religious
       houses, and the application of the subject matter of such
       gifts was exclusively in the Superiors of the different
       Orders, and entirely exempt from secular control. From the
       religious houses the administration of charitable gifts passed
       to the Chancellor, as keeper of the King's conscience, the
       latter having as 'parens patriae' the general superintendence
       of all infants, idiots, lunatics and charities. And it was not
       until some time later that this jurisdiction became gradually
       merged, and then only in cases where trusts were interposed,
       in the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts. It is not
       necessary to go into the long vexed question as to when that
       actually took place. It is enough to say that it is now pretty
       conclusively established that the jurisdiction of the Chancery
       Courts over charitable trusts existed anterior to, and
       independently of, the Statute of Charitable Uses, 43 Eliz., c.
       4. As charitable gifts generally involved the existence of a
       trust reposed in some one, it was natural that the Chancery
       Court, which assumed jurisdiction over trusts, should have
       gradually extended that jurisdiction over charities generally;
       but the origin of the power, that it was one delegated by the
       Crown to the Chancellor, must not be lost sight of, as in this
       way, probably, can be best explained the curious distinct
       jurisdictions vested in the Crown and the Chancery Courts
       respectively to apply gifts Cy pres, the limits of which,
       though long uncertain, were finally determined by Lord Eldon
       in the celebrated case of Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 ves. 69.
       If we remember that the original jurisdiction in all
       charitable matters was in the Crown, and that even after the
       Chancery Courts acquired a jurisdiction over trusts, there was
       still a class of cases untouched by such jurisdiction, we
       shall better understand how the prerogative of the Crown still
       remained in a certain class of cases, as we shall see
       hereafter. However this may be, there is no doubt that when
       the Chancery Courts obtained the jurisdiction over the
       charities, which they have never lost, the liberal principles
       of the Civil or Canon Law as to the carrying out of such gifts
       were the sources and inspirations of their decisions. And
       hence the Cy pres doctrine became gradually well recognised,
       though the mode of its application has varied from time to
       time. Perhaps the most striking instances of this liberal
       construction are to be found in the series of cases which, by
       a very strained interpretation of the Statute of Elizabeth
       with regard to charitable uses, decided that gifts to such
       uses in favour of corporations, which could not take by devise
       under the old Wills Act, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 1, were good as
       operating in the nature of an appointment of the trust in
       equity, and that the intendment of the statute being in favour
       of charitable gifts, all deficiencies of assurance were to be
       supplied by the Courts. Although, historically, there may be
       no connection between the power of the King over the
       administration of charities, and the dispensing power reserved
       to him by the earlier Mortmain Acts, the one being, as we have
       seen, a right of Prerogative, the other a Feudal right in his
       capacity as ultimate Lord of the fee, it is perhaps not wholly
       out of place to allude shortly to the latter, particularly as
       the two appear not to have been kept distinct in later times.
       By the earlier Mortmain Acts, the dispensing power of the
       King, as Lord Paramount, to waive forfeitures under these Acts
       was recognised, and gifts of land to religious or charitable
       corporations were made not 'ipso facto' void, but only
       voidable at the instance of the immediate Lord, or, on his
       default, of the King and after the statute 'quia emptores,'
       which practically abolished mesne seignories, the Royal
       license became in most cases sufficient to secure the validity
       of the gift. The power of suspending statutes being declared
       illegal at the Revolution, it was deemed prudent, seeing that
       the grant of licenses in Mortmain imported an exercise of such
       suspending power, to give these licenses a Parliamentary
       sanction; and accordingly, by 7 and 8 William III., c. 37, it
       was declared that the King might grant licenses to aliens in
       Mortmain, and also to purchase, acquire, and hold lands in
       Mortmain in perpetuity without pain of forfeiture. The right
       of the mesne lord was thus passed over, and the dispensing
       power of the Crown, from being originally a Feudal right,
       became converted practically into one of Prerogative. The
       celebrated Statute of 1 Edward VI., c. 14, against
       superstitious uses, which is perhaps the earliest statutory
       recognition of the Cy pres doctrine, points also strongly to
       the original jurisdiction in these matters being in the King."
       The author proceeds to trace at some length the subsequent
       developments of the doctrine both judicial and statutory. The
       doctrine is not generally recognised in the United States.

          H. L. Manby
          in Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser.,
          volume 15 (London, 1889-90), page 203.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1603-1625.
       Equity and the Construction of Wills.

       "After a violent struggle between Lord Coke and Lord
       Ellesmere, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to stay
       by injunction execution on judgments at law was finally
       established. In this reign [James I.] the Court made another
       attempt,—which was speedily abandoned,—to determine upon the
       validity of wills,—and it has been long settled that the
       validity of wills of real property shall be referred to courts
       of law, and the validity of wills of personal property to the
       Ecclesiastical Courts,—equity only putting a construction
       upon them when their validity has been established."

       Lord Campbell,
       Lives of the Chancellors,
       volume 2, page 386.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1612.
       Right of Redemption.

       The right to redeem after the day dates from the reign of
       James I. From the time of Edward IV. (1461-83) a mortgagor
       could redeem after the day if accident, or a collateral
       agreement, or fraud by mortgagee, prevented payment.

          Kerly,
          History of the Court of Chancery,
          page 143.

    {1992}

    EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
       Contest between Equity and Common-Law Courts.

       "In the time of Lord Ellesmere (A. D. 1616) arose that notable
       dispute between the courts of law and equity, set on foot by
       Sir Edward Coke, then chief justice of the court of king's
       bench; whether a court of equity could give relief after or
       against a judgment at the common law? This contest was so
       warmly carried on, that indictments were preferred against the
       suitors, the solicitors, the counsel, and even a master in
       chancery, for having incurred a 'praemunire,' by questioning
       in a court of equity a judgment in the court of king's bench,
       obtained by a gross fraud and imposition. This matter being
       brought before the king, was by him referred to his learned
       counsel for their advice and opinion; who reported so strongly
       in favor of the courts of equity, that his majesty gave
       judgment in their behalf."

          W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries,
          book 3, page 54.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
       Relief against judgments at law.

       "This was in 1616, the year of the memorable contest between
       Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere as to the power of equity to
       restrain the execution of common-law judgment obtained by
       fraud. … The right of equity to enforce specific
       performance, where damages at law would be an inadequate
       remedy, has never since been questioned."

          J. B. Ames,
          Specific Performance of Contracts
          (The Green Bag, volume 1, page 27).

    EQUITY: A. D. 1671.
       The Doctrine of Tacking established.

       "It is the established doctrine in the English law, that if
       there be three mortgages in succession, and all duly
       registered, or a mortgage, and then a judgment, and then a
       second mortgage upon the estate, the junior mortgagee may
       purchase in the first mortgage, and tack it to his mortgage,
       and by that contrivance 'squeeze out' the middle mortgage, and
       gain preference over it. The same rule would apply if the
       first, as well as the second incumbrance, was a judgment; but
       the incumbrancer who tacks must always be a mortgagee, for he
       stands in the light of a bona fide purchaser, parting with his
       money upon the security of the mortgage. … In the English
       law, the rule is under some reasonable qualification. The last
       mortgagee cannot tack, if, when he took his mortgage, he had
       notice in fact … of the intervening incumbrance. … The
       English doctrine of tacking was first solemnly established in
       Marsh v. Lee [2 Vent. 337], under the assistance of Sir
       Matthew Hale, who compared the operation to a plank in
       shipwreck gained by the last mortgagee; and the subject was
       afterwards very fully and accurately expounded by the Master
       of the Rolls, in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough [2 P. Wms.
       491]."

          J. Kent,
          Commentaries,
          part 6, lecture 58.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1702-1714.
       Equitable conversion.

       "He [Lord Harcourt] first established the important doctrine,
       that if money is directed either by deed or will to be laid
       out in land, the money shall be taken to be land, even as to
       collateral heirs."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Chancellors,
          volume 4, page 374.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1736-1756.
       Lord Hardwicke developed System of Precedents.

       It was under Lord Hardwicke that the jurisdiction of Equity
       was fully developed. During the twenty years of his
       chancellorship the great branches of equitable jurisdiction
       were laid out, and his decisions were regularly cited as
       authority until after Lord Eldon's time.

          Kerly,
          History of the Court of Chancery,
          pages 175-177.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1742.
       Control of Corporations.

       "That the directors of a corporation shall manage its affairs
       honestly and carefully is primarily a right of the corporation
       itself rather than of the individual stockholders. … The
       only authority before the present century is the case of the
       Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Hardwicke [2
       Atk. 400]. But this case is the basis … of all subsequent
       decisions on the point, and it is still quoted as containing
       an accurate exposition of the law. The corporation was
       charitable only in name, being a joint-stock corporation for
       lending money on pledges. By the fraud of some of the
       directors … , and by the negligence of the rest, loans were
       made without proper security. The bill was against the
       directors and other officers, 'to have a satisfaction for a
       breach of trust, fraud, and mismanagement.' Lord Hardwicke
       granted the relief prayed, and a part of his decision is well
       worth quoting. He says: 'Committee-men are most properly
       agents to those who employ them in this trust, and who empower
       them to direct and superintend the affairs of the corporation.
       In this respect they may be guilty of acts of commission or
       omission, of malfeasance or nonfeasance. … Nor will I ever
       determine that a court of equity cannot lay hold of every
       breach of trust, let the person be guilty of it either in a
       private or public capacity.'"

          S. Williston,
          History of the Law of Business
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, page 158-159).

    EQUITY: A. D. 1782.
       Demurrer to Bill of Discovery.

       "Originally, it appears not to have been contemplated that a
       demurrer or plea would lie to a bill for discovery, unless it
       were a demurrer or plea to the nature of the discovery sought
       or to the jurisdiction of the court, e. g., a plea of purchase
       for value; and, though it was a result of this doctrine that
       plaintiffs might compel discovery to which they were not
       entitled, it seems to have been supposed that they were not
       likely to do so to any injurious effect, since they must do it
       at their own expense. But this view was afterwards abandoned,
       and in 1782 it was decided that, if a bill of discovery in aid
       of an action at law stated no good cause of action against the
       defendant, it might be demurred to on that ground, i. e., that
       it showed on its face no right to relief at law, and,
       therefore, no right to discovery in equity. Three years later
       in Hindman v. Taylor, the question was raised whether a
       defendant could protect himself for answering a bill for
       discovery by setting up an affirmative defence by plea; and,
       though Lord Thurlow decided the question in the negative, his
       decision has since been overruled; and it is now fully settled
       that any defence may be set up to a bill for discovery by
       demurrer or plea, the same as to a bill for relief; and, if
       successful, it will protect the defendant from answering."

          C. C. Langdell,
          Summary of Equity Pleading,
          pages 204-205.

    {1993}

    EQUITY: A. D. 1786.
       Injunction after Decree to pay Proceeds of Estate into Court.

       "As soon as a decree is made … , under which the executor
       will be required to pay the proceeds of the whole estate into
       court, an injunction ought to be granted against the
       enforcement of any claim against the estate by an action at
       law; and accordingly such has been the established rule for
       more than a hundred years. … The first injunction that was
       granted expressly upon the ground above explained was that
       granted by Lord Thurlow, in 1782, in the case of Brooks v.
       Reynolds. … In the subsequent case of Kenyon v. Worthington,
       … an application to Lord Thurlow for an injunction was
       resisted by counsel of the greatest eminence. The resistance,
       however, was unsuccessful, and the injunction was granted.
       This was in 1786; and from that time the question was regarded
       as settled."

          C. C. Langdell,
          Equity Jurisdiction
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 5, pages 122-123).

    EQUITY: A. D. 1792.
       Negative Pleas.

       "In Gun v. Prior, Forrest, 88, note, 1 Cox, 197, 2 Dickens,
       657, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 47, a negative plea was overruled by Lord
       Thurlow after a full argument. This was in 1785. Two years
       later, the question came before the same judge again, and,
       after another full argument, was decided the same way. Newman
       v. Wallis, 2 Bro. C. C. 143, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 52. But in 1792,
       in the case of Hall v. Noyes, 3 Bro. C. C. 483, 489, Cas. in
       Eq. Pl. 223, 227, Lord Thurlow took occasion to say that he
       had changed his opinion upon the subject of negative pleas,
       and that his former decisions were wrong; and since then the
       right to plead a negative plea has not been questioned."

          C. C. Langdell,
          Summary of Equity Pleading,
          p. 114, note.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827.
       Lord Eldon settled Rules of Equity.

       "'The doctrine of this Court,' he [Lord Eldon] said himself,
       'ought to be as well settled and as uniform, almost, as those
       of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking
       care that they are to be applied according to the
       circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines
       of this Court are to be changed by every succeeding judge.
       Nothing would inflict on me greater pain than the recollection
       that I had done any thing to justify the reproach that the
       Equity of this Court varies like the Chancellor's foot.'
       Certainly the reproach he dreaded cannot justly be inflicted
       upon his memory. … From his time onward the development of
       equity was effected ostensibly, and, in the great majority of
       cases, actually, by strict deduction from the principles to be
       discovered in decided cases, and the work of subsequent
       Chancery judges has been, for the most part, confined, as Lord
       Eldon's was, to tracing out these principles into detail, and
       to rationalising them by repeated review and definition."

          D. M. Kerly,
          History Court Chancery,
          page 182.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1812.
       Judge Story.

       "We are next to regard Story during his thirty-five years of
       judicial service. He performed an amount of judicial labor
       almost without parallel, either in quality or quantity, in the
       history of jurisprudence. His judgments in the Circuit Court
       comprehended thirteen volumes. His opinions in the Supreme
       Court are found in thirty-five volumes. Most of these
       decisions are on matters of grave difficulty, and many of them
       of first impression. Story absolutely created a vast amount of
       law for our country. Indeed, he was essentially a builder.
       When he came to the bench, the law of admiralty was quite
       vague and unformed; his genius formed it as exclusively as
       Stowell's did in England. He also did much toward building up
       the equity system which has become part of our jurisprudence.
       In questions of international and constitutional law, the
       breadth and variety of his legal learning enabled him to shine
       with peculiar brilliancy. It is sufficient to say that there
       is scarcely any branch of the law which he has not greatly
       illustrated and enlarged,—prize, constitutional, admiralty,
       patent, copyright, insurance, real estate, commercial law so
       called, and equity,—all were gracefully familiar to him. The
       most celebrated of his judgments are De Lovio v. Boit, in
       which be investigates the jurisdiction of the Admiralty;
       Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which examines the appellate
       jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court; Dartmouth
       College v. Woodward, in which the question was, whether the
       charter of a college was a contract within the meaning of the
       constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment, by any
       State, of laws impairing the obligations of contracts; his
       dissenting opinion in Charles River Bridge Company v. The
       Warren Bridge; involving substantially the same question as
       the last case; and the opinion in the Girard will case. These
       are the most celebrated, but are scarcely superior to scores
       of his opinions in cases never heard of beyond the legal
       profession. His biographer is perhaps warranted in saying of
       his father's judicial opinions: 'For closeness of texture and
       compact logic, they are equal to the best judgments of
       Marshall; for luminousness and method, they stand beside those
       of Mansfield; in elegance of style, they yield the palm only
       to the prize cases of Lord Stowell, but in fullness of
       illustration and wealth and variety of learning, they stand
       alone."

          Irving Browne,
          Short Studies of Great Lawyers,
          pages 293-295.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823.
       Chancellor Kent.

       "In February, 1814, he was appointed chancellor. The powers
       and jurisdiction of the court of chancery were not clearly
       defined. There were scarcely any precedents of its decisions,
       to which reference could be made in case of doubt. Without any
       other guide, he felt at liberty to exercise such powers of the
       English chancery as he deemed applicable under the
       Constitution and laws of the State, subject to the correction
       of the Court of Errors, on appeal. … On the 31st of July,
       1823, having attained the age of sixty years, the period
       limited by the Constitution for the tenure of his office, he
       retired from the court, after hearing and deciding every case
       that had been brought before him. On this occasion the members
       of the bar residing in the City of New York, presented him an
       address. After speaking of the inestimable benefits conferred
       on the community by his judicial labors for five and twenty
       years they say: 'During this long course of services, so
       useful and honorable, and which will form the most brilliant
       period in our judicial history, you have, by a series of
       decisions in law and equity, distinguished alike for practical
       wisdom, profound learning, deep research and accurate
       discrimination, contributed to establish the fabric of our
       jurisprudence on those sound principles that have been
       sanctioned by the experience of mankind, and expounded by the
       enlightened and venerable sages of the law. Though others may
       hereafter enlarge and adorn the edifice whose deep and solid
       foundations were laid by the wise and patriotic framers of our
       government, in that common law which they claimed for the people
       as their noblest inheritance, your labors on this magnificent
       structure will forever remain eminently conspicuous, command
       the applause of the present generation, and exciting the
       admiration and gratitude of future ages.'"

          Charles B. Waite,
          James Kent
          (Chicago Law Times,
          volume 3, pages 339-341).

    {1994}

    EQUITY: A. D. 1821.
       Negative Pleas to be supported by an Answer.

       "The principle of negative pleas was first established by the
       introduction of anomalous pleas; but it was not perceived at
       first that anomalous pleas involved the admission of pure
       negative pleas. It would often happen, however, that a
       defendant would have no affirmative defence to a bill, and yet
       the bill could not be supported because of the falsity of some
       material allegation contained in it; and, if the defendant
       could deny this false allegation by a negative plea, he would
       thereby avoid giving discovery as to all other parts of the
       bill. At length, therefore, the experiment of setting up such
       a plea was tried; and, though unsuccessful at first, it
       prevailed in the end, and negative pleas became fully
       established. If they had been well understood, they might have
       proved a moderate success, although they were wholly foreign
       to the system into which they were incorporated; but, as it
       was, their introduction was attended with infinite mischief
       and trouble, and they did much to bring the system into
       disrepute. For example, it was not clearly understood for a
       long time that a pure negative plea required the support of an
       answer; and there was no direct decision to that effect until
       the case of Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 74,
       decided in 1821."

          C. C. Langdell,
          Summary of Equity Pleading,
          pages 113-114.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1834.
       First Statute of Limitations in Equity.

       "None of the English statutes of limitation, prior to 3 & 4
       Wm. IV., c. 27, had any application to suits in equity.
       Indeed, they contained no general terms embracing all actions
       at law, but named specifically all actions to which they
       applied; and they made no mention whatever of suits in equity.
       If a plaintiff sued in equity, when he might have brought an
       action at law, and the time for bringing the action was
       limited by statute, the statute might in a certain sense be
       pleaded to the suit in equity; for the defendant might say
       that, if the plaintiff had sued at law, his action would have
       been barred; that the declared policy of the law therefore,
       was against the plaintiff's recovering; and hence the cause
       was not one of which a court of equity ought to take
       cognizance. In strictness, however, the plea in such a case
       would be to the jurisdiction of the court."

          C. C. Langdell,
          Summary of Equity Pleading,
          pages 149-150.

    EQUITY: A. D. 1836.
       Personal Character of Shares of Stock first established in
       England.

       "The most accurate definition of the nature of the property
       acquired by the purchase of a share of stock in a corporation
       is that it is a fraction of all the rights and duties of the
       stockholders composing the corporation. Such does not seem to
       have been the clearly recognized view till after the beginning
       of the present century. The old idea was rather that the
       corporation held all its property strictly as a trustee, and
       that the shareholders were, strictly speaking, 'cestuis que
       trust,' being in equity co-owners of the corporate property.
       … It was not until the decision of Bligh v. Brent [Y. & C.
       268], in 1836, that the modern view was established in
       England."

          S. Williston,
          History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
          (Harvard Law Review,
          volume 2, pages 149-151).

    EQUITY: A. D. 1875.
       Patents, Copyrights and Trade-Marks.

       "In modern times the inventor of a new process obtains from
       the State, by way of recompense for the benefit he has
       conferred upon society, and in order to encourage others to
       follow his example, not only an exclusive privilege of using
       the new process for a fixed term of years, but also the right
       of letting or selling his privilege to another. Such an
       indulgence is called a patent-right, and a very similar
       favour, known as copy-right, is granted to the authors of
       books, and to painters, engravers, and sculptors, in the
       productions of their genius. It has been a somewhat vexed
       question whether a 'trade-mark' is to be added to the list of
       intangible objects of ownership. It was at any rate so treated
       in a series of judgments by Lord Westbury, which, it seems,
       are still good law. He says, for instance, 'Imposition on the
       public is indeed necessary for the plaintiff's title, but in
       this way only, that it is the test of the invasion by the
       defendant of the plaintiff's right of property.' [Citing 33 L.
       J. Ch. 204; cf. 35 Ch. D. Oakley v. Dalton.] It was also so
       described in the 'Trade Marks Registration Act,' 1875
       [sections 3, 4, 5], as it was in the French law of 1857
       relating to 'Marques de fabrique et de commerce.' The
       extension of the idea of ownership to these three rights is of
       comparatively recent date. Patent-right in England is older
       than the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I. C. 3, and
       copy-right is obscurely traceable previously to the Act of 8
       Anne, C. 19, but trade-marks were first protected in the
       present century."

          T. E. Holland,
          Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
          page 183.

          ALSO IN:
          E. S. Drone,
          Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions.

       ----------EQUITY: End--------

       Topics of law treated under other heads are indicated by the
       following references:

    Agrarian Laws.

          See AGRARIAN.

    Assize of Jerusalem.

          See ASSIZE.

    Brehon Laws.

          See BREHON.

    Canuleian Laws.

          See ROME: B. C. 445.

    Code Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

    Common Law.

          See COMMON LAW.

    Constitutional Laws.

          See CONSTITUTION.

    Debt and Debtors.

          See DEBT.

    Dioklesian Laws.

          See DIOKLES.

    Dooms of Ihne.

          See DOOMS.

    Draconian Laws.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

    Factory Laws.

          See FACTORY.

    Hortensian Laws.

          See ROME: B. C. 286.

    Institutes and Pandects of Justinian.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    Licinian Laws.

          See ROME: B. C. 376.

    Lycurgan Laws.

          See SPARTA.

    Laws of Manu.

          See MANU.

    Navigation Laws.

          See NAVIGATION LAWS.

    Ogulnian Law.

          See ROME: B. C. 300.

    Laws of Oleron.

          See OLERON.

    Poor Laws.

          See POOR LAWS.

    Publilian Laws.

          See ROME: B. C. 472-471, and 340.

    Salic Laws.

          See SALIC.

    Slave Codes.

          See SLAVERY.

    Solonian Laws.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    Tariff Legislation.

          See TARIFF.

    Terentilian Law.

          See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

    The Twelve Tables.

          See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

    Valerian Law.

          See ROME: B. C. 509.

    Valero-Horatian Law.

          See ROME: B. C. 449.

    {1995}

    LAWFELD, Battle of (1747).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

    LAWRENCE, Captain James:
       In the War of 1812.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

    LAWRENCE, Lord, the Indian Administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1857 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
          and 1862-1876.

    LAWRENCE, Kansas: A. D. 1863.
       Sacking of the town by Quantrell's guerrillas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

    LAYBACH, Congress of.

          See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

    LAZARISTS, The.

       "The Priests of the Missions, or the Lazarists ['sometimes
       called the Vincentian Congregation'], … have not
       unfrequently done very essential service to Christianity."
       Their Society was founded in 1624 by St. Vincent de Paul, "at
       the so-called Priory of St. Lazarus in Paris, whence the name
       Lazarists. … Besides their mission-labours, they took
       complete charge, in many instances, of ecclesiastical
       seminaries, which, in obedience to the instruction of the
       Council of Trent, had been established in the various
       dioceses, and even at this day many of these institutions are
       under their direction. In the year 1642 these devoted priests
       were to be seen in Italy, and not long after were sent to
       Algiers, to Tunis, to Madagascar, and to Poland."

          J. Alzog
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 3, pages 463-465.

          ALSO IN:
          H. L. S. Lear,
          Priestly Life in France,
          chapter 5.

    LAZICA.
    LAZIC WAR.

       "Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and
       Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea." From A. D. 522 to 541
       the little kingdom was a dependency of Rome, its king, having
       accepted Christianity, acknowledging himself a vassal of the
       Roman or Byzantine emperor. But the Romans provoked a revolt
       by their encroachments. "They seized and fortified a strong
       post, called Petra, upon the coast, appointed a commandant who
       claimed an authority as great as that of the Lazic king, and
       established a commercial monopoly which pressed with great
       severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi." The Persians
       were accordingly invited in to drive the Romans out, and did
       so, reducing Lazica, for the time being, to the state of a
       Persian province. But, in their turn, the Persians became
       obnoxious, and the Lazi, making their peace with Rome, were
       taken by the Emperor Justinian under his protection. "The
       Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act of
       Justinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine
       years—from A. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great
       length by Procopius and Agathias, who view the struggle as one
       which vitally concerned the interests of their country.
       According to them, Chosroës [the Persian king] was bent upon
       holding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the
       Phasis a great naval station and arsenal, from which his
       fleets might issue to command the commerce or ravage the
       shores of the Black Sea." The Persians in the end withdrew
       from Lazica, but the Romans, by treaty, paid them an annual
       tribute for their possession of the country.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Monarchy,
          chapter 20.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Bury,
          Later Roman Empire,
          book 4, chapter 9 (volume 1).

          See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    LAZZI, The.

          See LÆTI.

    LEAGUE, The Achaian.

       See GREECE: B.C. 280-146.

    LEAGUE, The Anti-Corn-Law.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
          A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

    LEAGUE, The Borromean or Golden.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

    LEAGUE, The Catholic, in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, and after.

    LEAGUE, The first Catholic, in Germany.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

    LEAGUE, The second Catholic, in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

    LEAGUE, The Cobblers'.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

    LEAGUE, The Delian.

          See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

    LEAGUE, The Hanseatic.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    LEAGUE, The Holy,
    of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

    LEAGUE, The Holy, of German Catholic princes.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

    LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

    LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Innocent XI.,
    the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

    LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Julius II.
    against Louis XII. of France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    LEAGUE, The Holy, of Spain, Venice and the Pope against the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

    LEAGUE, The Irish Land.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

    LEAGUE, The Swabian.

          See LANDFRIEDE, &c.

    LEAGUE, The Union.

          See UNION LEAGUE.

    LEAGUE AND COVENANT, The solemn.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

    LEAGUE OF CAMBRAI.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

    LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

    LEAGUE OF POOR CONRAD, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

    LEAGUE OF RATISBON.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    LEAGUE OF SMALKALDE, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    LEAGUE OF THE GUEUX.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

    LEAGUE OF THE PRINCES.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.

    LEAGUE OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468; also, 1453-1461.

    LEAGUE OF THE RHINE.

          See RHINE LEAGUE.

    LEAGUE OF TORGAU.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

    LEAGUES, The Grey.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

    LE BOURGET, Sortie of (1870).

          See FRANCE: A. D.1870-1871.

    LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (A. D. 955).

          See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 935-955.

    {1996}

    LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (1632.)

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, The.

          See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

    LEE, General Charles, and the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
          1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); and 1778 (JUNE).

    LEE, General Henry ("Light Horse Harry"),
    and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1780-1781.

    LEE, Richard Henry,
       And the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), (JULY).

    LEE, Richard Henry,
       Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

    LEE, General Robert E.
       Campaign in West Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

    LEE, General Robert E.,
       Command on the Peninsula.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
          and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

    LEE, General Robert E.
       Campaign against Pope.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
          (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    LEE, General Robert E.
       First invasion of Maryland.

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

    LEE, General Robert E.
       Defeat of Hooker.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

    LEE, General Robert E.
       The second movement of invasion.
       Gettysburg and after.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
          and (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
          also (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    LEE, General Robert E.
       Last Campaigns.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

    LEEDS, Battle at (1643).

       Leeds, occupied by the Royalists, under Sir William Savile,
       was taken by Sir Thomas Fairfax, after hard fighting, on the
       23d of January, 1643.

          C. R. Markham,
          Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
          chapter 9.

    LEESBURG, OR BALL'S BLUFF, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

    LEEWARD ISLANDS, The.

          See WEST INDIES.

    LEFÈVRE, Jacques, and the Reformation in France.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

    LEFT, The.
       Left Center, The.

          See RIGHT, &c.

    LEGATE.

       This was the title given to the lieutenant-general or
       associate chosen by a Roman commander or provincial governor
       to be his second-in-authority.

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 12.

    LEGES JULIÆ,
    LEGES SEMPRONIÆ, &c.

          See JULIAN LAWS; SEMPRONIAN LAWS, &c.

    LEGION, The Roman.

       "The original order of a Roman army was, as it seems, similar
       to the phalanx: but the long unbroken line had been divided
       into smaller detachments since, and perhaps by Camillus. The
       long wars in the Samnite mountains naturally caused the Romans
       to retain and to perfect this organisation, which made their
       army more movable and pliable, without preventing the separate
       bodies quickly combining and forming in one line. The legion
       now [at the time of the war with Pyrrhus, B. C. 280] consisted
       of thirty companies (called 'manipuli') of the average
       strength of a hundred men, which were arranged in three lines
       of ten manipuli each, like the black squares on a chessboard.
       The manipuli of the first line consisted of the youngest
       troops, called 'hastati'; those of the second line, called
       'principes,' were men in the full vigour of life; those of the
       third, the 'triarii,' formed a reserve of older soldiers, and
       were numerically only half as strong as the other two lines.
       The tactic order of the manipuli enabled the general to move
       the 'principes' forward into the intervals of the 'hastati,'
       or to withdraw the 'hastati' back into the intervals of the
       'principes,' the 'triarii' being kept as a reserve. … The
       light troops were armed with javelins, and retired behind the
       solid mass of the manipuli as soon as they had discharged
       their weapons in front of the line, at the beginning of the
       combat."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 16 (volume 1).

       "The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time
       of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which
       achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of
       Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial
       legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed
       infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided
       into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders
       of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The
       first cohort, which always claimed the post of honour and the
       custody of the eagle, was formed of 1,105 soldiers, the most
       approved for valour and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts
       consisted each of 555; and the whole body of legionary
       infantry amounted to 6,100 men. … The legion was usually
       drawn up eight deep, and the regular distance of three feet
       was left between the files as well as ranks. … The cavalry,
       without which the force of the legion would have remained
       imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the
       first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of 132
       men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to 66."

          E. Gibbon
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 12.

    LEGION OF HONOR, Institution of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

    LEGITIMISTS AND ORLEANISTS.

       The partisans of Bourbon monarchy in France became divided
       into two factions by the revolution of 1830, which deposed
       Charles X. and raised Louis Philippe to the throne. Charles
       X., brother of Louis XVI. and Louis XVIII., was in the direct
       line of royal descent, from Louis XIV. Louis Philippe, Duke of
       Orleans, who displaced him, belonged to a younger branch of
       the Bourbon family, descending from the brother of Louis XIV.,
       Philippe, Duke of Orleans, father of the Regent Orleans. Louis
       Philippe, in his turn, was expelled from the throne in 1848,
       and the crown, after that event, became an object of claim in
       both families. The claim supported by the Legitimists was
       extinguished in 1883 by the death of the childless Comte de
       Chambord, grandson of Charles X. The Orleanist claim is still
       maintained (1894) by the Comte de Paris, grandson of Louis
       Philippe.

    LEGNANO, Battle of (1176).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

    LEICESTER, The Earl of, in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586; and 1587-1588.

    LEINSTER TRIBUTE, The.

          See BOARIAN TRIBUTE.

    {1997}

       ----------LEIPSIC: Start----------

    LEIPSIC: A. D. 1631.
       Battle of Breitenfeld, before the city.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

    LEIPSIC: A. D. 1642.
       Second Battle of Breitenfeld.
       Surrender of the city to the Swedes.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    LEIPSIC: A. D. 1813.
       Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
       Regained by the French.
       The great "Battle of the Nations."

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
          1813 (APRIL-MAY), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

       ----------LEIPSIC: End----------

    LEIPSIC, University of.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

    LEISLER'S REVOLUTION.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.

    LEITH, The Concordat of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

    LEKHS, The.

          See LYGIANS.

    LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

    LELANTIAN FIELDS.
    LELANTIAN FEUD.

          See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA; and EUBŒA.

    LELEGES, The.

       "The Greeks beyond the sea [Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor] were
       however not merely designated in groups, according to the
       countries out of which they came, but certain collective names
       existed for them—such as that of Javan in the East. … Among
       all these names the most widely spread was that of the
       Leleges, which the ancients themselves designated as that of a
       mixed people. In Lycia, in Miletus, and in the Troad these
       Leleges had their home; in other words, on the whole extent of
       coast in which we have recognized the primitive seats of the
       people of Ionic Greeks."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 2.

          See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    LELIAERDS.

       In the mediæval annals of the Flemish people, the partisans of
       the French are called "Leliaerds," from "lelie," the Flemish
       for lily.

          J. Hutton,
          James and Philip van Arteveld,
          page 32, foot-note.

    LE MANS: Defeat of the Vendéans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    LE MANS, Battle of (1871).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

    LEMNOS.

       One of the larger islands in the northern part of the Ægean
       Sea, lying opposite the Trojan coast. It was anciently
       associated with Samothrace and Imbros in the mysterious
       worship of the Cabeiri.

    LEMOVICES, The.

       The Lemovices were a tribe of Gauls who occupied, in Cæsar's
       time, the territory afterwards known as the Limousin
       —department of Upper Vienne and parts adjoining.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

       The city of Limoges derived its existence and its name from
       the Lemovices.

    LEMOVII, The.

       A tribe in ancient Germany whose territory, on the Baltic
       coast, probably in the neighborhood of Danzig, bordered on
       that of the Gothones.

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.

    LENAPE, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

    LENS, Siege and battle (1647-1648).

          See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

    LENTIENSES, The.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

    LEO I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 457-474.

       Leo II., Pope, 682-683.

       Leo II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 474.

       Leo III., Pope, 795-816.

       Leo III. (called The Isaurian),
       Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),717-741.

       Leo IV., Pope, 847-855.

       Leo IV., Emperor in the East
       (Byzantine, or Greek), 775-780.

       Leo V., Pope, 903, October to December.

       Leo V., Emperor in the East
       (Byzantine, or Greek), 813-820.

       Leo VI., Pope, 928-929.

       Leo VI., Emperor in the East
       (Byzantine, or Greek), 886-911.

       Leo VII., Pope, 936-939.

       Leo VIII., Anti-pope, 963-965.

       Leo IX., Pope, 1049-1054.

       Leo X., Pope, 1513-1521.

       Leo XI., Pope, 1605, April 2-27.

       Leo XII., Pope, 1823-1829.

       Leo XIII., Pope, 1878.

    LEOBEN, Preliminary treaty of (1797).

          See FRANCE: A.D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    LEODIS (WEREGILD).

          See GRAF.

    LEON, Ponce de, and his quest.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

       ----------LEON: Start--------

    LEON,
       Origin of the name of the city and kingdom.

       "This name Legio or Leon, so long borne by a province and by
       its chief city in Spain, is derived from the old Roman 'Regnum
       Legionis' (Kingdom of the Legion)."

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 5, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    LEON:
       Origin of the kingdom.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

    LEON:
       Union of the kingdom with Castile.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230; and 1212-1238.

       ----------LEON: End--------

    LEONIDAS AT THERMOPYLÆ.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480;
          and ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

    LEONINE CITY, The

          See VATICAN.

    LEONTINI.
       The Leontine War.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

    LEONTIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 695-698.

    LEOPOLD I.,
       Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1658-1705;
       King of Hungary, 1655-1705:
       King of Bohemia, 1657-1705.

       Leopold I., King of Belgium, 1831-1865.

       Leopold II., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
       Bohemia, 1790-1792.

       Leopold II., King of Belgium, 1865.

    LEPANTO, Naval Battle of (1571).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

    LEPERS AND JEWS, Persecution of.

          See JEWS: A. D. 1321.

    LIPIDUS, Revolutionary attempt of.

          See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

    LEPTA.

          See TALENT.

    LEPTIS MAGNA.

       "The city of Leptis Magna, originally a Phœnician colony, was
       the capital of this part of the province [the tract of
       north-African coast between the Lesser and the Greater
       Syrtes], and held much the same prominent position as that of
       Tripoli at the present day. The only other towns in the region
       of the Syrtes, as it was sometimes called, were Œa, on the
       site of the modern Tripoli, and Sabrata, the ruins of which
       are still visible at a place called Tripoli Vecchio. The three
       together gave the name of the Tripolis of Africa to this
       region, as distinguished from the Pentapolis of Cyrenaïca.
       Hence the modern appellation."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 20, section 1, footnote (volume 2).

          See, also, CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

    {1998}

    LERIDA: B. C. 49.
       Cæsar's success against the Pompeians.

             See ROME: B. C. 49.

    LERIDA: A. D. 1644-1646,
       Sieges and battle.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

    LERIDA: A. D. 1707.
       Stormed and sacked by the French and Spaniards.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

       ----------LESBOS: Start--------

    LESBOS.

       The largest of the islands of the Ægean, lying south of the
       Troad, great part of which it once controlled, was
       particularly distinguished in the early literary history of
       ancient Greece, having produced what is called "the Æolian
       school" of lyric poetry. Alcæus, Sappho, Terpander and Arion
       were poets who sprang from Lesbos. The island was one of the
       important colonies of what was known as the Æolic migration,
       but became subject to Athens after the Persian War. In the
       fourth year of the Peloponnesian War its chief city, Mitylene
       (which afterwards gave its name to the entire island), seized
       the opportunity to revolt. The siege and reduction of Mytilene
       by the Athenians was one of the exciting incidents of that
       struggle.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 3.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 14 and 50.

          See, also, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
          and GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

    LESBOS: B. C. 412.
       Revolt from Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

       ----------LESBOS: End--------

    LESCHE, The.

       The clubs of Sparta and Athens formed an important feature of
       the life of Greece. In every Grecian community there was a
       place of resort called the Lesche. In Sparta it was peculiarly
       the resort of old men, who assembled round a blazing fire in
       winter, and were listened to with profound respect by their
       juniors. These retreats were numerous in Athens.

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
          volume 2, page 396.

       "The proper home of the Spartan art of speech, the original
       source of so many Spartan jokes current over all Greece, was
       the Lesche, the place of meeting for men at leisure, near the
       public drilling-grounds, where they met in small bands, and
       exchanged merry talk."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          volume 1, page 220 (American edition).

    LESCO V.,
       Duke of Poland, A. D. 1194-1227.

       Lesco VI., Duke of Poland, 1279-1289.

    LESE-MAJESTY.

       A term in English law signifying treason, borrowed from the
       Romans. The contriving, or counselling or consenting to the
       king's death, or sedition against the king, are included in
       the crime of "lese-majesty."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 21, section 786.

    LE TELLIER, and the suppression of Port Royal.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

    LETTER OF MAJESTY, The.

          See BOHEMIA. A. D. 1611-1618.

    LETTERS OF MARQUE.

          See PRIVATEERS.

    LETTRE DE CACHET.

       "In French history, a letter or order under seal; a private
       letter of state: a name given especially to a written order
       proceeding from and signed by the king, and countersigned by a
       secretary of state, and used at first as an occasional means
       of delaying the course of justice, but later, in the 17th and
       18th centuries, as a warrant for the imprisonment without
       trial of a person obnoxious for any reason to the government,
       often for life or for a long period, and on frivolous
       pretexts. Lettres de cachet were abolished at the Revolution."

          Century Dictionary.

       "The minister used to give generously blank lettres-de-cachet
       to the intendants, the bishops, and people in the
       administration. Saint-Florentin, alone, gave away as many as
       50,000. Never had man's dearest treasure, liberty, been more
       lavishly squandered. These letters were the object of a
       profitable traffic; they were sold to fathers who wanted to
       get rid of their sons, and given to pretty women who were
       inconvenienced by their husbands. This last cause of
       imprisonment was one of the most prominent. And all through
       good-nature. The king [Louis XV.] was too good to refuse a
       lettre-de-cachet to a great lord. The intendant was too
       good-natured not to grant one at a lady's request. The
       government clerks, the mistresses of the clerks, and the
       friends of these mistresses, through good-nature, civility, or
       mere politeness, obtained, gave, or lent, those terrible
       orders by which a man was buried alive. Buried;—for such was
       the carelessness and levity of those amiable clerks,—almost
       all nobles, fashionable men, all occupied with their
       pleasures,—that they never had the time, when once the poor
       fellow was shut up, to think of his position."

          J. Michelet,
          Historical View of the French Revolution,
          introduction, part 2, section 9.

    LETTS.

          See LITHUANIANS.

    LEUCADIA,
    LEUCAS.

       Originally a peninsula of Acarnania, on the western coast of
       Greece, but converted into an island by the Corinthians, who
       cut a canal across its narrow neck. Its chief town, of the
       same name, was at one time the meeting place of the Acarnanian
       League. The high promontory at the south-western extremity of
       the island was celebrated for the temple of Apollo which
       crowned it, and as being the scene of the story of Sappho's
       suicidal leap from the Leucadian rock.

    LEUCÆ, Battle of.

       The kingdom of Pergamum having been bequeathed to the Romans
       by its last king, Attalus, a certain Aristonicus attempted to
       resist their possession of it, and Crassus, one of the consuls
       of B. C. 131 was sent against him. But Crassus had no success
       and was finally defeated and slain, near Leucæ. Aristonicus
       surrendered soon afterwards to M. Perperna and the war in
       Pergamum was ended.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapter 14.

    LEUCATE, Siege and Battle (1637).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

    LEUCI, The.

       A tribe in Belgic Gaul which occupied the southern part of the
       modern department of the Meuse, the greater part of the
       Meurthe, and the department of the Vosges.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).

    LEUCTRA, Battle of (B. C. 371).

          See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

    LEUD, OR LIDUS, The.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

    LEUDES.

       "The Frankish warriors, but particularly the leaders, were
       called 'leudes,' from the Teutonic word 'leude,' 'liude,'
       'leute,' people, as some think (Thierry, Lettres sur l'Hist.
       de Franc, p. 130). In the Scandinavian dialects, 'lide' means
       a warrior … ; and in the Kymric also 'lwydd' means an army
       or war-band. … It was not a title of dignity, as every free
       fighter among the Franks was a leud, but in process of time
       the term seems to have been restricted to the most prominent
       and powerful warriors alone."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 3, chapter 12, foot-note.

    {1999}

    LEUGA, The.

       "The roads in the whole Roman empire were measured and marked
       according to the unit of the Roman mile (1.48 kilometer), and
       up to the end of the second century this applied also to those
       [the Gallic] provinces. But from Severus onward its place was
       taken in the three Gauls and the two Germanies by a mile
       correlated no doubt to the Roman, but yet different and with a
       Gallic name, the 'leuga' (2.222 kilomètres), equal to one and
       a half Roman miles. … The double 'leuga,' the German
       'rasta,' … corresponds to the French 'lieue.'"

          T. Mommsen,
          History of the Romans,
          book 8, chapter 3.

    LEUKAS.

          See KORKYRA.

    LEUKOPETRA, Battle of (B. C. 146).

          See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

    LEUTHEN, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    LEVELLERS, The.

       "Especially popular among the soldiers [of the Parliamentary
       Army, England, A. D. 1647-48], and keeping up their excitement
       more particularly against the House of Lords, were the
       pamphlets that came from John Lilburne, and an associate of
       his named Richard Overton. … These were the pamphlets …
       which … were popular with the common soldiers of the
       Parliamentary Army, and nursed that especial form of the
       democratic passion among them which longed to sweep away the
       House of Lords and see England governed by a single
       Representative House. Baxter, who reports this growth of
       democratic opinion in the Army from his own observation,
       distinctly recognises in it the beginnings of that rough
       ultra-Republican party which afterwards became formidable
       under the name of The Levellers."

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 3, book 4, chapter 1.

       "They [the Levellers] had a vision of a pure and patriotic
       Parliament, accurately representing the people, yet carrying
       out a political programme incomprehensible to nine-tenths of
       the nation. This Parliament was to represent all legitimate
       varieties of thought, and was yet to act together as one man.
       The necessity for a Council of State they therefore entirely
       denied; and they denounced it as a new tyranny. The excise
       they condemned as an obstruction to trade. They would have no
       man compelled to fight, unless he felt free in his own
       conscience to do so. They appealed to the law of nature, and
       found their interpretation of it carrying them further and
       further away from English traditions and habits, whether of
       Church or State." A mutiny of the Levellers in the army, which
       broke out in April and May, 1640, was put down with stern
       vigor by Cromwell and Fairfax, several of the leaders being
       executed.

          J. A. Picton,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 17.

    LEWES, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

    LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1801.

    LEXINGTON, Massachusetts: A. D. 1775.
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

       ----------LEXINGTON: Start--------

    LEXINGTON, MISSOURI, Siege of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

    LEXINGTON, MISSOURI: Battle at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

       ----------LEXINGTON: End--------

    LEXOVII, The.

       The Lexovii were one of the tribes of northwestern Gaul, in
       the time of Cæsar. Their position is indicated and their name,
       in a modified form, preserved by the town of Lisieux between
       Caen and Evreux.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 6.

       ----------LEYDEN: Start--------

    LEYDEN: A. D. 1574.
       Siege by the Spaniards.
       Relief by the flooding of the land.
       The founding of the University.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574;
          and EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: NETHERLANDS.

    LEYDEN: A. D. 1609-1620.
       The Sojourn of the Pilgrim Fathers.

          See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

       ----------LEYDEN: End--------

    LHASSA, the seat of the Grand Lama.

          See LAMAS.

    LIA-FAIL, The.

       "The Tuatha-de-Danaan [the people who preceded the Milesians
       in colonizing Ireland, according to the fabulous Irish
       histories] brought with them from Scandinavia, among other
       extraordinary things, three marvellous treasures, the
       Lia-Fail, or Stone of Destiny, the Sorcerer's Spear, and the
       Magic Caldron, all celebrated in the old Irish romances. The
       Lia-Fail possessed the remarkable property of making a strange
       noise and becoming wonderfully disturbed, whenever a monarch
       of Ireland of pure blood was crowned, and a prophecy was
       attached to it, that whatever country possessed it should be
       ruled over by a king of Irish descent, and enjoy uninterrupted
       success and prosperity. It was preserved at Cashel, where the
       kings of Munster were crowned upon it. According to some
       writers it was afterwards kept at the Hill of Tara, where it
       remained until it was carried to Scotland by an Irish prince,
       who succeeded to the crown of that country. There it was
       preserved at Scone, until Edward I. carried it away into
       England, and placed it under the seat of the coronation chair
       of our kings, where it still remains. … It seems to be the
       opinion of some modern antiquarians that a pillar stone still
       remaining at the Hill of Tara is the true Lia-Fail, which in
       that case was not carried to Scotland."

          T. Wright,
          History of Ireland,
          book 1, chapter 2, and foot-note.

          See, also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

    LIBBY PRISON.

          See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

    LIBERAL ARTS, The Seven.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM,

    LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

    LIBERAL UNIONISTS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

    LIBERI HOMINES.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

    LIBERIA, The founding of the Republic of.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

    LIBERTINES OF GENEVA, The.

       The party which opposed Calvin's austere and arbitrary rule in
       Geneva were called Libertines.

          F. P. Guizot,
          John Calvin,
          chapter 9-16.

    LIBERTINI.

          See INGENUI.

    LIBERTY BELL, The.

          See INDEPENDENCE HALL.

    {2000}

    LIBERTY BOYS.

       The name by which the Sons of Liberty of the American
       Revolution were familiarly known.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1765; NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774;
          and LIBERTY TREE.

    LIBERTY CAP.

       "This emblem, like many similar ones received by the
       revolutions from the hand of chance, was a mystery even to
       those who wore it. It had been adopted [at Paris] for the
       first time on the day of the triumph of the soldiers of
       Châteauvieux [April 15, 1792, when 41 Swiss soldiers of the
       regiment of Châteauvieux, condemned to the galleys for
       participation in a dangerous mutiny of the garrison at Nancy
       in 1790, but liberated in compliance with the demands of the
       mob, were fêted as heroes by the Jacobins of Paris]. Some said
       it was the coiffure of the galley-slaves, once infamous, but
       glorious since it had covered the brows of these martyrs of
       the insurrection; and they added that the people wished to
       purify this head-dress from every stain by wearing it
       themselves. Others only saw in it the Phrygian bonnet, a
       symbol of freedom for slaves. The 'bonnet rouge' had from its
       first appearance been the subject of dispute and dissension
       amongst the Jacobins; the 'exaltés' wore it, whilst the
       'modérés' yet abstained from adopting it." Robespierre and his
       immediate followers opposed the "frivolity" of the "bonnet
       rouge," and momentarily suppressed it in the Assembly. "But
       even the voice of Robespierre, and the resolutions of the
       Jacobins, could not arrest the outbreak of enthusiasm that had
       placed the sign of 'avenging equality' ('l'égalité
       vengeresse') on every head; and the evening of the day on
       which it was repudiated at the Jacobins' saw it inaugurated at
       all the theatres. The bust of Voltaire, the destroyer of
       prejudice, was adorned with the Phrygian cap of liberty,
       amidst the shouts of the spectators, whilst the cap and pike
       became the uniform and weapon of the citizen soldier."

          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          book 13 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

    LIBERTY GAP, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

    LIBERTY PARTY AND LIBERTY LEAGUE.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1840-1847.

    LIBERTY TREE AND LIBERTY HALL.

       "Lafayette said, when in Boston, 'The world should never
       forget the spot where once stood Liberty Tree, so famous in
       your annals.' … The open space at the four corners of
       Washington, Essex, and Boylston streets was once known as
       Hanover Square, from the royal house of Hanover, and sometimes
       as the Elm Neighborhood, from the magnificent elms with which
       it was environed. It was one of the finest of these that
       obtained the name of Liberty Tree, from its being used on the
       first occasion of resistance to the obnoxious Stamp Act. …
       At daybreak on the 14th August, 1765, nearly ten years before
       active hostilities broke out, an effigy of Mr. Oliver, the
       Stamp officer, and a boot, with the Devil peeping out of
       it,—an allusion to Lord Bute,—was discovered hanging from
       Liberty Tree. The images remained hanging all day, and were
       visited by great numbers of people, both from the town and the
       neighboring country. Business was almost suspended.
       Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson ordered the sheriff to take the
       figures down, but he was obliged to admit that he dared not do
       so. As the day closed in the effigies were taken down, placed
       upon a bier, and, followed by several thousand people of every
       class and condition," were borne through the city and then
       burned, after which much riotous conduct on the part of the
       crowd occurred. In 1766, when the repeal of the Stamp Act took
       place, a large copper plate was fastened to the tree,
       inscribed in golden characters:—'This tree was planted in the
       year 1646, and pruned by order of the Sons of Liberty,
       February 14th, 1766.' … The ground immediately about Liberty
       Tree was popularly known as Liberty Hall. In August, 1767, a
       flagstaff had been erected, which went through and extended
       above its highest branches. A flag hoisted upon this staff was
       the signal for the assembling of the Sons of Liberty. … In
       August, 1775, the name of Liberty having become offensive to
       the Tories and their British allies, the tree was cut down by
       a party led by one Job Williams."

          S. A. Drake,
          Old Landmarks of Boston,
          chapter 14.

    LIBERUM VETO, The.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

    LIBRA, The Roman.

        The ancient Roman unit of weight was the libra, or pondus,
        from which the modern names of the livre and pound are
        derived. Its weight was equal to 5,015 Troy gr. or 325 grams,
        and it was identical with the Greek-Asiatic mina."

          H. W. Chisholm,
          Science of Weighing and Measuring,
          chapter 2.

          See, also, AS.

       ----------LIBRARIES: Start--------

    LIBRARIES:
       Ancient, Babylonia and Assyria.

       "The Babylonians were … essentially a reading and writing
       people. … Books were numerous and students were many. The
       books were for the most part written upon clay [tablets] with
       a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay was cheap and
       plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of
       which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus
       and possibly also parchment were employed as writing
       materials; at all events the papyrus is referred to in the
       texts."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians,
          page 30.

       "We must speak of the manner in which the tablet was formed.
       Fine clay was selected, kneaded, and moulded into the shape of
       the required tablet. One side was flat, and the other rounded.
       The writing was then inscribed on both sides, holes were
       pricked in the clay, and then it was baked. The holes allowed
       the steam which was generated during the process of baking to
       escape. It is thought that the clay used in some of the
       tablets was not only well kneaded, but ground in some kind of
       mill, for the texture of the clay is as fine as some of our
       best modern pottery. The wedges appear to have been impressed
       by a square headed instrument."

          E. A. W. Budge,
          Babylonian Life and History,
          p. 105.

    {2001}

       Assurbanipal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, was the greatest
       and most celebrated of Assyrian monarchs. He was the principal
       patron of Assyrian literature, and the greater part of the
       grand library at Nineveh was written during his reign."

          G. Smith,
          Assyrian Discoveries,
          chapter 18.

       "Assurbanipal is fond of old books, particularly of the old
       sacred works. He collects the scattered specimens from the
       chief cities of his empire, and even employs scribes in
       Chaldea, Ourouk, Barsippa, and Babylon to copy for him the
       tablets deposited in the temples. His principal library is at
       Nineveh, in the palace which he built for himself upon the
       banks of the Tigris, and which he has just finished
       decorating. It contains more than thirty thousand tablets,
       methodically classified and arranged in several rooms, with
       detailed catalogues for convenient reference. Many of the
       works are continued from tablet to tablet and form a series,
       each bearing the first words of the text as its title. The
       account of the creation, which begins with the phrase:
       'Formerly, that which is above was not yet called the heaven,'
       was entitled: 'Formerly, that which is above, No.1;'
       'Formerly, that which is above, No.2;' and so on to the end.
       Assurbanipal is not less proud of his love of letters than of
       his political activity, and he is anxious that posterity
       should know how much he has done for literature. His name is
       inscribed upon every work in his library, ancient and modern.
       'The palace of Assurbanipal, king of legions, king of
       multitudes, king of Assyria, to whom the god Nebo and the
       goddess Tasmetu have granted attentive ears and open eyes to
       discover the writings of the scribes of my kingdom, whom the
       kings my predecessors, have employed. In my respect for Nebo,
       the god of intelligence, I have collected these tablets; I
       have had them copied, I have marked them with my name, and I
       have deposited them in my palace.' The library at Dur-Sarginu,
       although not so rich as the one in Nineveh, is still fairly
       well supplied."

          G. Maspéro,
          Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
          chapter 16.

       Collections of inscribed tablets had been made by
       Tiglath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, B. C. 745, who had
       copied some historical inscriptions of his predecessors.
       Sargon, the founder of the dynasty to which Assur-bani-pal
       belonged, B. C. 722, had increased this library by adding a
       collection of astrological and similar texts, and Sennacherib,
       B. C. 705, had composed copies of the Assyrian canon, short
       histories, and miscellaneous inscriptions, to add to the
       collection. Sennacherib also moved the library from Calah, its
       original seat, to Nineveh, the capital. Esarhaddon, B. C. 681,
       added numerous historical and mythological texts. All the
       inscriptions of the former kings were, however, nothing
       compared to those written during the reign of Assur-bani-pal.
       Thousands of inscribed tablets from all places, and on every
       variety of subject, were collected, and copied, and stored in
       the library of the palace at Nineveh during his reign; and by
       his statements they appear to have been intended for the
       inspection of the people, and to spread learning among the
       Assyrians. Among these tablets one class consisted of
       historical texts, some the histories of the former kings of
       Assyria, and others copies of royal inscriptions from various
       other places. Similar to these were the copies of treaties,
       despatches, and orders from the king to his generals and
       ministers, a large number of which formed part of the library.
       There was a large collection of letters of all sorts, from
       despatches to the king on the one hand, down to private notes
       on the other. Geography found a place among the sciences, and
       was represented by lists of countries, towns, rivers, and
       mountains, notices of the position, products, and character of
       districts, &c., &c. There were tables giving accounts of the
       law and legal decisions, and tablets with contracts, loans,
       deeds of sale and barter, &c. There were lists of tribute and
       taxes, accounts of property in the various cities, forming
       some approach to a census and general account of the empire.
       One large and important section of the library was devoted to
       legends of various sorts, many of which were borrowed from
       other countries. Among these were the legends of the hero
       Izdubar, perhaps the Nimrod of the Bible. One of these legends
       gives the Chaldean account of the flood, others of this
       description give various fables and stories of evil spirits.
       The mythological part of the library embraced lists of the
       gods, their titles, attributes, temples, &c., hymns in praise
       of various deities, prayers to be used by different classes of
       men to different gods, and under various circumstances, as
       during eclipses or calamities, on setting out for a campaign,
       &c., &e. Astronomy was represented by various tablets and
       works on the appearance and motions of the heavens, and the
       various celestial phenomena. Astrology was closely connected
       with Astronomy, and formed a numerous class of subjects and
       inscriptions. An interesting division was formed by the works
       on natural history; these consisted of lists of animals,
       birds, reptiles, trees, grasses, stones, &c., &c., arranged in
       classes, according to their character and affinities as then
       understood, lists of minerals and their uses, lists of foods,
       &c., &c. Mathematics and arithmetic were found, including
       square and cube root, the working out of problems, &c., &c.
       Much of the learning on these tablets was borrowed from the
       Chaldeans and the people of Babylon, and had originally been
       written in a different language and style of writing, hence it
       was necessary to have translations and explanations of many of
       these; and in order to make their meaning clear, grammars,
       dictionaries, and lexicons were prepared, embracing the
       principal features of the two languages involved, and enabling
       the Assyrians to study the older inscriptions. Such are some
       of the principal features of the grand Assyrian library, which
       Assur-bani-pal established at Nineveh, and which probably
       numbered over 10,000 clay documents."

          George Smith,
          Ancient History from the Monuments: Assyria,
          pages 188-191.

       "It is now [1882] more than thirty years since Sir Henry
       Layard, passing through one of the doorways of the partially
       explored palace in the mound of Konyunjik, guarded by
       sculptured fish gods, stood for the first time in the double
       chambers containing a large portion of the remains of the
       immense library collected by Assurbannipal, King of Nineveh.
       … Since that time, with but slight intermissions, this
       treasure-house of a forgotten past has been turned over again
       and again, notably in the expeditions of the late Mr. George
       Smith, and still the supply of its cuneiform literature is not
       exhausted. Until last year [1881] this discovery remained
       unique; but the perseverance of the British Museum authorities
       and the patient labour of Mr. Rassam were then rewarded by the
       exhumation of what is apparently the library chamber of the
       temple or palace at Sippara, with all its 10,000 tablets,
       resting undisturbed, arranged in their position on the
       shelves, just as placed in order by the librarian twenty-five
       centuries ago. …
    {2002}
       From what Berosus tells us with regard to Sippara, or
       Pantibiblon (the town of books), the very city, one of whose
       libraries has just been brought to light, … it may be
       inferred that this was certainly one of the first towns that
       collected a library. … It is possible that the mound at
       Mugheir enshrines the oldest library of all, for here are the
       remains of the city of Ur (probably the Biblical Ur of the
       Chaldees). From this spot came the earliest known royal brick
       inscription, as follows:—'Urukh, King of Ur, who Bit Nanur
       built.' Although there are several texts from Mugheir, such as
       that of Dungi, son of Urukh, yet, unless by means of copies
       made for later libraries in Assyria, we cannot be said to know
       much of its library. Strange to say, however, the British
       Museum possesses the signet cylinder of one of the librarians
       of Ur, who is the earliest known person holding such an
       office. … Its inscription is given thus by
       Smith:—'Emuq-sin, the powerful hero, the King of Ur, King of
       the four regions; Amil Anu, the tablet-keeper, son of Gatu his
       servant.' … Erech, the modern Warka, is a city at which we
       know there must have been one or more libraries, for it was
       from thence Assurbannipal copied the famous Isdubar series of
       legends in twelve tablets, one of which contained the account
       of the Deluge. Hence also came the wonderful work on magic in
       more than one hundred tablets: for, as we have it, it is
       nothing more than a facsimile by Assurbannipal's scribes of a
       treatise which had formed part of the collection of the school
       of the priests at Erech. … Larsa, now named Senkereh, was
       the seat of a tablet collection that seems to have been
       largely a mathematical one; for in the remains we possess of
       it are tablets containing tables of squares and cube roots and
       others, giving the characters for fractions. There are from
       here also, however, fragments with lists of the gods, a
       portion of a geographical dictionary, lists of temples, &c.
       … To a library at Cutha we owe the remnants of a tablet work
       containing an account of the creation and the wars of the
       gods, and, among others, a very ancient terra-cotta tablet
       bearing a copy of an inscription engraved in the temple of the
       god Dup Lan at Cutha, by Dungi, King of Ur. The number of
       tablets and cylinders found by M. de Sarzec at Zirgulla show
       that there too the habit of committing so much to writing was
       as rife as in other cities of whose literary character we know
       more."

          The Libraries of Babylonia and Assyria
          (Knowledge, November 24, 1882,
          and March 2, 1883).

       "One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
       explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
       library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
       Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
       not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
       literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
       of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
       represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
       characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
       meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
       plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
       of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
       preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
       spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
       their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
       termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
       which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
       Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
       accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
       from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
       dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
       placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 1.

    LIBRARIES:
       Greece.

       "Pisistratus the tyrant is said to have been the first who
       supplied books of the liberal sciences at Athens for public
       use. Afterwards the Athenians themselves, with great care and
       pains, increased their number; but all this multitude of
       books, Xerxes, when he obtained possession of Athens, and
       burned the whole of the city except the citadel, seized and
       carried away to Persia. But king Seleucus, who was called
       Nicanor, many years afterwards, was careful that all of them
       should be again carried back to Athens." "That Pisistratus was
       the first who collected books, seems generally allowed by
       ancient writers. … In Greece were several famous libraries.
       Clearchus, who was a follower of Plato, founded a magnificent
       one in Heraclea. There was one in the island of Cnidos. The
       books of Athens were by Sylla removed to Rome. The public
       libraries of the Romans were filled with books, not of
       miscellaneous literature, but were rather political and sacred
       collections, consisting of what regarded their laws and the
       ceremonies of their religion."

          Aulus Gellius,
          The Attic Nights,
          book 6, chapter 17 (volume 2),
          with foot-note by W. Beloe.

       "If the libraries of the Greeks at all resembled in form and
       dimensions those found at Pompeii, they were by no means
       spacious; neither, in fact, was a great deal of room
       necessary, as the manuscripts of the ancients stowed away much
       closer than our modern books, and were sometimes kept in
       circular boxes, of elegant form, with covers of turned wood.
       The volumes consisted of rolls of parchment, sometimes purple
       at the back, or papyrus, about twelve or fourteen inches in
       breadth, and as many feet long as the subject required. The
       pages formed a number of transverse compartments, commencing
       at the left, and proceeding in order to the other extremity,
       and the reader, holding in either hand one end of the
       manuscript, unrolled and rolled it up as he read. Occasionally
       these books were placed on shelves, in piles, with the ends
       outwards, adorned with golden bosses, the titles of the
       various treatises being written on pendant labels."

          J. A. St. John,
          The Hellenes,
          volume 2, page 84.

       "The learned reader need not be reminded how wide is the
       difference between the ancient 'volumen,' or roll, and the
       'volume' of the modern book-trade, and how much smaller the
       amount of literary matter which the former may represent. Any
       single 'book' or 'part' of a treatise would anciently have
       been called 'volumen,' and would reckon as such in the
       enumeration of a collection of books. The Iliad of Homer,
       which in a modern library may form but a single volume, would
       have counted as twenty-four 'volumina' at Alexandria.
    {2003}
       We read of authors leaving behind them works reckoned, not by
       volumes or tens of volumes, but by hundreds. … It will at
       once be understood that … the very largest assemblage of
       'volumina' assigned as the total of the greatest of the
       ancient collections would fall far short, in its real literary
       contents, of the second-rate, or even third-rate collections
       of the present day."

          Libraries, Ancient and Modern
          (Edinburgh Review,
          January, 1874).

    LIBRARIES:
       Alexandria.

       "The first of the Ptolemies, Lagus, not only endeavoured to
       render Alexandria one of the most beautiful and most
       commercial of cities, he likewise wished her to become the
       cradle of science and philosophy. By the advice of an Athenian
       emigrant, Demetrius of Phaleros, this prince established a
       society of learned and scientific men, the prototype of our
       academies and modern institutions. He caused that celebrated
       museum to be raised, that became an ornament to the Bruchion;
       and here was deposited the noble library, 'a collection,' says
       Titus Livius, 'at once a proof of the magnificence of those
       kings, and of their love of science.' Philadelphos, the
       successor of Lagus, finding that the library of the Bruchion
       already numbered 400,000 volumes, and either thinking that the
       edifice could not well make room for any more, or being
       desirous, from motives of jealousy, to render his name equally
       famous by the construction of a similar monument, founded a
       second library in the temple of Serapis, called the Serapeum,
       situated at some distance from the Bruchion, in another part
       of the town. These two libraries were denominated, for a
       length of time, the Mother and the Daughter. During the war
       with Egypt, Cæsar, having set fire to the king's fleet, which
       happened to be anchored in the great port, it communicated
       with the Bruchion; the parent library was consumed, and, if
       any remains were rescued from the flames, they were, in all
       probability, conveyed to the Serapeum. Consequently, ever
       after, there can be no question but of the latter. Euergetes
       and the other Ptolemies enlarged it successively; and
       Cleopatra added 200,000 manuscripts at once from the library
       of King Pergamos, given her by Mark Antony. … Aulus Gellius
       and Ammianus Marcellus seem to insinuate that the whole of the
       Alexandrian library had been destroyed by fire in the time of
       Cæsar. … But both are mistaken on this point. Ammianus, in
       the rest of his narrative, evidently confounds Serapeum and
       Bruchion. … Suetonius (in his life of Domitian) mentions
       that this emperor sent some amanuenses to Alexandria, for the
       purpose of copying a quantity of books that were wanting in
       his library; consequently a library existed in Alexandria a
       long while after Cæsar. Besides, we know that the Serapeum was
       only destroyed A. D. 301, by the order of Theodosius.
       Doubtless the library suffered considerably on this
       last-mentioned occasion; but that it still partly existed is
       beyond a doubt, according to the testimony of Oroses, who,
       twenty-four years later, made a voyage to Alexandria, and
       assures us that he 'saw, in several temples, presses full of
       books,' the remains of ancient libraries. … The trustworthy
       Oroses, in 415, is the last witness we have of the existence
       of a library at Alexandria. The numerous Christian writers of
       the fifth and sixth centuries, who have handed down to us so
       many trifling facts, have not said a word upon this important
       subject. We, therefore, have no certain documents upon the
       fate of our library from 415 to 636, or, according to others,
       640, when the Arabs took possession of Alexandria—a period of
       ignorance and barbarism, of war and revolutions, and vain
       disputes between a hundred different sects. Now, towards A. D.
       636, or 640, the troops of the caliph, Omar, headed by his
       lieutenant, Amrou, took possession of Alexandria. For more
       than six centuries, nobody in Europe took the trouble of
       ascertaining what had become of the library of Alexandria. At
       length, in the year 1660, a learned Oxford scholar, Edward
       Pococke, who had been twice to the East, and had brought back
       a number of Arabian manuscripts, first introduced the Oriental
       history of the physician Abulfarage to the learned world, in a
       Latin translation. In it we read the following passage:—'In
       those days flourished John of Alexandria, whom we have
       surnamed the Grammarian, and who adopted the tenets of the
       Christian Jacobites. … He lived to the time when Amrou
       Ebno'l-As took Alexandria. He went to visit the conqueror; and
       Amrou, who was aware of the height of learning and science
       that John had attained, treated him with every distinction,
       and listened eagerly, to his lectures on philosophy, which
       were quite new to the Arabians. Amrou was himself a man of
       intellect and discernment, and very clear-headed. He retained
       the learned man about his person. John one day said to him,
       "You have visited all the stores of Alexandria, and you have
       put your seal on all the different things you found there. I
       say nothing about those treasures which have any value for
       you; but, in good sooth, you might leave us those of which you
       make no use." "What then is it that you want?" interrupted
       Amrou. "The books of philosophy that are to be found in the
       royal treasury," answered John. "I can dispose of nothing,"
       Amrou then said, "without the permission of the lord of all
       true believers, Omar Ebno'l-Chattab." He therefore wrote to
       Omar, informing him of John's request. He received an answer
       from Omar in these words. "As to the books you mention,
       either, they agree with God's holy book, and then God's book
       is all-sufficient without them; or they disagree with God's
       book, in which case they ought not to be preserved." And, in
       consequence, Amrou Ebno'l-As caused them to be distributed
       amongst the different baths of the city, to serve as fuel. In
       this manner they were consumed in half-a-year.' When this
       account of Abulfarage's was made known in Europe, it was at
       once admitted as a fact, without the least question. … Since
       Pococke, another Arab historian, likewise a physician, was
       discovered, who gave pretty nearly the same account. This was
       Abdollatif, who wrote towards 1200, and consequently prior to
       Abulfarage. … Abdollatif does not relate any of the
       circumstances accessory to the destruction of the library. But
       what faith can we put in a writer who tells us that he has
       actually seen what could no longer have been in existence in
       his time? 'I have seen;' says he, 'the portico and the college
       that Alexander the Great caused to be built, and which
       contained the splendid library,' &c. Now, these buildings were
       situated within the Bruchion; and since the reign of Aurelian,
       who had destroyed it—that is to say, at least nine hundred
       years before Abdollatif—the Bruchion was a deserted spot,
       covered with ruins and rubbish.
    {2004}
       Abulfarage, on the other hand, places the library in the Royal
       Treasury; and the anachronism is just as bad. The royal
       edifices were all contained within the walls of the Bruchion;
       and not one of them could then be left. … As a fact is not
       necessarily incontestable because advanced as such by one or
       even two historians, several persons of learning and research
       have doubted the truth of this assertion. Renaudot (Hist. des
       Patriarches d'Alexandrie) had already questioned its
       authenticity, by observing: 'This account is rather
       suspicious, as is frequently the case with the Arabians.' And,
       lastly, Querci, the two Assemani, Villoison, and Gibbon,
       completely declared themselves against it. Gibbon at once
       expresses his astonishment that two historians, both of Egypt,
       should not have said a word about so remarkable an event. The
       first of these is Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, who
       lived in that city 500 years after it was taken by the
       Saracens, and who gives a long and detailed account, in his
       Annals, both of the siege and the succeeding events; the
       second is Elmacin, a most veracious writer, the author of a
       History of the Saracens, and who especially relates the life
       of Omar, and the taking of Alexandria, with its minutest
       circumstances. Is it conceivable or to be believed that these
       two historians should have been ignorant of so important a
       circumstance? That two learned men who would have been deeply
       interested in such a loss should have made no mention of it,
       though living and writing in Alexandria—Eutychius, too, at no
       distant period from the event? and that we should learn it for
       the first time from a stranger who wrote, six centuries after,
       on the frontiers of Media? Besides, as Gibbon observes, why
       should the Caliph Omar, who was no enemy to science, have
       acted, in this one instance, in direct opposition to his
       character. … To these reasons may be added the remark of a
       German writer, M. Reinhard, who observes that Eutychius
       (Annals of Eutychius, volume ii. page 316) transcribes the
       very words of the letter in which Amrou gives the Caliph Omar
       an account of the taking of Alexandria after a long and
       obstinate siege. 'I have carried the town by storm,' says he,
       'and without any preceding offer of capitulation. I cannot
       describe all the treasures it contains; suffice it to say,
       that it numbers 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 40,000 taxable
       Jews, 400 theatres, 12,000 gardeners who sell vegetables. Your
       Mussulmans demand the privilege of pillaging the city, and
       sharing the booty.' Omar, in his reply, disapproves of the
       request, and expressly forbids all pillage or dilapidation. It
       is plain that, in his official report, Amrou seeks to
       exaggerate the value of his conquest, and to magnify its
       importance, like the diplomatists of our times. He does not
       overlook a single hovel, nor a Jew, nor a gardener. How then
       could he have forgotten the library, he who, according to
       Abulfarage, was a friend to the fine arts and philosophy? …
       Elmacin in turn gives us Amrou's letter nearly in the same
       terms, and not one word of the library. … We … run no
       great risk in drawing the conclusion, from all these premises,
       that the library of the Ptolemies no longer existed in 640 at
       the taking of Alexandria by the Saracens. … If it be true,
       as we have every reason to think, that in 640 … the
       celebrated library no longer existed, we may inquire in what
       manner it had been dispersed and destroyed since 415 when
       Oroses affirms that he saw it? In the first place we must
       observe that Oroses only mentions some presses which he saw in
       the temples. It was not, therefore, the library of the
       Ptolemies as it once existed in the Serapeum. Let us call to
       mind, moreover, that ever since the first Roman emperors,
       Egypt had been the theatre of incessant civil warfare, and we
       shall be surprised that any traces of the library could still
       exist in later times."

          Historical Researches on the pretended burning
          of the Library of Alexandria by the Saracens
          (Fraser's Magazine. April, 1844).

       "After summing up the evidence we have been able to collect in
       regard to these libraries, we conclude that almost all the
       700,000 volumes of the earlier Alexandrian libraries had been
       destroyed before the capture of the city by the Arabs; that
       another of considerable size, but chiefly of Christian
       literature, had been collected in the 250 years just preceding
       the Arab occupation; and that Abulpharaj, in a statement that
       is not literally true, gives, in the main, a correct account
       of the final destruction of the Alexandrian Library."

          C. W. Super,
          Alexandria and its Libraries
          (National Quarterly Review, December, 1875).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Edwards,
          Memoirs of Libraries,
          book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

          E. Edwards,
          Libraries and the Founders of Libraries,
          chapter 1.

          See, also,
          EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA;
          and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

    LIBRARIES:
       Pergamum.

          See PERGAMUM.

    LIBRARIES:
       Rome.

       Pliny states that C. Asinius Pollio was the first who
       established a Public Library in Rome. But "Lucullus was
       undoubtedly before him in this claim upon the gratitude of the
       lovers of books. Plutarch tells us expressly that not only was
       the Library of Lucullus remarkable for its extent and for the
       beauty of the volumes which composed it, but that the use he
       made of them was even more to his honour than the pains he had
       taken in their acquisition. The Library, he says, 'was open to
       all. The Greeks who were at Rome resorted thither, as it were
       to the retreat of the Muses.' It is important to notice that,
       according to Pliny, the benefaction of Asinius Pollio to the
       literate among the Romans was 'ex manubiis.' This expression,
       conjoined with the fact that the statue of M. Varro was placed
       in the Library of Pollio, has led a recent distinguished
       historian of Rome under the Empire, Mr. Merivale, to suggest,
       that very probably Pollio only made additions to that Library
       which, as we know from Suetonius, Julius Cæsar had directed to
       be formed for public use under the care of Varro. These
       exploits of Pollio, which are most likely to have yielded him
       the 'spoils of war,' were of a date many years subsequent to
       the commission given by Cæsar to Varro. It has been usually,
       and somewhat rashly perhaps, inferred that this project, like
       many other schemes that were surging in that busy brain,
       remained a project only. In the absence of proof either way,
       may it not be reasonably conjectured that Varro's bust was
       placed in the Library called Pollio's because Varro had in
       truth carried out Cæsar's plan, with the ultimate concurrence
       and aid of Pollio? This Library—by whomsoever formed—was
       probably in the 'atrium libertatis' on the Aventine Mount.
    {2005}
       From Suetonius we further learn that Augustus added porticoes
       to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Mount, with (as
       appears from monumental inscriptions to those who had charge
       of them) two distinct Libraries of Greek and Latin authors;
       that Tiberius added to the Public Libraries the works of the
       Greek poets Euphorion, Rhianus, and Parthenius,—authors whom
       he especially admired and tried to imitate,—and also their
       statues; that Caligula (in addition to a scheme for
       suppressing Homer) had thoughts of banishing both the works
       and the busts of Virgil and of Livy—characterizing the one
       as a writer of no genius and of little learning, and the other
       (not quite so unfortunately) as a careless and verbose
       historian—from all the Libraries; and that Domitian early in
       his reign restored at vast expense the Libraries in the
       Capitol which had been burnt, and to this end both collected
       MSS. from various countries, and sent scribes to Alexandria
       expressly to copy or to correct works which were there
       preserved. In addition to the Libraries mentioned by
       Suetonius, we read in Plutarch of the Library dedicated by
       Octavia to the memory of Marcellus; in Aulus Gellius of a
       Library in the Palace of Tiberius and of another in the Temple
       of Peace; and in Dion Cassius of the more famous Ulpian
       Library founded by Trajan. This Library, we are told by
       Vopiscus, was in his day added, by way of adornment, to the
       Baths of Diocletian. Of private Libraries amongst the Romans
       one of the earliest recorded is that which Emilius Paulus
       found amongst the spoils of Perseus, and which he is said to
       have shared between his sons. The collection of Tyrunnion,
       some eighty years later (perhaps), amounted, according to a
       passage in Suidas, to 30,000 volumes. That of Lucullus—which,
       some will think, ought to be placed in this category—has been
       mentioned already. With that—the most famous of all—which
       was the delight and the pride of Cicero, every reader of his
       letters has an almost personal familiarity, extending even to
       the names and services of those who were employed in binding
       and in placing the books. … Of the Libraries of the
       long-buried cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum there is not a
       scintilla of information extant, other than that which has
       been gathered from their ruins. At one time great hopes were
       entertained of important additions to classical learning from
       remains, the discovery of which has so largely increased our
       knowledge both of the arts and of the manners of the Romans.
       But all effort in this direction has hitherto been either
       fruitless or else only tantalizing, from the fragmentary
       character of the results attained."

          E. Edwards,
          Memoirs of Libraries,
          pages 26-29.

       "Most houses had a library, which, according to Vitruvius,
       ought to face the east in order to admit the light of the
       morning, and to prevent the books from becoming mouldy. At
       Herculaneum a library with bookcases containing 1,700 scrolls
       has been discovered. The grammarian Epaphroditus possessed a
       library of 30,000, and Sammanicus Serenus, the tutor of the
       younger Gordian, one of 62,000 books. Seneca ridicules the
       fashionable folly of illiterate men who adorned their walls
       with thousands of books, the titles of which were the delight
       of the yawning owner. According to Publius Victor, Rome
       possessed twenty-nine public libraries, the first of which was
       opened by Asinius Polio in the forecourt of the Temple of
       Peace; two others were founded during the reign of Augustus,
       viz., the Octavian and the Palatine libraries. Tiberius,
       Vespasian, Domitian, and Trajan added to their number; the
       Ulpian library, founded by the last-mentioned emperor, being
       the most important of all."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          The Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          p. 531.

    LIBRARIES:
       Herculaneum.

       "Herculaneum remained a subterranean city from the year 79 to
       the year 1706. In the latter year some labourers who were
       employed in digging a well came upon a statue, a circumstance
       which led—not very speedily but in course of time … —to
       systematic excavations. Almost half a century passed, however,
       before the first roll of papyrus was discovered, near to
       Portici at a depth from the surface of about 120 English feet.
       In the course of a year or two, some 250 rolls—most of them
       Greek—had been found. … In 1754, further and more careful
       researches were made by Camillo Paderni, who succeeded in
       getting together no less than 337 Greek volumes and 18 Latin
       volumes. The latter were of larger dimensions than the Greek,
       and in worse condition. Very naturally, great interest was
       excited by these discoveries amongst scholars in all parts of
       Europe. In the years 1754 and 1755 the subject was repeatedly
       brought before the Royal Society by Mr. Locke and other of its
       fellows, sometimes in the form of communications from Paderni
       himself; at other times from the notes and observations of
       travellers. In one of these papers the disinterred rolls are
       described as appearing at first 'like roots of wood, all
       black, and seeming to be only of one piece. One of them
       falling on the ground, it broke in the middle, and many
       letters were observed, by which it was first known that the
       rolls were of papyrus. … They were in wooden cases, so much
       burnt, … that they cannot be recovered.' … At the
       beginning of the present century the attention of the British
       government was, to some extent, attracted to this subject. …
       Leave was at length obtained from the Neapolitan government
       for a literary mission to Herculaneum, which was entrusted to
       Mr. Hayter, one of the chaplains to the Prince Regent. But the
       results were few and unsatisfactory. … The Commission
       subsequently entrusted to Dr. Sickler of Hildburghausen was
       still more unfortunate. … In 1818, a committee of the House
       of Commons was appointed to inquire into the matter. It
       reported that, after an expenditure of about £1,100, no useful
       results had been attained. This inquiry and the experiments of
       Sickler led Sir Humphrey Davy to investigate the subject, and
       to undertake two successive journeys into Italy for its
       thorough elucidation. His account of his researches is highly
       interesting. … 'My experiments,' says Sir Humphrey Davy, …
       'soon convinced me that the nature of these MSS. had been
       generally misunderstood; that they had not, as is usually
       supposed, been carbonized by the operation of fire, … but
       were in a state analogous to peat or Bovey coal, the leaves
       being generally cemented into one mass by a peculiar substance
       which had formed during the fermentation and chemical change
       of the vegetable matter comprising them, in a long course of
       ages. The nature of this substance being known, the
       destruction of it became a subject of obvious chemical
       investigation; and I was fortunate enough to find means of
       accomplishing this, without injuring the characters or
       destroying the texture of the MSS.' These means Sir Humphrey
       Davy has described very minutely in his subsequent
       communications to the Royal Society.
    {2006}
       Briefly, they may be said to have consisted in a mixture of a
       solution of glue with alcohol, enough to gelatinize it,
       applied by a camel's hair brush, for the separation of the
       layers. The process was sometimes assisted by the agency of
       ether, and the layers were dried by the action of a stream of
       air warmed gradually up to the temperature of boiling water.
       'After the chemical operation, the leaves of most of the
       fragments separated perfectly from each other, and the Greek
       characters were in a high degree distinct. … The MSS. were
       probably on shelves of wood, which were broken down when the
       roofs of the houses yielded to the weight of the
       superincumbent mass. Hence, many of them were crushed and
       folded in a moist state, and the leaves of some pressed
       together in a perpendicular direction … in confused heaps;
       in these heaps the exterior MSS. … must have been acted on
       by the water; and as the ancient ink was composed of finely
       divided charcoal suspended in a solution of glue or gum,
       wherever the water percolated continuously, the characters
       were more or less erased.' … Sir Humphrey Davy proceeds to
       state that, according to the information given him, the number
       of MSS. and fragments of MSS. originally deposited in the
       Naples Museum was 1,696; that of these 88 had then been
       unrolled and found to be legible; that 319 others had been
       operated upon, and more or less unrolled, but were illegible;
       that 24 had been sent abroad as presents; and that of the
       remaining 1,265—which he had carefully examined—the majority
       were either small fragments, or MSS. so crushed and mutilated
       as to offer little hope of separation; whilst only from 80 to
       120 offered a probability of success (and he elsewhere
       adds:—'this estimate, as my researches proceeded, appeared
       much too high'). … 'Of the 88 unrolled MSS. … the great
       body consists of works of Greek philosophers or sophists; nine
       are of Epicurus; thirty-two bear the name of Philodemus, three
       of Demetrius, one of each of these authors:—Colotes,
       Polystratus, Carneades, Chrysippus; and the subjects of these
       works, … and of those the authors of which are unknown, are
       either Natural or Moral Philosophy, Medicine, Criticism, and
       general observations on Arts, Life, and Manners.'"

          E. Edwards,
          Memoirs of Libraries,
          volume 1, book 1, chapter 5.

    LIBRARIES:
       Constantinople.

       "When Constantine the Great, in the year 336, made Byzantium
       the seat of his empire, he in a great measure newly built the
       city, decorated it with numerous splendid edifices, and called
       it after his own name. Desirous of making reparation to the
       Christians, for the injuries they had sustained during the
       reign of his tyrannical predecessor, this prince commanded the
       most diligent search to be made after those books which had been
       doomed to destruction. He caused transcripts to be made of
       such books as had escaped the Diocletian persecution; to these
       he added others, and with the whole formed a valuable Library
       at Constantinople. On the death of Constantine, the number of
       books contained in the Imperial Library was only six thousand
       nine hundred; but it was successively enlarged by the
       emperors, Julian and Theodosius the younger, the latter of
       whom augmented it to one hundred thousand volumes. Of these,
       more than half were burnt in the seventh century, by command
       of the emperor Leo III., in order to destroy all the monuments
       that might be quoted in proof against his opposition to the
       worship of images. In this library was deposited the only
       authentic copy of the Council of Nice: it has also been
       asserted that the works of Homer, written in golden letters,
       were consumed at the same time, together with a magnificent
       copy of the Four Gospels, bound in plates of gold to the
       weight of fifteen pounds, and enriched with precious stones.
       The convulsions that weakened the lower empire, were by no
       means favourable to the interests of literature. During the
       reign of Constantine Porphyrogennetus (in the eleventh entry)
       literature flourished for a short time: and he is said to have
       employed many learned Greeks in collecting books for a library,
       the arrangement of which he superintended himself. The final
       subversion of the Eastern Empire, and the capture of
       Constantinople by Mohammed II., A. D. 1453, dispersed the
       literati of Greece over Western Europe: but the Imperial
       Library was preserved by the express command of the conqueror,
       and continued to be kept in some apartments of the Seraglio;
       until Mourad (or Amurath) IV., in a fit of devotion,
       sacrificed (as it is reported) all the books in this Library
       to his hatred against the Christians."

          T. H. Horne,
          Introduction to the Study of Bibliography,
          pages 23-25.

    LIBRARIES:
       Tripoli.
       Destruction of Library by Crusaders.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

    LIBRARIES:
       Mediæval.

       Monastic Libraries.

       "In every monastery there was established first a library,
       then great studios, where, to increase the number of books,
       skilful caligraphers transcribed manuscripts; and finally,
       schools, open to all those who had need of, or desire for,
       instruction. At Montierender, at Lorsch, at Corvey, at Fulda,
       at St. Gall, at Reichenau, at Nonantula, at Monte Cassino, at
       Wearmouth, at St. Albans, at Croyland, there were famous
       libraries. At St. Michael, at Luneburg, there were two—one
       for the abbot and one for the monks. In other abbeys, as at
       Hirschau, the abbot himself took his place in the Scriptorium,
       where many other monks were occupied in copying manuscripts.
       At St. Riquier, books bought for high prices, or transcribed
       with the utmost care, were regarded as the most valuable
       jewels of the monastery. 'Here,' says the chronicler of the
       abbey, counting up with innocent pride the volumes which it
       contained—'here are the riches of the cloister, the treasures
       of the celestial life, which fatten the soul by their
       sweetness. This is how we fulfil the excellent precept, Love
       the study of the Scriptures, and you will not love vice.' If
       we were called upon to enumerate the principal centres of
       learning in this century, we should be obliged to name nearly
       all the great abbeys whose founders we have mentioned, for
       most of them were great homes of knowledge. … The principal
       and most constant occupation of the learned Benedictine nuns
       was the transcription of manuscripts. It can never be known
       how many services to learning and history were rendered by
       their delicate hands throughout the middle ages. They brought
       to the work a dexterity, an elegance, and an assiduity which
       the monks themselves could not attain, and we owe to them some
       of the most beautiful specimens of the marvellous caligraphy of
       the period. … Nuns, therefore, were the rivals of monks in
       the task of enlarging and fertilising the field of Catholic
       learning.
    {2007}
       Every one is aware that the copying of manuscripts was one of
       the habitual occupations of monks. By it they fed the
       claustral libraries already spoken of, and which are the
       principal source of modern knowledge. Thus we must again refer
       to the first beginning of the Monastic Orders to find the
       earliest traces of a custom which from that time was, as it
       were, identified with the practices of religious life. In the
       depths of the Thebaïde, in the primitive monasteries of
       Tabenna, every house … had its library. There is express
       mention made of this in the rule of St. Benedict. … In the
       seventh century, St. Benedict Biscop, founder and abbot of
       Wearmouth in England, undertook five sea-voyages to search for
       and purchase books for his abbey, to which each time he
       brought back a large cargo. In the ninth century, Loup of
       Ferrières transformed his monastery of St. Josse-sur-Mer into
       a kind of depot for the trade in books which was carried on
       with England. About the same time, during the wars which
       ravaged Lombardy, most of the literary treasures which are now
       the pride of the Ambrosian library were being collected in the
       abbey of Bobbio. The monastery of Pomposa, near Ravenna, had,
       according to contemporaries, a finer library than those of
       Rome or of any other town in the world. In the eleventh
       century, the library of the abbey of Croyland numbered 3,000
       volumes. The library of Novalese had 6,700, which the monks
       saved at the risk of their lives when their abbey was
       destroyed by the Saracens in 905. Hirschau contained an
       immense number of manuscripts. But, for the number and value
       of its books, Fulda eclipsed all the monasteries of Germany,
       and perhaps of the whole Christian world. On the other hand,
       some writers assure us that Monte Cassino, under the Abbot
       Didier, the friend of Gregory VII., possessed the richest
       collection which it was possible to find. The libraries thus
       created by the labours of monks became, as it were, the
       intellectual arsenals of princes and potentates. … There
       were also collections of books in all the cathedrals, in all
       the collegiate churches, and in many of the castles. Much has
       been said of the excessive price of certain books during the
       middle ages: Robertson and his imitators, in support of this
       theory, are fond of quoting the famous collection of homilies
       that Grecia Countess of Anjou bought, in 1056, for two hundred
       sheep, a measure of wheat, one of millet, one of rye, several
       marten-skins, and four pounds of silver. An instance like this
       always produces its effect; but these writers forgot to say
       that the books bought for such high prices were admirable
       specimens of caligraphy, of painting, and of carving. It would
       be just as reasonable to quote the exorbitant sums paid at
       sales by bibliomaniacs of our days, in order to prove that
       since the invention of printing, books have been excessive in
       price. Moreover, the ardent fondness of the Countess Grecia
       for beautiful books had been shared by other amateurs of a
       much earlier date. Bede relates that Alfred, King of
       Northumbria in the seventh century, gave eight hides of land
       to St. Benedict Biscop in exchange for a Cosmography which
       that book-loving abbot had bought at Rome. The monks loved
       their books with a passion which has never been surpassed in
       modern times. … It is an error to … suppose that books of
       theology or piety alone filled the libraries of the monks.
       Some enemies of the religious orders have, indeed, argued that
       this was the case; but the proof of the contrary is evident in
       all documents relating to the subject. The catalogues of the
       principal monastic libraries during those centuries which
       historians regard as most barbarous, are still in existence;
       and these catalogues amply justify the sentence of the great
       Leibnitz, when he said, 'Books and learning were preserved by
       the monasteries.' It is acknowledged that if, on one hand, the
       Benedictines settled in Iceland collected the Eddas and the
       principal traditions of the Scandinavian mythology, on the
       other all the monuments of Greece and Rome which escaped the
       devastations of barbarians were saved by the monks of Italy,
       France, and Germany, and by them alone. And if in some
       monasteries the scarcity of parchment and the ignorance of the
       superiors permitted the destruction, by copyists, of a certain
       small number of precious works, how can we forget that without
       these same copyists we should possess nothing—absolutely
       nothing—of classic antiquity? … Alcuin enumerates among the
       books in the library at York the works of Aristotle, Cicero,
       Pliny, Virgil, Statius, Lucan, and of Trogus Pompeïus. In his
       correspondence with Charlemagne he quotes Ovid, Horace,
       Terence, and Cicero, acknowledging that in his youth he had
       been more moved by the tears of Dido than by the Psalms of
       David."

          Count de Montalembert,
          The Monks of the West,
          book 18, chapter 4 (volume 6).

       "It is in the great houses of the Benedictine Order that we
       find the largest libraries, such as in England at Bury St.
       Edmund's, Glastonbury, Peterborough, Heading, St. Alban's,
       and, above all, that of Christ Church in Canterbury, probably
       the earliest library formed in England. Among the other
       English monasteries of the libraries of which we still possess
       catalogues or other details, are St. Peter's at York,
       described in the eighth century by Alcuin, St. Cuthbert's at
       Durham, and St. Augustine's at Canterbury. At the dissolution
       of the monasteries their libraries were dispersed, and the
       basis of the great modern libraries is the volumes thus
       scattered over England. In general, the volumes were disposed
       much as now, that is to say, upright, and in large cases
       affixed to a wall, often with doors. The larger volumes at
       least were in many cases chained, so that they could only be
       used within about six feet of their proper place; and since
       the chain was always riveted on the fore-edge of one of the
       sides of a book, the back of the volume had to be thrust first
       into the shelf, leaving the front edge of the leaves exposed
       to view. Many old volumes bear a mark in ink on this front
       edge; and when this is the case, we may be sure that it was
       once chained in a library; and usually a little further
       investigation will disclose the mark of a rivet on one of the
       sides. Regulations were carefully made to prevent the mixture
       of different kinds of books, and their overcrowding or
       inconvenient position; while an organized system of lending
       was in vogue, by which at least once a year, and less formally
       at shorter intervals, the monks could change or renew the
       volumes already on loan. … Let us take an example of the
       arrangement of a monastic library of no special distinction in
       A. D. 1400,—that at Titchfield Abbey,—describing it in the
       words of the register of the monastery itself, only
       translating the Latin into English.
    {2008}
       'The arrangement of the library of the monastery of Tychefeld
       is this:—There are in the library of Tychefeld four cases
       (columnae) in which to place books, of which two, the first
       and second, are on the eastern face; on the southern face is
       the third, and on the northern face the fourth. And each of
       them has eight shelves (gradus), marked with a letter and
       number affixed on the front of each shelf, that is to say, on
       the lower board of each of the aforesaid shelves; certain
       letters, however, are excepted, namely A, H, K, L, M, O, P, Q,
       which have no numbers affixed, because all the volumes to
       which one of those letters belongs are contained in the shelf
       to which that letter is assigned. [That is, the shelves with
       the letters A, H, K, etc., have a complete class of books in
       each, and in no case does that class overflow into a second
       shelf, so there was no need of marking these shelves with
       numbers as well as letters, in the way in which the rest were
       marked. Thus we should find 'B 1,' 'B 2,' 'B 3,' … 'B 7,'
       because B filled seven shelves; but 'A' only, because A filled
       one shelf alone.] So all and singular the volumes of the said
       library are fully marked on the first leaf and elsewhere on
       the shelf belonging to the book, with certain numbered
       letters. And in order that what is in the library may be more
       quickly found, the marking of the shelves of the said library,
       the inscriptions in the books, and the references in the
       register, in all points agree with each other. Anno Domini
       MCCCC.' … Titchfield Abbey was a Præmonstratensian house,
       founded in the thirteenth century, and never specially rich or
       prominent; yet we find it with a good library of sixty-eight
       books in theology, thirty-nine in Canon and Civil Law,
       twenty-nine in Medicine, thirty-seven in Arts, and in all
       three hundred and twenty-six volumes, many containing several
       treatises, so that the total number of works was considerably
       over a thousand."

          F. Madan,
          Books in Manuscript,
          pp. 76-79.

    LIBRARIES:
       Renaissance.

       Italy.

       On the revival of learning in Italy, "scarcity of books was at
       first a chief impediment to the study of antiquity. Popes and
       princes and even great religious institutions possessed far
       fewer books than many farmers of the present age. The library
       belonging to the Cathedral Church of S. Martino at Lucca in
       the ninth century contained only nineteen volumes of
       abridgements from ecclesiastical commentaries. The Cathedral
       of Novara in 1212 could boast copies of Boethius, Priscian,
       the Code of Justinian, the Decretals, and the Etymology of
       Isidorus, besides a Bible and some devotional treatises. This
       slender stock passed for great riches. Each of the precious
       volumes in such a collection was an epitome of mediæval art.
       Its pages were composed of fine vellum adorned with pictures.
       The initial letters displayed elaborate flourishes and
       exquisitely illuminated groups of figures. The scribe took
       pains to render his caligraphy perfect, and to ornament the
       margins with crimson, gold, and blue. Then he handed the
       parchment sheets to the binder, who encased them in rich
       settings of velvet or carved ivory and wood, embossed with
       gold and precious stones. The edges were gilt and stamped with
       patterns. The clasps were of wrought silver chased with
       niello. The price of such masterpieces was enormous. … Of
       these MSS. the greater part were manufactured in the
       cloisters, and it was here too that the martyrdom of ancient
       authors took place. Lucretius and Livy gave place to
       chronicles, antiphonaries, and homilies. Parchment was
       extremely dear, and the scrolls which nobody could read might
       be scraped and washed. Accordingly, the copyist erased the
       learning of the ancients, and filled the fair blank space he
       gained with litanies. At the same time it is but just to the
       monks to add that palimpsests have occasionally been found in
       which ecclesiastical works have yielded place to copies of the
       Latin poets used in elementary education. Another obstacle to
       the diffusion of learning was the incompetence of the
       copyists. It is true that at the great universities
       'stationarii,' who supplied the text-books in use to students,
       were certified and subjected to the control of special censors
       called 'Preciani.' Yet their number was not large, and when
       they quitted the routine to which they were accustomed their
       incapacity betrayed itself by numerous errors. Petrarch's
       invective against the professional copyists shows the depth to
       which the art had sunk. 'Who,' he exclaims, 'will discover a
       cure for the ignorance and vile sloth of these copyists, who
       spoil everything and turn it to nonsense? If Cicero, Livy, and
       other illustrious ancients were to return to life, do you
       think they would understand their own works? There is no check
       upon these copyists, selected without examination or test of
       their capacity.' … At the same time the copyists formed a
       necessary and flourishing class of craftsmen. They were well
       paid. … Under these circumstances it was usual for even the
       most eminent scholars, like Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Poggio,
       to make their own copies of MSS. Niccolo de' Niccoli
       transcribed nearly the whole of the codices that formed the
       nucleus of the Library of the Mark. … It is clear that the
       first step toward the revival of learning implied three
       things: first, the collection of MSS. wherever they could be
       saved from the indolence of the monks; secondly, the formation
       of libraries for their preservation; and, thirdly, the
       invention of an art whereby they might be multiplied cheaply,
       conveniently, and accurately. The labour involved in the
       collection of classical manuscripts had to be performed by a
       few enthusiastic scholars, who received no help from the
       universities and their academical scribes, and who met with no
       sympathy in the monasteries they were bent on ransacking. …
       The monks performed at best the work of earthworms, who
       unwittingly preserve fragments of Greek architecture from
       corrosion by heaping mounds of mould and rubbish round them.
       Meanwhile the humanists went forth with the instinct of
       explorers to release the captives and awake the dead. From the
       convent libraries of Italy, from the museums of
       Constantinople, from the abbeys of Germany and Switzerland and
       France, the slumbering spirits of the ancients had to be
       evoked. … This work of discovery began with Petrarch. … It
       was carried on by Boccaccio. The account given by Benvenuto da
       Imola of Boccaccio's visit to Monte Cassino brings vividly
       before us both the ardour of these first explorers and the
       apathy of the Benedictines (who have sometimes been called the
       saviours of learning) with regard to the treasures of their
       own libraries. …
    {2009}
       'Desirous of seeing the collection of books, which he
       understood to be a very choice one, he modestly asked a
       monk—for he was always most courteous in manners—to open the
       library, as a favour, for him. The monk answered stiffly,
       pointing to a steep staircase, "Go up; it is open." Boccaccio
       went up gladly; but he found that the place which held so
       great a treasure was without door or key. He entered, and saw
       grass sprouting on the windows, and all the books and benches
       thick with dust. In his astonishment he began to open and turn
       the leaves of first one tome and then another, and found many
       and divers volumes of ancient and foreign works. Some of them
       had lost several sheets; others were snipped and pared all
       round the text, and mutilated in various ways. At length,
       lamenting that the toil and study of so many illustrious men
       should have passed into the hands of most abandoned wretches,
       he departed with tears and sighs. Coming to the cloister, he
       asked a monk whom he met, why those valuable books had been so
       disgracefully mangled. He answered that the monks, seeking to
       gain a few soldi, were in the habit of cutting off sheets and
       making psalters, which they sold to boys. The margins too they
       manufactured into charms, and sold to women.' … What Italy
       contained of ancient codices soon saw the light. The visit of
       Poggio Bracciolini to Constance (1414) opened up for Italian
       scholars the stores that lay neglected in transalpine
       monasteries. … The treasures he unearthed at Reichenau,
       Weingarten, and above all S. Gallen, restored to Italy many
       lost masterpieces of Latin literature, and supplied students
       with full texts of authors who had hitherto been known in
       mutilated copies. The account he gave of his visit to S.
       Gallen in a Latin letter to a friend is justly celebrated. …
       'In the middle [he says] of a well-stocked library, too large
       to catalogue at present, we discovered Quintilian, safe as yet
       and sound, though covered with dust and filthy with neglect
       and age. The books, you must know, were not housed according
       to their worth, but were lying in a most foul and obscure
       dungeon at the very bottom of a tower, a place into which
       condemned criminals would hardly have been thrust; and I am
       firmly persuaded that if anyone would but explore those
       ergastula of the barbarians wherein they incarcerate such men,
       we should meet with like good fortune in the case of many
       whose funeral orations have long ago been pronounced. Besides
       Quintilian, we exhumed the three first books and a half of the
       fourth book of the Argonautica of Flaccus, and the
       Commentaries of Asconius Pedianus upon eight orations of
       Cicero.' … Never was there a time in the world's history
       when money was spent more freely upon the collection and
       preservation of MSS., and when a more complete machinery was
       put in motion for the sake of securing literary treasures."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Revival of Learning,
          chapter 3.

    LIBRARIES: Modern.
       Europe: Rise and growth of the greater Libraries.

       In a work entitled "Essai Statistique sur les Bibliothèques de
       Vienne," published in 1835, M. Adrien Balbi entered into an
       examination of the literary and numerical value of the
       principal libraries of ancient and modern times. M. Balbi, in
       this work, shows that "the Imperial Library of Vienna,
       regularly increasing from the epoch of its formation, by means
       equally honorable to the sovereign and to the nation, held,
       until the French revolution, the first place among the
       libraries of Europe. Since that period, several other
       institutions have risen to a much higher numerical rank. …
       No one of the libraries of the first class, now in existence,
       dates beyond the fifteenth century. The Vatican, the origin of
       which has been frequently carried back to the days of St.
       Hilarius, in 465, cannot, with any propriety, be said to have
       deserved the name of library before the reign of Martin the
       Fifth, by whose order it was removed from Avignon to Rome in
       1417. And even then, a strict attention to the force of the
       term would require us to withhold from it this title, until
       the period of its final organization by Nicholas the Fifth, in
       1447. It is difficult to speak with certainty concerning the
       libraries, whether public or private, which are supposed to
       have existed previous to the fifteenth century, both on
       account of the doubtful authority and indefiniteness of the
       passages in which they are mentioned, and the custom which so
       readily obtained, in those dark ages, of dignifying every
       petty collection with the name of library. But many libraries
       of the fifteenth century being still in existence, and others
       having been preserved long enough to make them the subject of
       historical inquiry before their dissolution, it becomes easier
       to fix, with satisfactory accuracy, the date of their
       foundation. We find accordingly, that, including the Vatican,
       and the libraries of Vienna, Ratisbon, and the Laurentian of
       Florence, which are a few years anterior to it, no less than
       ten were formed between the years 1430 and 1500. The increase
       of European libraries has generally been slowly progressive,
       although there have been periods of sudden augmentation in
       nearly all. Most of them began with a small number of
       manuscripts, sometimes with a few printed volumes, and often
       without any. To these, gradual accessions were made, from the
       different sources, which have always been more or less at the
       command of the sovereigns and nobles of Europe. In 1455, the
       Vatican contained 5,000 manuscripts. … Far different was the
       progress of the Royal Library of Paris. The origin of this
       institution is placed in the year 1595, the date of its
       removal from Fontainebleau to Paris by order of Henry the
       Fourth. In 1660, it contained but 1,435 printed volumes. In
       the course of the following year, this number was raised to
       16,746, both printed volumes and manuscripts. During the
       ensuing eight years the library was nearly doubled; and before
       the close of the next century, it was supposed to have been
       augmented by upwards of 100,000 volumes more."

          G. W. Greene,
          Historical Studies,
          pages 278-281.

       "The oldest of the great libraries of printed books is
       probably that of Vienna, which dates from 1440, and is said to
       have been opened to the public as early as 1575. The Town
       Library of Ratisbon dates from 1430; St. Mark's Library at
       Venice, from 1468; the Town Library of Frankfort, from 1484;
       that of Hamburg, from 1529; of Strasburg, from 1531; of
       Augsburg, from 1537; those of Berne and Geneva, from 1550;
       that of Basel, from 1564. The Royal Library of Copenhagen was
       founded about 1550. In 1671 it possessed 10,000 volumes; in
       1748, about 65,000; in 1778, 100,000; in 1820, 300,000; and it
       now contains 410,000 volumes. The National Library of Paris was
       founded in 1595, but was not made public until 1737. In 1640
       it contained about 17,000 volumes; in 1684, 50,000; in 1775,
       150,000; in 1790, 200,000."

          E. Edwards,
          A Statistical View of the Principal Public Libraries in
          Europe and the United States Of America,
          (Journal of the Statistical Society, August., 1848).

    {2010}

    LIBRARIES: Modern.
       Germany.

       According to "Minerva" (the "Year-book of the Learned World"),
       for 1893-94, the Royal Library at Berlin contains 850,000
       printed books and 24,622 manuscripts; the Münich University
       Library, 370,000 books and 50,000 pamphlets, including 2,101
       incunabula; the Leipsic University Library, 500,000 printed
       books, and 4,000 manuscripts; Heidelberg University Library,
       400,000 bound volumes (including 1,000 incunabula), and
       175,000 pamphlets and "dissertationen," with a large
       collection of manuscripts; Dresden Royal Public Library,
       300,000 printed books (including 2,000 incunabula), 6,000
       manuscripts, and 20,000 maps; Freiburg University Library,
       250,000 volumes and over 500 manuscripts; Königsberg
       University Library, 220,000 volumes and 1,100 manuscripts;
       Tübingen University Library, 300,000 volumes and 3,500
       manuscripts; Jena University Library, 200,000 volumes and
       100,000 "dissertationen"; Halle University Library, 182,000
       books and 800 manuscripts, besides 12,800 books, 35,000
       pamphlets and 1,040 manuscripts in the Ponickausche
       Bibliothek, which is united with the University Library;
       Hamburg City Library, about 500,000 printed books and 5,000
       manuscripts; Frankfort City Library (April, 1893), 326,139
       volumes; Cologne City Library, 105,000 volumes, including
       2,000 incunabula; Augsburg City and Provincial Library, about
       200,000 volumes (including 1,760 incunabula) and 2,000
       manuscripts; Göttingen University Library, 456,000 volumes of
       books and 5,300 manuscripts; Gotha Public Library, 200,000
       printed books, including 1,029 incunabula, and 7,037
       manuscripts, of which 3,500 are oriental; Greifswald
       University Library, 143 volumes of printed books and about 800
       manuscripts; Bamberg Royal Public Library, 300,000 volumes,
       3,132 manuscripts; Berlin University Library, 142,129 volumes;
       Bonn University Library, 219,000 volumes, including 1,235
       incunabula, and 1,273 manuscripts; Bremen City Library,
       120,000 volumes; Breslau University Library, 300,000 volumes,
       including about 2,500 incunabula, and about 3,000 manuscripts;
       Breslau City Library, 150,000 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
       Erlangen University Library, 180,000 volumes; Hanover Royal
       Public Library, 180,000 books and 3,500 manuscripts; Hanover
       City Library, 47,000 volumes; Carlsruhe Grand-ducal Library,
       159,842 books and 3,754 manuscripts; Kiel University Library,
       217,039 volumes, 2,375 manuscripts; Colmar City Library,
       80,000 volumes; Marburg University Library, 150,000 volumes;
       Strasburg University Library, 700,000 volumes; Strasburg City
       Library, 90,000 volumes; Weimar Grand-ducal Library, 223,000
       volumes and 2,000 manuscripts; Würzburg University Library,
       300,000 volumes.

          Minerva, 1893-94.

       "The Munich library, … in matter of administration,
       resembles the British Museum. Here one finds carefully
       catalogued that great wealth of material that appears only in
       doctorate theses, and for this reason is most valuable to the
       historic student. No tedious formalities are insisted upon,
       and orders for books are not subjected to long delays. The
       Vienna library moves slowly, as though its machinery were
       retarded by the weight of its royal imperial name. The
       catalogue is not accessible, the attendants are not anxious to
       please, and the worker feels no special affection for the
       institution. But at the royal library of Berlin there exists
       an opposite state of affairs—with the catalogue at hand one
       can readily give the information needful in filling up the
       call card. This being a lending library, one occasionally
       meets with disappointment, but, as the privilege of borrowing
       is easily had, this feature can have a compensatory side. The
       most marked peculiarity found here is the periodic delivery of
       books. All books ordered before nine o'clock are delivered at
       eleven; those before eleven, at one; those before one, at
       three; and those after three are delivered the same day if
       possible. This causes some delay, but as soon as the rule is
       known it has no drawback for the continuous user, and for the
       benefit of one who wants only a single order there is placed
       at the outer door of the building a box into which one can
       deposit the call card, and returning at the proper time find
       the book waiting in the reading room above. This saves the
       climbing of many steps, and enables one to perform other
       duties between ordering and receiving. As far as I know, here
       alone does one purchase the call cards, but as the price is
       only twenty cents per hundred the cost is not an important
       item."

          J. H. Gore,
          Library Facilities for Study in Europe
          (Educational Review, June, 1893).

       In Berlin, "the report of the city government for 1889-00
       reckons 25 public free libraries; 334,837 books were read by
       14,900 persons, i. e., 17,219 volumes less than last year. The
       expenses were 26,490 marks, the allowance from the city
       treasury 23,400 marks [less than $6,000]."

          The Library Journal, May, 1892.

    LIBRARIES: France:
       The Bibliothèque Nationale.

       "The history of the vast collection of books which is now,
       after many wanderings, definitely located in the Rue de
       Richelieu, divides itself naturally into three periods, which,
       for the sake of convenience, may well be called by three of
       the names under which the Library has, at different times,
       been known. The first period is that in which the Library was
       nothing more than the private collection of each successive
       sovereign of France, which sometimes accompanied him in his
       journeys, and but too often, as in the case of King John, or
       that of Charles VII., shared in his misfortunes; it was then
       fitly called the 'Bibliothèque du Roi.' This period may be
       considered as ending in the time of Henry IV., who transferred
       the royal collection from Fontainebleau to Paris, and gave it
       a temporary home in the College de Clermont. Although its
       abode has often been changed since, it has never again been
       attached to a royal palace, or been removed from the capital.
       The second period dates from this act of Henry the Fourth's,
       and extends down to the Revolution of 1780, during which time
       the Library, although open with but slight restrictions to all
       men of letters who were well recommended, and to the general
       public for two days a week, from the year 1692, was not
       regarded as national property, but as an appendage of the
       Crown, which was indeed graciously opened to the learned, but
       was only national property in the same sense that the Queen's
       private library at Windsor is national property.
    {2011}
       Although still called the Bibliothèque du Roi during this
       period, it may well be here spoken of, for the sake of
       distinction, as the Bibliothèque Royale down to the
       Revolution. In 1791, the King's library was proclaimed
       national property, and it was decreed that it should
       henceforth be called 'Bibliothèque Nationale,' which name it
       bore till the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French,
       in 1805, when it was styled 'Bibliothèque Impériale.' Of
       course it was Bibliothèque Royale again in 1815, 'Nationale'
       in 1848, and once again, in 1852, was declared to be the
       'Bibliothèque Impériale.'"

          Imperial Library of Paris
          (Westminster Review, April, 1870).

       After the fall of the Second Empire, the great library again
       became "Nationale" in name. According to a report made in the
       spring of 1894, the Bibliothèque Nationale of France
       contained, at the end of the previous year, 1,934,154
       "'numbers,' forming at least 2,600,000 volumes." This report
       was made by a committee of twenty persons, appointed to
       consider the advisability and method of printing the catalogue
       of the library. The conclusions of the committee are favorable
       to the printing of the catalogue.

          The Nation,
          May 17, 1894.

       Books come to the National Library "in three ways: from (1)
       gifts, about 3,000 a year; … (2) purchase, 4,500 (the
       library has $20,000 a year to spend on books and binding); (3)
       copyright, 22,000 articles and 6,000 pieces of music. The
       printer, not the publisher, is bound to make the deposit, so
       that if the text and the illustrations are printed at
       different places there is a chance, unless everyone is
       careful, that the library will have an imperfect copy. But the
       greatest trouble comes from periodicals, of which the
       Bibliothèque Nationale receives 3,000. What would some of our
       librarians think of this who are inclined to boast or to
       lament that they receive 300? Every number of every newspaper
       in France must be received, sent for if it fails to come,
       registered, put on its pile, and at the end of the year tied
       up in a bundle and put away (for only the most important are
       bound). … The titles of new books are printed in a bulletin
       in two series, French and Foreign (causing a printer's bill of
       5,000 francs a year). This began in 1875 for the foreign, and
       in 1882 for the French. These bulletins are cut up and the
       titles mounted on slips, which are fastened in a Leyden
       binder, three making a small folio page. The result is a
       series of 900 volumes, less easy to consult than a good card
       catalog, very much less easy than the British Museum pasted
       catalog, the Rudolph books, or the Rudolph machine. … The
       books received at the Bibliothèque Nationale before 1875 and
       1882 are entered on some 2,000,000 slips, which are divided
       between two catalogs, that of the old library ('fonds
       ancien'), and of the intermediate library ('fonds
       intermédiarie'). In each of these catalogs they are arranged
       in series according to the subject divisions given above and
       under each subject alphabetically. There is no author catalog
       and the public are not allowed to consult these catalogs. If
       then a reader asks for a work received before 1875 the
       attendant guesses in which 'fonds' it is and what subject it
       treats of; if he does not find it where he looks first he
       tries some other division. No wonder it takes on an average
       half an hour for the reader to get his book. I must bear
       witness to the great skill which necessity has developed in
       the officials charged with this work. Some of their successes
       in bringing me out-of-the-way books were marvellous. On the
       other hand, when they reported certain works not in the
       library I did not feel at all sure that they were right, and I
       dare say they doubted themselves. All this will be changed
       when the library gets a printed alphabetical catalog of
       authors and has made from it a pasted alphabetical catalog of
       subjects. The author catalog, by the way, is expected to fill
       40,000 double-columned quarto pages. … The library now has
       50 kilometres (31 miles) of shelves and is full. A new
       store-house is needed and a public reading room ('salle de
       lecture'), which can be lighted by electricity, and be opened,
       like the British Museum, in the evening."

          C. A. Cutter,
          Notes on the Bibliothèque Nationale
          (Library Journal, June, 1894).

    LIBRARIES: France:
       Paris Municipal Libraries.

       "The Bibliothèques Municipales de Paris have undergone a rapid
       development within the last few years. In 1878 there were only
       nine altogether, of which five were little used, and four
       practically unused. A special Bureau was then appointed by the
       Municipal Council to take charge of them, with the result that
       altogether 22 libraries have been opened, while the number of
       volumes lent rose from 29,339 in 1878 to 57,840 in 1879, to
       147,567 in 1880, to 242,738 in 1881, and to 363,322 in 1882.
       … A sum of 3,050 francs is placed at the disposal of each
       library by the Municipal Council, which is thus appropriated;
       Books and Binding, Fr. 1,750; Librarian, 1,000; Attendant,
       300. The amount of the sums thus voted by the Municipal
       Council in the year 1883 was 110,150 fr. For the year of 1884
       the sum of 171,700 fr. has been voted, the increase being
       intended to provide for the establishment of fifteen new
       libraries in Communal Schools, as well as for the growing
       requirements of some of the libraries already established. The
       individual libraries are not, of course, as yet very
       considerable in point of numbers. The stock possessed by the
       twenty-two Bibliothèques Municipales in 1882 was 87,831
       volumes, of which 20,411 had been added during that year.
       Information received since the publication of M. Dardenne's
       Report places the number in 1883 at 98,843 volumes. … The
       libraries are open to the public gratuitously every evening
       from 8 to 10 o'clock, and are closed on five days only during
       the whole year. Books may be read in the library or are lent
       out for home use. … Music is lent as well as books, the
       experiment having been first tried at the Mairie of the second
       arrondissement, in 1879, and having proved so successful that
       nine arrondissements have followed suit, and the total number
       of musical issues from the ten libraries in 1882 was 9,085.
       … Beside these libraries under the direction of the Mairies,
       there are a certain number of popular free libraries
       established and supported by voluntary efforts. Without
       dwelling upon the history of these libraries, all of which
       have been formed since 1860, it may be stated that there are
       now fourteen such libraries in as many arrondissements."

          E. C. Thomas,
          The Popular Libraries of Paris
          (Library Chronicle, volume 1, 1884, pages 13-14).

    {2012}

       "The Journal Officiel' contains in the number for August 29,
       of this year (1891), the substance of the following account:
       … The city of Paris has now 64 public libraries, all of
       which send out books and accommodate readers in their halls;
       they are open at the times when the factories and shops are
       closed. … The libraries are kept in the mayoralty buildings
       or ward district school-houses; a central office provides for
       the administration and support, while in each precinct a
       committee of superintendence attends to the choice and
       ordering of new accessions. All expenses are paid by the city,
       which, in its last budget, in 1890, appropriated therefor the
       trifle of 225,000 francs. On every library in full use are
       bestowed yearly about 2,400 francs, while 14,000 francs are
       employed in founding new ones. The number of books circulated
       in 1890 was 1,386,642, against 29,339 in 1878, in the nine
       libraries then existing. In 1878 there was an average of only
       3,259 readers for each library, and in the last year the
       average was 23,500, which shows a seven-fold use of the
       libraries."

          Public Libraries in Paris;
          translated from the Börsenblatt,
          October 7, 1891
          (Library Journal, May, 1892).

    LIBRARIES: France:
       Other Libraries.

       A library of importance in Paris second only to the great
       National is the Mazarin, which contains 300,000 volumes (1,000
       incunabula), and 5,800 manuscripts. The Library of the
       University has 141,678 volumes; the Library of the Museum of
       Natural History has 140,850 books and 2,050 manuscripts; the
       Sainte-Genevieve Library contains 120,000 volumes and 2,392
       manuscripts; the Library of the City of Paris, 90,000 volumes
       and 2,000 manuscripts. The principal libraries of the
       provincial cities are reported as follows: Caen Municipal
       Library, 100,000 volumes, 620 manuscripts; Dijon Municipal
       Library, 100,000 volumes, 1,558 manuscripts; Marseilles City
       Library, 102,000 volumes, 1,656 manuscripts; Montpelier City
       Library, 120,000 volumes; Nantes City Library, 102,172
       volumes, 2,231 manuscripts; Rheims Library, 100,000 books and
       1,700 manuscripts; Lyons City Library and Library of the
       Palace of Arts, 160,000 volumes and 1,900 manuscripts;
       Toulouse City Library, 100,000 volumes and 950 manuscripts;
       Rouen City Library, 132,000 printed books and 3,800
       manuscripts; Avignon, 117,000 volumes and 3,300 manuscripts;
       Bordeaux, 160,000 volumes, 1,500 manuscripts; Tours, 100,000
       volumes and 1,743 manuscripts; Amiens, 80,000 volumes, 1,500
       manuscripts; Besançon, 140,000 volumes and 1,850 manuscripts.

          Minerva, 1893-94.

    LIBRARIES:
        Italy.

       "There are in Italy between thirty and forty libraries which
       the present National Government, in recognition of former
       Governmental support, is committed to maintain, at least in
       some degree. It is a division of resources which even a rich
       country would find an impediment in developing a proper
       National Library, and Italy, with its over-burdened Treasury,
       is far from being in a position to offer the world a single
       library of the first class. … Italy, to build up a library
       which shall rank with the great national libraries of the
       future, will need to concentrate her resources; for though she
       has libraries now which are rich in manuscripts, she has not
       one which is able to meet the great demands of modern
       scholarship for printed books. … If with this want of
       fecundity there went a corresponding slothfulness in
       libraries, there would be little to be hoped of Italy in
       amassing great collections of books. In some respects I have
       found a more active bibliothecal spirit in Italy than
       elsewhere in Europe, and I suspect that if Italian unification
       has accomplished nothing else, it has unshackled the minds of
       librarians, and placed them more in sympathy with the modern
       gospel which makes a library more the servant than the master
       of its users. I suspect this is not, as a rule, the case in
       Germany. … I have certainly found in Italian librarians a
       great alertness of mind and a marked eagerness to observe the
       advances in library methods which have taken place elsewhere
       during the last five and twenty years. But at the same time,
       with all this activity, the miserable bureaucratic methods of
       which even the chance stranger sees so much in Italy, are
       allowed to embarrass the efforts of her best librarians. …
       In the present condition of Italian finances nothing adequate
       to the needs of the larger libraries can be allowed, and the
       wonder is that so much is done as is apparent; and it is
       doubtless owing to the great force of character which I find
       in some of the leading librarians that any progress is made at
       all. During the years when the new Italian kingdom had its
       capital in Florence a certain amount of concentration started
       the new Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale on its career; and when
       later the Government was transferred to Rome, the new capital
       was given another library, got together in a similar way,
       which is called the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele.
       Neither collection is housed in any way suited to its
       functions, and the one at Florence is much the most important;
       indeed it is marvellously rich in early printed books and in
       manuscripts."

          J. Winsor,
          The condition of Italian Libraries
          (The Nation, July 9, 1891).

    LIBRARIES:
       The Vatican Library.

       "Even so inveterate a hater of literature as the Calif, who
       conquered Alexandria and gave its precious volumes to the
       flames, would have appreciated such a library as the Vatican.
       Not a book is to be seen—not a shelf is visible, and there is
       nothing to inform the visitor that he is in the most famous
       library in the world. … The eye is bewildered by innumerable
       busts, statues, and columns. The walls are gay with brilliant
       arabesques, and the visitor passes through lofty corridors and
       along splendid galleries, finding in every direction something
       to please and interest him. … The printed books number about
       125,000 volumes and there are about 25,000 manuscripts. The
       books and manuscripts are enclosed in low wooden cases around
       the walls of the various apartments, the cases are painted in
       white and gold colors, and thus harmonize with the gay
       appearance of the walls and ceilings. … The honor of
       founding the Vatican Library belongs to Pope Nicholas V., who,
       in 1447, transferred to the Palace of the Vatican the
       manuscripts which had been collected in the Lateran. At his
       death the library contained 9,000 manuscripts, but many of
       them were dispersed under his successor, Calixtus III. Sixtus
       IV. was very active in restoring and increasing the library.
       In 1588, the present library building was erected by Sixtus
       V., to receive the immense collection obtained by Leo X. In
       the year 1600 the value of the library was greatly augmented
       by the acquisition of the collection of Fulvius Ursinus and
       the valuable manuscripts from the Benedictine Monastery of
       Bobbio, composed chiefly of palimpsests. …
    {2013}
       The next acquisition was the Library of the Elector Palatine,
       captured in 1621, at Heidelberg, by De Tilley, who presented
       it to Gregory XV. It numbered 2,388 manuscripts, 1,956 in
       Latin, and 432 in Greek. In 1658 the Library founded by Duke
       Federigo de Urbino—1,711 Greek and Latin manuscripts—was
       added to the valuable collection. One of the most valuable
       accessions was the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden,
       containing all the literary works which her father, Gustavus
       Adolphus, had captured at Prague, Bremen, etc., amounting to
       2,291 manuscripts, Greek and Latin. In 1746 the magnificent
       library of the Ottobuoni family, containing 3,862 Greek and
       Latin manuscripts, enriched the Vatican collection. After the
       downfall of Napoleon and the restoration of the peace of
       Europe in 1815, the King of Prussia, at the suggestion of
       Humboldt, applied to Pope Pius VII for the restoration of some
       of the manuscripts which De Tilley had plundered from the
       Heidelberg Library. The Pope, mindful of the prominent part
       taken by Prussia in the restoration of the Papal See,
       immediately complied with the royal request, and many
       manuscripts of great value to the German historians were sent
       back to Germany."

          E. L. Didier,
          The Vatican Library
          (Literary World, June 28, 1884).

       The following recent statistics of other Italian libraries are
       from "Minerva," 1893-94: Florence National Central Library,
       422,183 printed books, 398,845 pamphlets and 17,386
       manuscripts; Rome, National Central Library of Victor
       Emmanuel, 241,978 books, 130,728 pamphlets, 4,676 manuscripts;
       Naples University Library, 181,072 printed books, 43,453
       pamphlets, and 109 manuscripts; Bologna University Library,
       251,700 books, 43,633 pamphlets and 5,000 manuscripts; Pavia
       University Library, 136,000 books, 80,000 pamphlets and 1,100
       manuscripts; Turin National Library, 196,279 printed books and
       4,119 manuscripts; Venice, National Library of St. Mark,
       401,652 printed and bound books, 80,450 pamphlets, and 12,016
       manuscripts; Pisa University Library, 108,188 books, 22,960
       pamphlets and 274 manuscripts; Genoa University Library,
       106,693 books, 46,231 pamphlets, and 1,586 manuscripts;
       Modena, the Este Library, 123,300 volumes, and 5,000
       manuscripts; Padua University Library, 135,837 volumes, 2,326
       manuscripts, and 63,849 pamphlets, etc.; Palermo National
       Library, 177,892 volumes and pamphlets, and 1,527 manuscripts;
       Palermo Communal Library, 209,000 books, 16,000 pamphlets,
       etc., 3,000 manuscripts; Parma Palatine Library, 250,000
       books, 20,313 pamphlets, etc., 4,769 manuscripts; Siena
       Communal Library 67,966 volumes, 26,968 pamphlets, 4,890
       manuscripts.

    LIBRARIES:
      Austria-Hungary.

       The principal libraries in the Empire are reported to contain
       as follows: Vienna University Library, 416,608 volumes, 373
       incunabula, 498 manuscripts; Vienna Imperial and Royal Court
       Library, 500,000 volumes, 6,461 incunabula, and 20,000
       manuscripts; Budapest University Library, 200,000 volumes,
       1,000 manuscripts; Hungarian National Museum, 400,000 volumes
       and 63,000 manuscripts, mostly Hungarian; Czernowitz
       University Library, 64,586 volumes and over 30,000 pamphlets,
       etc.; Graz University 131,397 volumes of books and 1,708
       manuscripts; Innspruck University Library, 135,000 printed
       books, including 1,653 incunabula, and 1,046 manuscripts;
       Cracow University Library, 283,858 volumes and 5,150
       manuscripts; Lemberg University Library, 120,900 volumes;
       Prague University Library, 211,131 volumes, 3,848 manuscripts.

          Minerva, 1893-94.

     LIBRARIES:
       Switzerland.

       The principal libraries of Switzerland are the following:
       Basle Public Library, 170,000 volumes of printed books and
       about 5,000 manuscripts; Berne City Library, 80,000 volumes
       and a valuable manuscript collection; Berne University
       Library, 35,000 volumes; St. Gall "Stiftsbibliothek," about
       40,000 volumes, including l,584 incunabula, and 1,730
       manuscripts; Lucerne Cantonal Library, 80,000 volumes; Zurich
       City Library, 130,000 volumes.

          Minerva, 1893-94.

    LIBRARIES:
       Holland.

       The following statistics of libraries in Holland are given in
       the German handbook, "Minerva," 1893-94: Leyden University
       Library, 190,000 volumes of printed books and 5,400
       manuscripts, of which latter 2,400 are oriental; Utrecht
       University Library, 200,000 volumes, besides pamphlets;
       Groningen University Library, 70,000 volumes.

    LIBRARIES:
       Belgium.

       Brussels Royal Library, 375,000 volumes, and 27,000
       manuscripts; Ghent, Library of the City and University of
       Gand, 300,000 volumes.

    LIBRARIES:
       Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

       The principal libraries of the Scandinavian kingdoms contain
       as follows: Christiania University Library, 312,000 volumes;
       Gothenburg City Library, about 60,000 volumes; Copenhagen
       University Library 300,000 books and 5,000 manuscripts; Lund
       University Library, 150,000 volumes; Stockholm Royal Library,
       300,000 printed books and 11,000 manuscripts; Upsala
       University Library, 275,000 volumes and 11,000 manuscripts.

          Minerva, 1893-94.

    LIBRARIES:
       Spain.

       The principal libraries in Spain are the following: Barcelona
       Provincial and University Library, 54,000 volumes; Madrid
       University Library, 200,761 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
       Madrid National Library, 450,000 volumes and 10,000
       manuscripts; Salamanca University Library, 72,000 volumes and
       870 manuscripts; Seville University Library, 62,000 volumes;
       Valencia University Library, 45,000 volumes; Valladolid
       University Library, 32,000 volumes.

          Minerva, 1893-94.

    LIBRARIES:
       Russia.

       "The most notable [Russian] libraries are those founded by the
       government. Of these, two deserve special attention: the
       library of the Academy of Sciences and the Imperial Public
       Library in St. Petersburg. Books taken by the Russian armies
       from the Baltic provinces at the beginning of the eighteenth
       century formed the foundation of the first. The Imperial
       Library was the result of the Russian capture of Warsaw. Count
       Joseph Zalussky, bishop of Kiev, spent forty-three years
       collecting a rich library of 300,000 volumes and 10,000
       manuscripts, devoting all his wealth to the purchase of books.
       His brother Andrew further enriched the library with volumes
       taken from the museum of the Polish king, John III. In 1747
       Joseph Zalussky opened the library to the public, and in 1761
       bequeathed it to a college of Jesuits in Warsaw. Six years
       later (1767) Zalussky was arrested and his library removed to
       St. Petersburg. The transfer took place in bad weather and
       over poor roads, so that many books were injured and many lost
       in transit. When the library reached St. Petersburg it
       numbered 262,640 volumes and 24,500 estampes. Many had been
       stolen during the journey, and years later there were to be
       found in Poland books bearing the signature of Zalussky.
    {2014}
       To the Imperial Library Alexander I. added, in 1805, the
       Dubrovsky collection. … Dubrovsky gathered his collection
       during a twenty-five years' residence in Paris, Rome, Madrid,
       and other large cities of Europe. He acquired many during the
       French revolution. … The Imperial Library possesses many
       palimpsests, Greek manuscripts of the second century, …
       besides Slavonian, Latin, French, and Oriental manuscripts.
       … The library is constantly growing, about 25,000 volumes
       being added every year. In income, size, and number of readers
       it vastly surpasses all private libraries in Russia, the
       largest of which does not exceed 25,000 volumes. In later
       years the village schools began to open libraries for limited
       circles of readers. Small libraries were successfully
       maintained in cities and the demand for good reading steadily
       increased among the people."

          A. V. Babine,
          Libraries in Russia,
          (Library Journal, March, 1893).

       The principal libraries of Russia reported in the German
       yearbook "Minerva" 1893-94 are the following: Charkow
       University Library, 123,000 volumes; Dorpat University
       Library, 170,000 volumes, and 104,700 dissertationen;
       Helsingfors University Library 170,000 volumes; Kasan
       University Library, 100,000 volumes; Kiev University Library,
       118,000 volumes; Moscow University Library, 217,000 volumes;
       Odessa University Library, 102,000 volumes; St. Petersburg
       University Library, 215,700 volumes; St. Petersburg Imperial
       Public Library, 1,050,000 volumes, 28,000 manuscripts.

    LIBRARIES:
       England: The King's Library and the British Museum.

       "No monarch of England is known to have been an extensive
       collector of books (in the modern acceptation of the term)
       except George III., or, if the name of Charles I. should be
       added, it must be in a secondary rank, and with some
       uncertainty, because we have not the same evidence of his
       collection of books as we have of his pictures, in the
       catalogue which exists of them. A royal library had, indeed,
       been established in the reign of Henry VII.; it was increased,
       as noticed by Walpole, by many presents from abroad, made to
       our monarchs after the restoration of learning and the
       invention of printing; and naturally received accessions in
       every subsequent reign, if it were only from the various
       presents by which authors desired to show their respect or to
       solicit patronage, as well as from the custom of making new
       year's gifts, which were often books. There were also added to
       it the entire libraries of Lord Lumley (including those of
       Henry, Earl of Arundel, and Archbishop Cranmer), of the
       celebrated Casaubon, of Sir John Morris, and the Oriental MSS.
       of Sir Thomas Roe. Whilst this collection remained at St.
       James's Palace, the number of books amassed in each reign
       could have been easily distinguished, as they were classed and
       arranged under the names of the respective sovereigns. In 1759
       King George II. transferred the whole, by letters patent, to
       the then newly-formed establishment of the British Museum; the
       arrangement under reigns was some time after departed from,
       and the several royal collections interspersed with the other
       books obtained from Sir Hans Sloane, Major Edwards, and
       various other sources. … George III., on his accession to
       the crown, thus found the apartments which had formerly
       contained the library of the Kings of England vacated by their
       ancient tenants. … Sir F. A. Barnard states that 'to create
       an establishment so necessary and important, and to attach it
       to the royal residence, was one of the earliest objects which
       engaged his majesty's attention at the commencement of his
       reign;' and he adds that the library of Joseph Smith, Esq.,
       the British Consul at Venice, which was purchased in 1762,
       'became the foundation of the present Royal Library.' Consul
       Smith's collection was already well known, from a catalogue
       which had been printed at Venice in 1755, to be eminently rich
       in the earliest editions of the classics, and in Italian
       literature.' Its purchase was effected for about £10,000, and
       it was brought direct to some apartments at the Queen's Palace
       commonly called Buckingham House. Here the subsequent
       collections were amassed; and here, after they had outgrown
       the rooms at first appropriated to them, the King erected two
       large additional libraries, one of which was a handsome
       octagon. Latterly the books occupied no less than seven
       apartments. … Early in the year 1823, it was made known to
       the public that King George IV. had presented the Royal
       Library to the British nation. … Shortly after, the
       Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons
       that it was his majesty's wish that the library should be
       placed in the British Museum, but in a separate apartment from
       the Museum Library."

          Gentleman's Magazine, 1834,
          pages 16-22.

       "In the chief countries of the Continent of Europe … great
       national Museums have, commonly, had their origin in the
       liberality and wise foresight either of some sovereign or
       other, or of some powerful minister whose mind was large
       enough to combine with the cares of State a care for Learning.
       In Britain, our chief public collection of literature and of
       science originated simply in the public spirit of private
       persons. The British Museum was founded precisely at that
       period of our history when the distinctively national, or
       governmental, care for the interests of literature and of
       science was at its lowest, or almost its lowest, point. As
       regards the monarchs, it would be hard to fix on any, since
       the dawn of the Revival of Learning, who evinced less concern
       for the progress and diffusion of learning than did the first
       and second princes of the House of Hanover. As regards
       Parliament, the tardy and languid acceptance of the boon
       proffered, posthumously, by Sir Hans Sloane, constitutes just
       the one exceptional act of encouragement that serves to give
       saliency to the utter indifference which formed the ordinary
       rule. Long before Sloane's time … there had been zealous and
       repeated efforts to arouse the attention of the Government as
       well to the political importance as to the educational value
       of public museums. Many thinkers had already perceived that
       such collections were a positive increase of public wealth and
       of national greatness, as well as a powerful instrument of
       popular education. It had been shewn, over and over again,
       that for lack of public care precious monuments and treasures
       of learning had been lost; sometimes by their removal to
       far-off countries; sometimes by their utter destruction. Until
       the appeal made to Parliament by the Executors of Sir Hans
       Sloane, in the middle of the eighteenth century, all those
       efforts had uniformly failed. But Sir Hans Sloane cannot claim
       to be regarded, individually or very specially, as the Founder
       of the British Museum. His last Will, indeed, gave an opportunity
       for the foundation.
    {2015}
       Strictly speaking, he was not even the Founder of his own
       Collection, as it stood in his lifetime. The Founder of the
       Sloane Museum was William Courten, the last of a line of
       wealthy Flemish refugees, whose history, in their adopted
       country, is a series of romantic adventures. Parliament had
       previously accepted the gift of the Cottonian Library, at the
       hands of Sir John Cotton, third in descent from its Founder,
       and its acceptance of that gift had been followed by almost
       unbroken neglect, although the gift was a noble one. Sir John,
       when conversing, on one occasion, with Thomas Carte, told the
       historian that he had been offered £60,000 of English money,
       together with a carte blanche for some honorary mark of royal
       favour, on the part of Lewis XIV., for the Library which he
       afterwards settled upon the British nation. It has been
       estimated that Sloane expended (from first to last) upon his
       various collections about £50,000; so that even from the
       mercantile point of view, the Cotton family may be said to
       have been larger voluntary contributors towards our eventual
       National Museum than was Sir Hans Sloane himself. That point
       of view, however, would be a very false, because very narrow,
       one. Whether estimated by mere money value, or by a truer
       standard, the third, in order of time, of the
       Foundation-Collections,—that of the 'Harleian
       Manuscripts,'—was a much less important acquisition for the
       Nation than was the Museum of Sloane, or the Library of
       Cotton; but its literary value, as all students of our history
       and literature know, is, nevertheless, considerable. Its first
       Collector, Robert Harley, the Minister of Queen Anne and the
       first of the Harleian Earls of Oxford, is fairly entitled to
       rank, after Cotton, Courten, and Sloane, among the virtual or
       eventual co-founders of the British Museum. Chronologically,
       then, Sir Robert Cotton, William Courten, Hans Sloane, and
       Robert Harley, rank first as Founders; so long as we estimate
       their relative position in accordance with the successive
       steps by which the British Museum was eventually organized.
       But there is another synchronism by which greater accuracy is
       attainable. Although four years had elapsed between the
       passing—in 1753—of 'An Act for the purchase of the Museum or
       Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection
       of Manuscripts, and for providing one general repository for
       the better reception and more convenient use of the said
       Collections, and of the Cottonian Library and of the additions
       thereto,' and the gift—in 1757—to the Trustees of those
       already united Collections by King George II. of the Old Royal
       Library of the Kings his predecessors, yet that royal
       collection itself had been (in a restricted sense of the
       words) a Public and National possession soon after the days of
       the first real and central Founder of the present Museum, Sir
       Robert Cotton. But, despite its title, that Royal Library,
       also, was—in the main—the creation of subjects, not of
       Sovereigns or Governments. Its virtual founder Was Henry,
       prince of Wales [son of James I.]. It was acquired, out of his
       privy purse, as a subject, not as a Prince. He, therefore, has
       a title to be placed among the individual Collectors whose
       united efforts resulted—after long intervals of time—in the
       creation, eventually, of a public institution second to none,
       of its kind, in the world."

          E. Edwards,
          Founders of the British Museum,
          book 1, chapter 1.

       "Montague House was purchased by the Trustees in 1754 for a
       general repository, and the collections were removed to it.
       … On the 15th of January, 1750, the British Museum was
       opened for the inspection and use of the public. At first the
       Museum was divided into three departments, viz., Printed
       Books, Manuscripts, and Natural History; at the head of each
       of them was placed an officer designated as 'Under Librarian.'
       The increase of the collections soon rendered it necessary to
       provide additional accommodation for them, Montague House
       proving insufficient. The present by George III. of Egyptian
       Antiquities, and the purchase of the Hamilton and Townley
       Antiquities, made it moreover imperative to create an
       additional department—that of Antiquities and Art—to which
       were united the Prints and Drawings, as well as the Medals and
       Coins, previously attached to the library of Printed Books and
       Manuscripts. The acquisition of the Elgin Marbles in 1816 made
       the Department of Antiquities of the highest importance, and
       increased room being indispensable for the exhibition of those
       marbles, a temporary shelter was prepared for them. This was
       the last addition to Montague House. When, in 1823, the
       library collected by George III. was presented to the nation
       by George IV. it became necessary to erect a building fit to
       receive this valuable and extensive collection. It was then
       decided to have an entirely new edifice to contain the whole
       of the Museum collection, including the recently-acquired
       library. Sir R. Smirke was accordingly directed by the
       Trustees to prepare plans. The eastern side of the present
       structure was completed in 1828, and the Royal Library was
       then placed in it. The northern, southern, and western sides
       of the building were subsequently added, and in 1845 the whole
       of Montague House and its additions had disappeared; while the
       increasing collections had rendered it necessary to make
       various additions to the original design of Sir R. Smirke,
       some of them even before it had been carried out."

          J. W. Jones,
          British Museum: a Guide,
          pages ii-iii.

       "The necessity of a general enlargement of the library led to
       the suggestion of many plans—some impracticable—some too
       expensive—and all involving a delay which would have been
       fatal to the efficiency of the Institution. … Fortunately
       … after much vigorous discussion, a plan which had been
       suggested by the … Principal Librarian [Mr. Panizzi] for
       building in the vacant quadrangle, was adopted and carried out
       under his own immediate and watchful superintendence. … The
       quadrangle within which the new library is built is 313 feet
       in length by 235 wide, comprising an area of 73,555 square
       feet. Of this space the building covers 47,472 feet, being 258
       feet long by 184 feet in width, thus leaving an interval of
       from 27 to 30 feet all round. By this arrangement, the light
       and ventilation of the surrounding buildings is not interfered
       with, and the risk of fire from the outer buildings is guarded
       against. The Reading Boom is circular. The dome is 140 feet in
       diameter, and its height 106 feet. The diameter of the lantern
       is 40 feet. Light is further obtained from twenty
       circular-headed windows, 27 feet high by 12 feet wide,
       inserted at equal intervals round the dome at a height of 35
       feet from the ground.
    {2016}
       In its diameter the dome of the Reading Room exceeds all
       others, with the exception of the Pantheon of Rome, which is
       about 2 feet wider. That of St. Peter's at Rome, and of Santa
       Maria in Florence are each only 139 feet; that of the tomb of
       Mahomet at Bejapore, 135; of St. Paul's, 112; of St. Sophia,
       at Constantinople, 107; and of the church of Darmstadt, 105.
       The new Reading Room contains 1,250,000 cubic feet of space,
       and the surrounding libraries 750,000. These libraries are 24
       feet in height, with the exception of that part which runs
       round the outside of the Reading Room, which is 32 feet high;
       the spring of the dome being 24 feet from the floor of the
       Reading Room, and the ground excavated 8 feet below this
       level. The whole building is constructed principally of iron.
       … The Reading Room contains ample and comfortable
       accommodation for 302 readers. There are thirty-five tables:
       eight are 34 feet long, and accommodate sixteen readers, eight
       on each side; nine are 30 feet long, and accommodate fourteen
       readers, seven on each side; two are 30 feet long, and
       accommodate eight readers each, viz., seven on one side and
       one on the other—these two tables are set apart for the
       exclusive use of ladies; sixteen other tables are 6 feet long,
       and accommodate two readers each—these are fitted up with
       rising desks of a large size for those readers who may have
       occasion to consult works beyond the usual dimensions. Each
       person has allotted to him, at the long tables, a space of 4
       feet 3 inches in length by 2 feet 1 inch in depth. He is
       screened from the opposite occupant by a longitudinal
       division, which is fitted with a hinged desk graduated on
       sloping racks, and a folding shelf for spare books. In the
       space between the two, which is recessed, an inkstand is
       fixed, having suitable penholders. … The framework of each
       table is of iron, forming air-distributing channels, which are
       contrived so that the air may be delivered at the top of the
       longitudinal screen division, above the level of the heads of
       the readers, or, if desired, only at each end pedestal of the
       tables, all the outlets being under the control of valves. A
       tubular foot-rail also passes from end to end of each table,
       which may have a current of warm water through it at pleasure,
       and be used as a foot-warmer if required. The pedestals of the
       tables form tubes communicating with the air-chamber below,
       which is 6 feet high, and occupies the whole area of the
       Reading Room: it is fitted with hot-water pipes arranged in
       radiating lines. The supply of fresh air is obtained from a
       shaft 60 feet high. … The shelves within the Reading Room
       contain about 60,000 volumes: the new building altogether will
       accommodate about 1,500,000 volumes."

          List of the Books of Reference in the Reading Room of the
          British Museum; preface.

       The number of volumes of printed books in the British Museum
       in 1893 is reported to have been 1,600,000, the number of
       manuscripts 50,000 and the maps and charts 200,000.

          Minerva, 1893-94.

       A purchase from the Duke of Bedford, of adjoining land, to the
       extent of five and a half acres, for the enlargement of the
       Museum, was announced by the London Times, March 18, 1894.
       With this addition, the area of ground occupied by the Museum
       will be fourteen acres.

    LIBRARIES:
       England: The Bodleian Library.

       "Its founder, Sir Thomas Bodley, was a worthy of Devon, who
       had been actively employed by Queen Elizabeth as a
       diplomatist, and had returned tired of court life to the
       University, where long before he had been Fellow of Merton
       College. He found the ancient library of the University
       (which, after growing slowly with many vicissitudes from small
       beginnings, had suddenly been enriched in 1439-46 by a gift of
       264 valuable MSS. from Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester) utterly
       destroyed by Edward VI.'s Commissioners, and the room built
       for its reception (still called 'Duke Humphrey's library')
       swept clear even of the readers' desks. His determination to
       refound the library of the University was actively carried
       out, and on November 8, 1602, the new institution was formally
       opened with about 2,000 printed and manuscript volumes. Two
       striking advantages were possessed by the Bodleian almost from
       the first. Sir Thomas Bodley employed his great influence at
       court and with friends to induce them to give help to his
       scheme, and accordingly we find not only donations of money
       and books from personal friends, but 240 MSS. contributed by
       the Deans and Chapters of Exeter and Windsor. Moreover, in
       1610, he arranged with the Stationers' Company that they
       should present his foundation with a copy of every printed
       book published by a member of the Company; and from that time
       to this the right to every book published in the kingdom has
       been continuously enjoyed."

          F. Madan,
          Books in Manuscript,
          page 84.

       In 1891 the Bodleian Library was said to contain 400,000
       printed books and 30,000 manuscripts. Under the copyright act
       of Great Britain, the British Museum, the Bodleian Library,
       Oxford, the Cambridge University Library, the Advocates
       Library, Edinburgh, and the Trinity College Library, Dublin,
       are each entitled to a copy of every work published in the
       United Kingdom.

    LIBRARIES:
       England: Rise and Growth of Free Town-Libraries.

       In the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (9th edition) we read, in the
       article "Libraries," that "the fine old library instituted by
       Humphrey Chetham in Manchester, in 1653, and which is still
       'housed in the old collegiate buildings where Raleigh was once
       entertained by Dr. Dee, might be said to be the first free
       library' in England. Two centuries, however, before worthy
       Chetham had erected his free fountain of knowledge for thirsty
       souls, a grave fraternity known as the Guild of Kalendars had
       established a free library, for all comers, in connection with
       a church yet standing in one of the thoroughfares of Old
       Bristol. … John Leland (temp. Henry VIII.) speaks of the
       Kalendars as an established body about the year 1170: and when
       in 1216 Henry III. held a Parliament in Bristol, the deeds of
       the guild were inspected, and ratified on account of the
       antiquity and high character of the fraternity ('propter
       antiquitates et bonitates in eâ Gilda repertas'), and Gualo,
       the Papal Legate, commended the Kalendars to the care of
       William de Blois, Bishop of Worcester, within whose diocese
       Bristol then lay. It was the office of the Kalendars to record
       local events and such general affairs as were thought worthy
       of commemoration, whence their name. They consisted of clergy
       and laity, even women being admitted to their Order. …
    {2017}
       It was ordered by Wolstan, Bishop of Worcester, who in
       visitation of this part of his diocese, July 10, 1340,
       examined the ancient rules of the College, that a prior in
       priest's orders should be chosen by the majority of the
       chaplains and lay brethren, without the solemnity of
       confirmation, consecration or benediction of superiors, and
       eight chaplains who were not bound by monastic rules, were to
       be joined with him to celebrate for departed brethren and
       benefactors every day. By an ordinance of John Carpenter,
       Bishop of Worcester, A. D. 1464, the Prior was to reside in
       the college, and take charge of a certain library newly
       erected at the Bishop's expense, so that every festival day
       from seven to eleven in the forenoon admission should be
       freely allowed to all desirous of consulting the Prior, to
       read a public lecture every week in the library, and elucidate
       obscure places of Scripture as well as he could to those
       desirous of his teachings. … Lest, through negligence or
       accident, the books should be lost, it was ordered that three
       catalogues of them should be kept; one to remain with the Dean
       of Augustinian Canons, whose 14th-century church is now
       Bristol Cathedral, another with the Mayor for the time being,
       and the third with the Prior himself. Unfortunately, they are
       all three lost. … This interesting library was destroyed by
       fire in 1466 through the carelessness of a drunken
       'point-maker,' two adjoining houses against the steeple of the
       church being at the same time burnt down."

          J. Taylor,
          The First English Free Library and its Founders
          (Murray's Magazine, November, 1891).

       "Free town-libraries are essentially a modern institution, and
       yet can boast of a greater antiquity than is generally
       supposed, for we find a town-library at Auvergne in 1540, and
       one at a still earlier date at Aix. Either the munificence of
       individuals or the action of corporate authorities has given
       very many of the continental towns freely accessible
       libraries, some of them of considerable extent. In England the
       history of town-libraries is much briefer. There is reason to
       believe that London at an early date was possessed of a common
       library; and Bristol, Norwich, and Leicester, had each
       town-libraries, but the corporations proved but careless
       guardians of their trust, and in each case allowed it to be
       diverted from the free use of the citizens for the benefit of
       a subscription library. At Bristol, in 1613, Mr. Robert
       Redwood 'gave his lodge to be converted into a library or
       place to put books in for the furtherance of learning.' Some
       few years after, Tobie Matthew, Archbishop of York, left some
       valuable books in various departments of literature for free
       access 'to the merchants and shopkeepers.' … The paucity of
       our public libraries, twenty years ago, excited the attention
       of Mr. Edward Edwards, to whose labours in this field the
       country owes so much. Having collected a large amount of
       statistics as to the comparative number of these institutions
       in different States, he communicated the result of his
       researches to the Statistical Society, in a paper which was
       read on the 20th of March, 1848, and was printed in this
       'Journal' in the August following. The paper revealed some
       unpleasant facts, and showed that, in respect of the provision
       of public libraries, Great Britain occupied a very unworthy
       position. In the United Kingdom (including Malta) Mr. Edwards
       could only discover 29 libraries having more than 10,000
       volumes, whilst France could boast 107, Austria 41,
       Switzerland 13. The number of volumes to every hundred of the
       population of cities containing libraries, was in Great
       Britain 43, France 125, Brunswick 2,353. Of the 29 British
       libraries enumerated by Mr. Edwards, some had only doubtful
       claims to be considered as public, and only one of them was
       absolutely free to all comers, without influence or formality.
       That one was the public library at Manchester, founded by
       Humphrey Chetham in 1665. The paper read before this Society
       twenty-two years ago was destined to be productive of great
       and speedy results. From the reading of it sprang the present
       system of free town-libraries. The seed was then sown, and it
       is now fructifying in the libraries which are springing up on
       every hand. The paper attracted the attention of the late
       William Ewart, Esq., M. P., and ultimately led to the
       appointment of a parliamentary committee on the subject of
       public libraries. The report of this committee paved the way
       for the Public Libraries Act of 1850."

          W. E. A. Axon,
          Statistical Notes on the Free Town-Libraries of Great
          Britain and the Continent
          (Journal of the Statistical Society,
          September 1870, volume 33).

       The progress of free public libraries in England under the Act
       of 1850 was not, for a long time, very rapid. "In the 36 years
       from 1850 onward—that is, down to 1886—133 places had
       availed themselves of the benefits of the act. That was not a
       very large number, not amounting quite, upon the average, to
       four in each of those 36 years. … Now, see the change which
       has taken place. We have only four years, from 1887 to 1890,
       and in those four years no less than 70 places have taken
       advantage of the act, so that instead of an average of less
       than four places in the year, we have an average of more than
       17 places."

          W. E. Gladstone,
          Address at the Opening of the Free Public Library of St.
          Martin's-in-the-Fields.

       "The Clerkenwell Library Commissioners draw attention to the
       enormous strides London has made within the last five years in
       the matter of public libraries. In 1886 four parishes had
       adopted the Acts; by December, 1891, 29 parishes had adopted
       them, and there are already 30 libraries and branches opened
       throughout the County of London, possessing over 250,000
       volumes, and issuing over 3,000,000 volumes per annum."

          The Library Journal,
          February, 1892.

       Under a new law, which came into force in 1893, "any local
       authority (i. e., town council or district board), save in the
       County of London, may establish and maintain public libraries
       without reference to the wishes of the rate payers."

          The Library Journal,
          October, 1893 (volume 18, page 442).

    LIBRARIES:
       United States of America:
       Franklin and the first Subscription Library.

       When Franklin's club, at Philadelphia, the Junto, was first
       formed, "its meetings were held (as the custom of clubs was in
       that clubbing age) in a tavern; and in a tavern of such humble
       pretensions as to be called by Franklin an ale-house. But the
       leathern-aproned philosophers soon removed to a room of their
       own, lent them by one of their members, Robert Grace. It often
       happened that a member would bring a book or two to the Junto,
       for the purpose of illustrating the subject of debate, and
       this led Franklin to propose that all the members should keep
       their books in the Junto room, as well for reference while
       debating as for the use of members during the week. The
       suggestion being approved, one end of their little apartment
       was soon filled with books; and there they remained for the
       common benefit a year.
    {2018}
       But some books having been injured, their owners became
       dissatisfied, and the books were all taken home. Books were
       then scarce, high-priced, and of great bulk. Folios were still
       common, and a book of less magnitude than quarto was deemed
       insignificant. … Few books of much importance were published
       at less than two guineas. Such prices as four guineas, five
       guineas, and six guineas were not uncommon. Deprived of the
       advantage of the Junto collection, Franklin conceived the idea
       of a subscription library. Early in 1731 he drew up a plan,
       the substance of which was, that each subscriber should
       contribute two pounds sterling for the first purchase of
       books, and ten shillings a year for the increase of the
       library. As few of the inhabitants of Philadelphia had money
       to spare, and still fewer cared for reading, he found very
       great difficulty in procuring a sufficient number of
       subscribers. He says: 'I put myself as much as I could out of
       sight, and stated it as a scheme of a number of friends, who
       had requested me to go about and propose it to such as they
       thought lovers of reading. In this way my affairs went on more
       smoothly, and I ever after practiced it on such occasions, and
       from my frequent successes can heartily recommend it.' Yet it
       was not until November, 1731, at least five months after the
       project was started, that fifty names were obtained; and not
       till March, 1732, that the money was collected. After
       consulting James Logan, 'the best judge of books in these
       parts,' the first list of books was made out, a draft upon
       London of forty-five pounds was purchased, and both were
       placed in the hands of one of the directors who was going to
       England. Peter Collinson undertook the purchase, and added to
       it presents of Newton's 'Principia,' and 'Gardener's
       Dictionary.' All the business of the library Mr. Collinson
       continued to transact for thirty years, and always swelled the
       annual parcel of books by gifts of valuable works. In those
       days getting a parcel from London was a tedious affair indeed.
       All the summer of 1732 the subscribers were waiting for the
       coming of the books, as for an event of the greatest interest.
       … In October the books arrived, and were placed, at first,
       in the room of the Junto. A librarian was appointed, and the
       library was opened once a week for giving out the books. The
       second year Franklin himself served as librarian. For many
       years the secretary to the directors was Joseph Breintnal, by
       whose zeal and diligence the interests of the library were
       greatly promoted. Franklin printed a catalogue soon after the
       arrival of the books, for which, and for other printing, he
       was exempted from paying his annual ten shillings for two
       years. The success of this library, thus begun by a few
       mechanics and clerks, was great in every sense of the word.
       Valuable donations of books, money and curiosities were
       frequently made to it. The number of subscribers slowly, but
       steadily, increased. Libraries of similar character sprung up
       all over the country, and many were started even in
       Philadelphia. Kalm, who was in Philadelphia in 1748, says that
       then the parent library had given rise to 'many little
       libraries,' on the same plan as itself. He also says that
       non-subscribers were then allowed to take books out of the
       library, by leaving a pledge for the value of the book, and
       paying for a folio eight pence a week, for a quarto six pence,
       and for all others four pence. 'The subscribers,' he says,
       'were so kind to me as to order the librarian, during my stay
       here, to lend me every book I should want, without requiring
       any payment of me.' In 1764, the shares had risen in value to
       nearly twenty pounds, and the collection was considered to be
       worth seventeen hundred pounds. In 1785, the number of volumes
       was 5,487; in 1807, 14,457; in 1861, 70,000. The institution
       is one of the few in America that has held on its way,
       unchanged in any essential principle, for a century and a
       quarter, always on the increase, always faithfully
       administered, always doing well its appointed work. There is
       every reason to believe that it will do so for centuries to
       come. The prosperity of the Philadelphia Library was owing to
       the original excellence of the plan, the good sense embodied
       in the rules, the care with which its affairs were conducted,
       and the vigilance of Franklin and his friends in turning to
       account passing events. Thomas Penn, for example, visited
       Philadelphia a year or two after the library was founded; when
       the directors of the library waited upon him with a dutiful
       address, and received, in return, a gift of books and
       apparatus. It were difficult to over-estimate the value to the
       colonies of the libraries that grew out of Franklin's
       original' conception. They were among the chief means of
       educating the colonies up to Independence. 'Reading became
       fashionable,' says Franklin; 'and our people having no public
       amusements to divert their attention from study, became better
       acquainted with books, and in a few years were observed, by
       strangers, to be better instructed and more intelligent than
       people of the same rank generally are in other countries.' …
       What the Philadelphia Library did for Franklin himself, the
       libraries, doubtless, did for many others. It made him a daily
       student for twenty years. He set apart an hour or two every
       day for study, and thus acquired the substance of all the most
       valuable knowledge then possessed by mankind. Whether Franklin
       was the originator of subscription libraries, and of the idea
       of permitting books to be taken to the homes of subscribers, I
       cannot positively assert. But I can discover no trace of
       either of those two fruitful conceptions before his time."

          J. Parton,
          Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin,
          pages 200-203.

       "The books were at first kept in the house of Robert Grace,
       whom Franklin characterizes as 'a young gentleman of some
       fortune, generous, lively, and witty, a lover of punning and
       of his friends.' Afterward they were allotted a room in the
       State-House; and, in 1742, a charter was obtained from the
       Proprietaries. In 1790, having in the interval absorbed
       several other associations and sustained a removal to
       Carpenter's Hall, where its apartment had been used as a
       hospital for wounded American soldiers, the Library was at
       last housed in a building especially erected for it at Fifth
       and Chestnut streets, where it remained until within the last
       few years. It brought only about eight thousand volumes into
       its new quarters, for it had languished somewhat during the
       Revolution and the war of words which attended our political
       birth. But it had received no injury. … Two years after
       removal to its quarters on Fifth street, the Library received
       the most valuable gift of books it has as yet had. James
       Logan, friend and adviser of Penn, … had gathered a most
       important collection of books.
    {2019}
       Mr. Logan was translator of Cicero's 'Cato Major,' the first
       classic published in America, besides being versed in natural
       science. His library comprised, as he tells us, 'over one
       hundred volumes of authors, all in Greek, with mostly their
       versions; all the Roman classics without exception; all the
       Greek mathematicians. … Besides there are many of the most
       valuable Latin authors, and a great number of modern
       mathematicians.' These, at first bequeathed as a public
       library to the city, became a branch of the Philadelphia
       Library under certain conditions, one of which was that,
       barring contingencies, one of the donor's descendants should
       always hold the office of trustee. And to-day his direct
       descendant fills the position, and is perhaps the only example
       in this country of an hereditary office-holder. … In 1869
       died Dr. James Rush, son of Benjamin Rush, and himself well
       known as the author of a work on the human voice, and as
       husband of a lady who almost succeeded in naturalizing the
       salon in this country. By his will about one million dollars
       were devoted to the erection and maintenance of an isolated
       and fire-proof library-building, which was to be named the
       Ridgway Library, in memory of his wife. This building was
       offered to the Philadelphia Company, and the bequest was
       accepted. That institution had by this time accumulated about
       one hundred thousand volumes. … A building of the Doric
       order was erected, which with its grounds covers an entire
       square or block, and is calculated to contain four hundred
       thousand volumes, or three times as many as the Library at
       present has, and to this building the more valuable books of
       the Library were removed in 1878; the fiction and more modern
       works being placed in another designed in imitation of the old
       edifice, and nearer the center of the city."

          B. Samuel,
          The Father of American Libraries
          (Century Magazine, May, 1883).

       In 1893, the library of the Philadelphia Library Company
       contained 171,069 volumes.

    LIBRARIES:
       The First Library in New York.

       The New York Society Library is the oldest institution of the
       kind in the city of New York. "In 1729, the Reverend Dr.
       Millington, Rector of Newington, England, by his will,
       bequeathed his library to the Society for the Propagation of
       the Gospel in Foreign Parts. By this society the library of
       Dr. Millington was presented to the corporation of the city,
       for the use of the clergy and gentlemen of New-York and the
       neighbouring provinces. … 'In 1754 [as related in Smith's
       History of New York] a set of gentlemen undertook to carry
       about a subscription towards raising a public library, and in
       a few days collected near 600 pounds, which were laid out in
       purchasing about 700 volumes of new, well-chosen books. Every
       subscriber, upon payment of five pounds principal, and the
       annual sum of ten shillings, is entitled to the use of these
       books,—his right, by the articles, is assignable, and for
       non-compliance with them may be forfeited. The care of this
       library is committed to twelve trustees, annually elected by
       the subscribers, on the last Tuesday of April, who are
       restricted from making any rules repugnant to the fundamental
       subscription. This is the beginning of a library which, in
       process of time, will probably become vastly rich and
       voluminous, and it would be very proper for the company to
       have a Charter for its security and encouragement.' The
       library of the corporation above alluded to, appearing to have
       been mismanaged, and at length entirely disused, the trustees
       of the New-York Society Library offered to take charge of it,
       and to deposit their own collection with it, in the City-Hall.
       This proposal having been acceded to by the corporation, the
       Institution thenceforward received the appellation of 'The
       City Library,' a name by which it was commonly known for a
       long time. A good foundation having been thus obtained, the
       library prospered and increased. … In 1772, a charter was
       granted to it by the colonial government. The war of the
       revolution, however, which soon after occurred, interfered
       with these pleasing prospects; the city fell into the
       possession of the enemy; the effect on all our public
       institutions was more or less disastrous, and to the library
       nearly fatal. An interval of no less than fourteen years, (of
       which it possesses no record whatever,) here occurs in the
       history of the society. At length it appears from the minutes,
       that 'the accidents of the late war having nearly destroyed
       the former library, no meeting of the proprietors for the
       choice of trustees was held from the last Tuesday in April,
       1774, until Saturday, the 21st December, 1788, when a meeting
       was summoned.' In 1789, the original charter, with all its
       privileges, was revived by the legislature of this state; the
       surviving members resumed the payment of their annual dues, an
       accession of new subscribers was obtained, and the society,
       undeterred by the loss of its books, commenced almost a new
       collection."

          Catalogue of the New York Society Library:
          Historical Notice.

    LIBRARIES:
       Redwood Library.

       While Bishop Berkeley was residing, in 1729, on his farm near
       Newport, Rhode Island, "he took an active share in forming a
       philosophical society in Newport. … Among the members were
       Colonel Updike, Judge Scott (a granduncle of Sir Walter
       Scott), Nathaniel Kay, Henry Collins, Nathan Townsend, the
       Reverend James Honeyman, and the Reverend Jeremiah Condy. …
       The Society seems to have been very successful. One of its
       objects was to collect books. It originated, in 1747, the
       Redwood Library."

          A. C. Fraser,
          Life and Letters of George Berkeley
          (volume 4 of Works), page 169.

       The library thus founded took its name from Abraham Redwood,
       who gave £500 to it in 1747. Other subscriptions were obtained
       in Newport to the amount of £5,000, colonial currency, and a
       building for the library erected in 1750.

       United States of America: Free Public Libraries.

       "Mr. Ewart, in his Report of the Select Committee on Public
       Libraries, 1849, says: 'Our younger brethren, the people of
       the United States, have already anticipated us in the
       formation of libraries entirely open to the public.' No free
       public library, however, was then in operation, in the United
       States, yet one had been authorized by legislative action. The
       movements in the same direction in England and the United
       States seem to have gone on independently of each other; and
       in the public debates and private correspondence relating to
       the subject there seems to have been no borrowing of ideas, or
       scarcely an allusion, other than the one quoted, to what was
       being done elsewhere. In October, 1847, Josiah Quincy, Jr.,
       Mayor of Boston, suggested to the City Council that a petition
       be sent to the State legislature asking for authority to lay a
       tax by which the city of Boston could establish a library free
       to all its citizens. The Massachusetts legislature, in March,
       1848, passed such an act, and in 1851 made the act apply to
       all the cities and towns in the State.
    {2020}
       In 1849 donations of books were made to the Boston Public
       Library. Late in the same year Mr. Edward Everett made to it
       the donation of his very complete collection of United States
       documents, and Mayor Bigelow a gift of $1,000. In May, 1852,
       the first Board of Trustees, with Mr. Everett as president,
       was organized, and Mr. Joshua Bates, of London, made his first
       donation of $50,000 for the use of the library. It was
       fortunate that the public-library system started where it did
       and under the supervision of the eminent men who constituted
       the first board of trustees of the Boston Public Library. Mr.
       George Ticknor was the person who mapped out the sagacious
       policy of that library—a policy which has never been
       improved, and which has been adopted by all the public
       libraries in this country, and, in its main features, by the
       free libraries of England. For fifteen years or more Mr.
       Ticknor gave the subject his personal attention. He went to
       the library every day, as regularly as any of the employes,
       and devoted several hours to the minutest details of its
       administration. Before he had any official relations with it,
       he gave profound consideration to, and settled in his own
       mind, the leading principles on which the library should be
       conducted. … Started as the public-library system was on
       such principles, and under the guidance of these eminent men,
       libraries sprang up rapidly in Massachusetts, and similar
       legislation was adopted in other States. The first legislation
       in Massachusetts was timid. The initiative law of 1848 allowed
       the city of Boston to spend only $5,000 a year on its Public
       Library, which has since expended $125,000 a year. The State
       soon abolished all limitation to the amount which might be
       raised for library purposes. New Hampshire, in 1849,
       anticipated Massachusetts, by two years, in the adoption of a
       general library law. Maine followed in 1854; Vermont in 1865;
       Ohio in 1867; Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin in 1872;
       Indiana and Iowa in 1873; Texas in 1874; Connecticut and Rhode
       Island in 1875; Michigan and Nebraska in 1877; California in
       1878; Missouri and New Jersey in 1885; Kansas in 1886. … The
       public library law of Illinois, adopted in 1872, and since
       enacted by other Western States, is more elaborate and
       complete than the library laws of any of the New England
       States. … The law of Wisconsin is similar to that of
       Illinois. … New Jersey has a public-library law patterned
       after that of Illinois."

          W. F. Poole,
          President's Address at the annual meeting of
          the American Library Association, 1887.

       The State of New York adopted a library law in 1892, under
       which the creation of free libraries has been promisingly
       begun. A law having like effect was adopted in New Hampshire
       in 1891.

    LIBRARIES:
       United States of America:
       Library Statistics of 1891.

       "As to the early statistics of libraries in this country but
       little can be found. Prof. Jewett, in his 'Notices of Public
       Libraries,' published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1850,
       gave a summary of public libraries, amounting to 694 and
       containing at that time 2,201,632 volumes. In the census of
       1850 an attempt was made to give the number of libraries and
       the number of volumes they contained, exclusive of school and
       Sunday school libraries. This number was 1,560; the number of
       volumes, 2,447,086. In 1856 Mr. Edward Edwards in his summary
       of libraries gave a much smaller number of libraries, being
       only 341, but the number of volumes was nearly the same, being
       2,371,887, and was also based upon the census of 1850. Mr.
       William J. Rhees, in his 'Manual of Public Libraries,' which
       was printed in 1859, gave a list of 2,902 libraries, but of
       all this number only 1,312 had any report whatever of the
       number of volumes they contained. From these meager statistics
       it is seen that the reports do not vary very much, giving
       about the same number of libraries and number of volumes in
       them, taking account of the changes that would occur from the
       different classifications as to what was excepted or omitted
       as a library. The annual reports of the Bureau from 1870 to
       1874 contained limited statistics of only a few hundred
       libraries, and little more is shown than the fact that there
       were about 2,000 public libraries of all kinds in the United
       States. About five years of labor was expended in collecting
       material for the special report of the Bureau upon public
       libraries, which was printed in 1876, and this gave a list of
       3,649 libraries of over 300 volumes, and the total number of
       volumes was 12,276,964, this being about the first fairly
       complete collection of library statistics. In the report of
       the Bureau for 1884-85, after considerable correspondence and
       using the former work as a basis, another list of public
       libraries was published, amounting to 5,388 libraries of over
       300 volumes, an increase of 1,869 libraries in ten years, or
       almost 54 per cent. The number of volumes contained in these
       libraries at that time was 20,622,076, or an increase of about
       66 per cent, and showing that the percentage of increase in
       the number of volumes was even greater than that of the number
       of libraries. An estimate of the proportion of smaller
       libraries under 500 volumes in that list indicates that these
       smaller libraries included only about 20 per cent of the
       books, so that this list could be said to fairly show the
       extent of the libraries at that time. In the report for
       1886-87, detailed statistics of the various classes of
       libraries were given, except those of colleges and schools,
       which were included in the statistics of those institutions.
       From the uncertainty of the data and the imperfect records
       given of the very small libraries, it was deemed best to
       restrict the statistics to collections of books that might be
       fairly called representative, and as those having less than
       1,000 volumes made but a proportionally small percentage of
       the whole number of books the basis of 1,000 volumes or over
       was taken. This list includes the statistics only of libraries
       of this size and amounted to 1,777 libraries, containing
       14,012,370 volumes, and were arranged in separate lists by
       classes as far as it could be done. … The number of
       libraries and of volumes in each of the seven special classes
       in the report made in 1887 was as follows: Free public lending
       libraries, 434; volumes, 3,721,191; free public reference
       libraries, 153; volumes, 3,075,099; free public school
       libraries, 93; volumes, 177,560; free corporate lending
       libraries, 241; volumes 1,727,870; libraries of clubs,
       associations, etc., 341; volumes, 2,460,334; subscription
       corporate libraries, 452; volumes, 2,644,929; and circulating
       libraries proper, 751; volumes, 215,487. The statistics [now]
       given … are for the year 1891, and include only libraries of
       1,000 volumes and over, thus differing from the complete report
       of 1885. …
    {2021}
       There were, in 1891, 3,804 libraries. Of these, 3 contain over
       500,000 volumes; 1 between 300,000 and 500,000; 26 between
       100,000 and 300,000; 68 between 50,000 and 100,000; 128
       between 25,000 and 50,000; 383 between 10,000 and 25,000; 565
       between 5,000 and 10,000; and 2,360 between 1,000 and 5,000.
       … The North Atlantic Division contains 1,913 libraries, or
       50.3 per cent of the whole number; the South Atlantic, 339, or
       8.88 per cent; the South Central, 256, or 6.73 per cent; the
       North Central, 1,098, or 28.87 per cent, and the Western, 198,
       or 5.22 per cent. Of the distribution of volumes in the
       libraries, the North Atlantic Division has 16,605,286 or 53.34
       per cent; the South Atlantic, 4,276,894, or 13.71 per cent;
       the South Central 1,345,708, or 4.03 per cent; the North
       Central, 7,320,045, or 23.32 per cent; and the Western,
       1,593,974, or 5.34 per cent. … From [1885 to 1891] the
       increase in the United States in the number of libraries was
       from 2,987 to 3,804, an increase of 817, or 27.35 per cent; in
       the North Atlantic, from 1,543 to 1,913, an increase of 370,
       or 24 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 289 to 338, an
       increase of 49, or 17 per cent; in the South Central, from 201
       to 256, an increase of 55, or 27.5 per cent; in the North
       Central, from 813 to 1,099, an increase of 286, or 35.18 per
       cent; and in the Western, from 141 to 198, an increase of 57,
       or 40.43 per cent. These figures show that, comparatively, the
       largest increase in the number of libraries was in the Western
       Division, and of the number of volumes the greatest increase
       was in the North Central Division. The percentage of increase
       in the whole country was 66.3 for six years, or an average of
       over 11 per cent each year, which at this rate would double
       the number of volumes and libraries every nine years. … In
       the United States in 1885 there was one library to each 18,822
       of the population, while in 1891 there was one to every
       16,462, or a decrease of population to a library of 2,360, or
       12.5 percent; in the North Atlantic Division the decrease was
       from 10,246 to 9,096, 1,150, or 11.2 per cent; in the South
       Atlantic, from 28,740 to 26,206, 2,534, or 8.08 per cent; in
       the South Central, from 48,974 to 42,863, 6,111, or 12.5 per
       cent; in the North Central, from 24,807 to 20,348, 4,459, or
       18 per cent; and in the Western, from 15,557 to 15,290, 277 or
       1.8 per cent. The distribution of libraries in the North
       Atlantic Division shows the smallest average population to a
       library and the least change in the number, except the Western
       Division, where the increase of population from immigration
       has been greater than the increase in the number of libraries.
       But, generally, the establishment and growth in the size of
       libraries have been very large in nearly every section. …
       This shows that in 1885 there were in the United States in the
       libraries of the size mentioned 34 books to every 100 of the
       population, while in 1891 this number was 50, or an increase
       of 16 books, or 47 per cent. In the North Atlantic Division
       the increase was from 66 to 95, an increase of 29 books, or 34
       per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 34 to 48, an increase of
       14, or 41 per cent; in the South Central, from 9 to 12, an
       increase of 3, or 33.33 per cent; in the North Central, from
       20 to 33, an increase of 13, or 65 per cent; and in the
       Western, from 43 to 53, an increase of 10, or 23 per cent.
       These figures show that, comparatively, the largest increase
       of books to population has been in the great Northwest, over
       11 per cent each year. In the whole country there has been an
       average increase of 7.8 per cent per annum; that is, the
       increase of the number of books in the libraries of the
       country has been 7.8 per cent greater than the increase of the
       population during the past six years."

          W. Flint,
          Statistics of Public Libraries
          (United States Bureau of Education,
          Circ. of Information Number 7, 1893).

    LIBRARIES:
       United States of America:
       Massachusetts Free Libraries.

       "In 1839 the Hon. Horace Mann, then Secretary of the Board of
       Education, stated as the result of a careful effort to obtain
       authentic information relative to the libraries in the State,
       that there were from ten to fifteen town libraries, containing
       in the aggregate from three to four thousand volumes, to which
       all the citizens of the town had the right of access; that the
       aggregate number of volumes in the public libraries, of all
       kinds, in the State was about 300,000; and that but little
       more than 100,000 persons, or one-seventh of the population of
       the State, had any right of access to them. A little over a
       half century has passed. There are now 175 towns and cities
       having free public libraries under municipal control, and 248
       of the 351 towns and cities contain libraries in which the
       people have rights or free privileges. There are about
       2,500,000 volumes in these libraries, available for the use of
       2,104,224 of the 2,238,943 inhabitants which the State
       contains according to the census of 1890. The gifts of
       individuals in money, not including gifts of books, for
       libraries and library buildings, exceed five and a half
       million dollars. There are still 103 towns in the State, with
       an aggregate population of 134,719, which do not have the
       benefit of the free use of a public library. These are almost
       without exception small towns, with a slender valuation, and
       67 of them show a decline in population in the past five
       years. The State has taken the initiative in aiding the
       formation of free public libraries in such towns."

          First Report of the Free Public Library
          Commission of Massachusetts, 1891, pref.

       The second report of the Commissioners, 1892, showed an
       addition of 36 to the towns which have established free public
       libraries.

    LIBRARIES:
       United States of America:
       The American Library Association.

       A distinctly new era in the history of American libraries—and
       in the history, it may be said, of libraries throughout the
       English-speaking world,—was opened, in 1876, by the meeting
       of a conference of librarians at Philadelphia, during the
       Centennial Exhibition of the summer of that year. The first
       fruit of the conference was the organization of a permanent
       American Library Association, which has held annual meetings
       since, bringing large numbers of the librarians of the country
       together every year, making common property of their
       experience, their knowledge, their ideas,—animating them with
       a common spirit, and enlisting them in important undertakings
       of cooperative work. Almost simultaneously with the
       Philadelphia meeting, but earlier, there was issued the first
       number of a "Library Journal," called into being by the
       sagacious energy of the same small band of pioneers who
       planned and brought about the conference. The Library Journal
       became the organ of the American Library Association, and each
       was stimulated and sustained by the other: Their combined
       influence has acted powerfully upon those engaged in the work
       of American libraries, to elevate their aims, to increase
       their efficiency, and to make their avocation a recognized
       profession, exacting well-defined qualifications.
    {2022}
       The general result among the libraries of the country has been
       an increase of public usefulness beyond measure. To this
       renaissance in the library world many persons contributed; but
       its leading spirits were Melvil Dewey, latterly Director of
       the New York State Library; Justin Winsor, Librarian of
       Harvard University, formerly of the Boston Public Library; the
       late William F. Poole, LL.D., Librarian of the Newberry
       Library and formerly of the Chicago Public Library; Charles A.
       Cutter, lately Librarian of the Boston Athenæum; the late
       Frederick Leypoldt, first publisher of the "Library Journal,"
       and his successor, R. R. Bowker. The new library spirit was
       happily defined by James Russell Lowell, in his address
       delivered at the opening of a free public library in Chelsea,
       Massachusetts, and published in the volume of his works
       entitled "Democracy and other Addresses"; "Formerly," he said,
       "the duty of a librarian was considered too much that of a
       watch-dog, to keep people as much as possible away from the
       books, and to hand these over to his successor as little worn
       by use as he could. Librarians now, it is pleasant to see,
       have a different notion of their trust, and are in the habit
       of preparing, for the direction of the inexperienced, lists of
       such books as they think best worth reading. Cataloguing has
       also, thanks in great measure to American librarians, become a
       science, and catalogues, ceasing to be labyrinths without a
       clew, are furnished with finger-posts at every turn. Subject
       catalogues again save the beginner a vast deal of time and
       trouble by supplying him for nothing with one at least of the
       results of thorough scholarship, the knowing where to look for
       what he wants. I do not mean by this that there is or can be
       any short cut to learning, but that there may be, and is, such
       a short cut to information that will make learning more easily
       accessible."

       The organization of the American Library Association led to
       the formation, in 1877, of the Library Association of the
       United Kingdom, which was incident to the meeting of an
       international conference of Librarians held in London.

    LIBRARIES:
       United States of America:
       Principal Libraries.

       The following are the libraries in the United States which
       exceeded 100,000 volumes in 1891, as reported in the
       "Statistics of Public Libraries" published by the Bureau of
       Education. The name of each library is preceded by the date of
       its foundation:

       1638. Harvard University Library,
             292,000 volumes; 278,097 pamphlets.

       1701. Yale College Library, New Haven,
             185,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

       1731. Philadelphia Library Company,
             165,487 volumes; 30,000 pamphlets.

       1749. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
             100,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

       1754. Columbia College Library, New York,
             135,000 volumes.

       1789. Library of the House of Representatives, Washington,
             125,000 volumes.

       1800. Library of Congress, Washington,
             659,843 volumes; 210,000 pamphlets.

       1807. Boston Athenæum,
             173,831 volumes; 70,000 pamphlets.

       1818. New York State Library, Albany,
             157,114 volumes.

       1820. New York Mercantile Library, New York,
             239,793 volumes.

       1821. Philadelphia Mercantile Library,
             166,000 volumes; 10,000 pamphlets.

       1826. Maryland State Library, Annapolis,
             100,000 volumes.

       1849. Astor Library, New York,
             238,946 volumes; 12,000 pamphlets.

       1852. Boston Public Library,
             556,283 volumes.

       1857. Brooklyn Library,
             113,251 volumes; 21,500 pamphlets.

       1857. Peabody Institute, Baltimore,
             110,000 volumes; 13,500 pamphlets.

       1865. Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, Washington,
             104,300 volumes; 161,700 pamphlets.

       1865. Detroit Public Library,
             108,720 volumes.

       1867. Cincinnati Public Library,
             156,673 volumes; 18,326 pamphlets.

       1868. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York,
             111,007 volumes; 25,000 pamphlets.

       1872. Chicago Public Library,
             175,874 volumes; 25,293 pamphlets.

       1882. Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore,
             106,663 volumes; 1,500 pamphlets.

       1890. University of Chicago Library,
             280,000 volumes.

       1891. Sutro Library, San Francisco,
             200,000 volumes.

    LIBRARIES:
       United States of America:
       Library Gifts.

       A remarkable number of the free public libraries of the United
       States are the creations of private wealth, munificently
       employed for the common good. The greater institutions which
       have this origin are the Astor Library in New York, founded by
       John Jacob Astor and enriched by his descendants; the Lenox
       Library in New York, founded by James Lenox; the Peabody
       Institute, in Baltimore, founded by George Peabody; the Enoch
       Pratt Free Library, in Baltimore, founded by the gentleman
       whose name it bears; the Newberry Library, in Chicago, founded
       by the will of Walter L. Newberry, who died in 1868; the Sutro
       Library in San Francisco, founded by Adolph Sutro, and the
       Carnegie Libraries founded at Pittsburg, Alleghany City and
       Braddock by Andrew Carnegie. By the will of John Crerar, who
       died in 1889, trustees for Chicago are in possession of an
       estate estimated at $2,500,000 or $3,000,000, for the
       endowment of a library which will soon exist. The intention of
       the late Samuel J. Tilden, former Governor of the State of New
       York, to apply the greater part of his immense estate to the
       endowment of a free library in the City of New York, has been
       partially defeated by contesting heirs; but the just feeling
       of one among the heirs has restored $2,000,000 to the purpose
       for which $5,000,000 was appropriated in Mr. Tilden's intent.
       Steps preparatory to the creation of the library are in
       progress. The lesser libraries, and institutions including
       libraries of considerable importance, which owe their origin
       to the public spirit and generosity of individual men of
       wealth, are quite too numerous in the country to be catalogued
       in this place. In addition to such, the bequests and gifts
       which have enriched the endowment of libraries otherwise
       founded are beyond computation.

    {2023}

    LIBRARIES:
       United States of America:
       Government Departmental Libraries at Washington.

       A remarkable creation of special libraries connected with the
       departments and bureaus of the national Government, has
       occurred within a few years past. The more important among
       them are the following:

       Department of Agriculture,
       20,000 volumes and 15,000 pamphlets;

       Department of Justice, 21,500 volumes;

       Department of State, 50,000 volumes;

       Department of the Interior, 11,500;

       Navy Department, 24,518;

       Post Office Department, 10,000;

       Patent Office Scientific Library,
       50,000 volumes and 10,000 pamphlets;

       Signal Office, 10,540 volumes;

       Surgeon General's Office,
       104,300 volumes and 161,700 pamphlets (reputed to be the best
       collection of medical literature, as it is certainly the best
       catalogued medical library, in the world);

       Treasury Department, 21,000 volumes;

       Bureau of Education,
       45,000 volumes and 120,000 pamphlets;

       Coast and Geodetic Survey,
       12,000 volumes and 4,000 pamphlets;

       Geological Survey,
       30,414 volumes, and 42,917 pamphlets;

       Naval Observatory,
       13,000 volumes and 3,000 pamphlets;

       United States Senate, 72,592 volumes;

       United States House of Representatives,
       125,000 (both of these being distinct from the great Library
       of Congress, which contained, in 1891, 659,843 volumes);

       War Department, 30,000 volumes.

    LIBRARIES:
       Canada.

       "In 1779 a number of the officers stationed at Quebec, and of
       the leading merchants, undertook the formation of a
       subscription library. The Governor, General Haldimand, took an
       active part in the work, and ordered on behalf of the
       subscribers £500 worth of books from London. The selection was
       entrusted to Richard Cumberland, the dramatist: and an
       interesting letter from the Governor addressed to him,
       describing the literary wants of the town and the class of
       books to be sent, is now in the Public Archives. A room for
       their reception was granted in the Bishop's Palace; and as
       late as 1806, we learn from Lambert's Travels that it was the
       only library [?] in Canada. Removed several times, it slowly
       increased, until in 1882 it numbered 4,000 volumes. The list
       of subscribers having become very much reduced, it was leased
       to the Quebec Literary Association in 1843. In 1854 a portion
       of it was burnt with the Parliament Buildings, where it was
       then quartered; and finally in 1866 the entire library,
       consisting of 6,990 volumes, were sold, subject to conditions,
       to the Literary and Historical Society for a nominal sum of
       $500. … Naturally on the organization of each of the
       provinces, libraries were established in connection with the
       Parliaments. We have therefore the following:

       Nova Scotia, Halifax, 25,319;
       New Brunswick, Fredericton, 10,850;
       Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, 4,000;
       Quebec, Quebec, 17,400;
       Ontario, Toronto, 40,000;
       Manitoba, Winnipeg, 10,000;
       Northwest Territory, Regina, 1,480;
       British Columbia, Victoria, 1,200;
       Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, 120,000.
       Total volumes in Parliamentary libraries, 230,249.

       By far the most important of our Canadian libraries is the
       Dominion Library of Parliament at Ottawa. Almost corresponding
       with the Congressional Library at Washington in its sources of
       income and work, it has grown rapidly during the past ten
       years, and now numbers 120,000 volumes. Originally established
       on the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in
       1841, it was successively removed with the seat of government
       from Kingston to Montreal, to Quebec, to Toronto, again to
       Quebec, and finally to Ottawa. … The 38 colleges in Canada
       are provided with libraries containing 429,470 volumes, or an
       average of 11,302. The senior of these, Laval College, Quebec,
       is famous as being, after Harvard, the oldest on the
       continent, being founded by Bishop Laval in 1663. … In 1848
       the late Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of Education from
       1844-1876, drafted a school bill which contained provisions
       for school and township libraries, and succeeded in awakening
       a deep interest in the subject. … In 1854 Parliament passed
       the requisite act and granted him the necessary funds to carry
       out his views in the matter. The regulations of the department
       authorized each county council to establish four classes of
       libraries—

       1. An ordinary common school library in each schoolhouse for
       the use of the children and rate-payers.

       2. A general public lending library available to all the
       ratepayers in the municipality.

       3. A professional library of books on teaching, school
       organization, language, and kindred subjects, available for
       teachers only.

       4. A library in any public institution under the control of
       the municipality, for the use of the inmates, or in any county
       jail, for the use of the prisoners. …

       The proposal to establish the second class was however
       premature; and accordingly, finding that mechanics institutes
       were being developed throughout the towns and villages, the
       Educational Department wisely aided the movement by giving a
       small grant proportionate to the amount contributed by the
       members and reaching a maximum of $200, afterwards increased
       to $400 annually. In 1869 these had grown to number 26; in
       1880, 74; and in 1886, 125. The number of volumes possessed by
       these 125 is 206,146, or an average of 1,650. … In the
       cities, however, the mechanics institute, with its limited
       number of subscribers, has been found unequal to the task
       assigned it, and accordingly, in 1882, the Free Libraries Act
       was passed, based upon similar enactments in Britain and the
       United States. … By the Free Libraries Act, the maximum of
       taxation is fixed at ½ a mill on the annual assessment. …
       None of the other provinces have followed Ontario in this
       matter."

          J. Bain,
          Brief Review of the Libraries of Canada
          (Thousand Islands Conference of Librarians, 1887).

       "The total number of public libraries in Canada of all kinds
       containing 1,000 or more volumes is 202, and of this number
       the Province of Ontario alone has 152, or over three-fourths
       of all, while Quebec has 27 or over one-half of the remaining
       fourth, the other provinces having from 2 to 6 libraries each.
       The total number of volumes and pamphlets in all the libraries
       reported is 1,478,910, of which the Province of Ontario has
       863,332 volumes, or almost 60 per cent, while the Province of
       Quebec has 490,354, or over 33 percent; Nova Scotia, 48,250
       volumes, or 3½ per cent; New Brunswick, 34,894 volumes, a
       little over 2.3 per cent; Manitoba, 31,025 volumes, or 2.1 per
       cent; British Columbia, 10,225 volumes, or not quite 0.7 per
       cent; and Prince Edward Island, 5,200 volumes, or over 0.3 per
       cent of the total number."

          V. Flint,
          Statistics [1891] of Public Libraries
          in the United States and Canada
          (United States Bureau of Education, Circular
          of Information No.7, 1893).

    LIBRARIES:
       Mexico.

       The National Library of Mexico contains 155,000 books, besides
       manuscripts and pamphlets.

    {2024}

    LIBRARIES:
       China.
       The Imperial Library.

       "It would be surprising if a people like the Chinese, who have
       the literary instinct so strongly developed, had not at an
       early date found the necessity of those great collections of
       books which are the means for carrying on the great work of
       civilization. China had her first great bibliothecal
       catastrophe two centuries before the Christian era, when the
       famous edict for the burning of the books was promulgated.
       Literature and despotism have never been on very good terms,
       and the despot of Tsin, finding a power at work which was
       unfavorable to his pretensions, determined to have all books
       destroyed except those relating to agriculture, divination and
       the history of his own house. His hatred to books included the
       makers of them, and the literati have not failed to make his
       name execrated for his double murders of men and books. When
       the brief dynasty of Tsin passed, the Princes of Han showed
       more appreciation of culture, and in 190 B. C. the atrocious
       edict was repealed, and the greatest efforts made to recover
       such literary treasures as had escaped the destroyer. Some
       classics are said to have been rewritten from the dictation of
       scholars who had committed them to memory. Some robbers broke
       open the tomb of Seang, King of Wei, who died B. C. 295, and
       found in it bamboo tablets containing more than 100,000 peen
       [bamboo slips]. These included a copy of the Classic of
       Changes and the Annals of the Bamboo Books, which indeed take
       their title from this circumstance. This treasure trove was
       placed in the Imperial Library. So the Shoo-king is said to
       have been found in a wall where it had been hidden by a
       descendant of Confucius, on the proclamation of the edict
       against books. Towards the close of the first century a
       library had been formed by Lew Heang and his son Lew Hin. …
       Succeeding dynasties imitated more or less this policy, and
       under the later Han dynasty great efforts were made to restore
       the library. … In the troubles at the close of the second
       century the palace at Lo-Yang was burned, and the greater part
       of the books destroyed. … Another Imperial collection at
       Lo-Yang, amounting to 29,945 books, was destroyed A. D. 311.
       In A. D. 431, Seäy Ling-Yuen, the keeper of the archives, made
       a catalogue of 4,582 books in his custody. Another catalogue
       was compiled in 473, and recorded 5,704 books. Buddhism and
       Taouism now began to contribute largely to the national
       literature. Amongst the other consequences of the overthrow of
       the Tse dynasty at the end of the fifth century was the
       destruction of the royal library of 18,010 books. Early in the
       next century a collection of 33,106 books, not including the
       Buddhist literature, was made chiefly, it is said, by the
       exertions of Jin Fang, the official curator. The Emperor
       Yuen-te removed his library, then amounting to 70,000 books,
       to King Chow, and the building was burnt down when he was
       threatened by the troops of Chow. The library of the later Wei
       dynasty was dispersed in the insurrection of 531, and the
       efforts made to restore it were not altogether successful. The
       later Chow collected a library of 10,000 books, and, on the
       overthrow of the Tse dynasty, this was increased by a mass of
       5,000 mss. obtained from the fallen dynasty. When towards the
       close of the sixth century the Suy became masters of the
       empire they began to accumulate books. … The Tang dynasty
       are specially remarkable for their patronage of literature.
       Early in the eighth century the catalogue extended to 53,915
       books, and a collection of recent authors included 28,469
       books. Printing began to supersede manuscript in the tenth
       century, plentiful editions of the classics appeared and
       voluminous compilations. Whilst the Sung were great patrons of
       literature, the Leaou were at least lukewarm, and issued an
       edict prohibiting the printing of books by private persons.
       The Kin had books translated into their own tongue, for the
       benefit of the then Mongolian subjects. A similar policy was
       pursued by the Yuen dynasty, under whom dramatic literature
       and fiction began to flourish. In the year 1406, the printed
       books in the Imperial Library are said to have amounted to
       300,000 printed books and twice the number of mss. … The
       great Imperial Library was founded by K'in Lung in the last
       century. In response to an imperial edict, many of the
       literati and book-lovers placed rare editions at the service
       of the government, to be copied. The Imperial Library has many
       of its books, therefore, in mss. Chinese printing, however, is
       only an imperfect copy of the caligraphy of good scribes. Four
       copies were made of each work. One was destined for the Wan
       Yuen Repository at Peking; a second for the Wan-tsung
       Repository at Kang-ning, the capital of Kiang-su province; a
       third for the Wan-hwui Repository at Yang-chou-fu, and the
       fourth for the Wan-lan Repository at Hong-Chou, the capital of
       Cheh-Kiang. A catalogue was published from which it appears
       that the library contained from ten to twelve thousand
       distinct works, occupying 168,000 volumes. The catalogue is in
       effect an annotated list of Chinese literature, and includes
       the works which were still wanting to the library and deemed
       essential to its completion. Dr. D. J. McGowan, who visited
       the Hong-Chou collection, says that it was really intended for
       a public library, and that those who applied for permission to
       the local authorities, not only were allowed access, but were
       afforded facilities for obtaining food and lodging, 'but from
       some cause or other the library is rarely or never consulted.'
       Besides the Imperial, there are Provincial, Departmental and
       District Libraries. Thus, the examination hall of every town
       will contain the standard classical and historical books. At
       Canton and other cities there are extensive collections, but
       their use is restricted to the mandarins. There are
       collections of books and sometimes printing presses in
       connection with the Buddhist monasteries."

          W. E. A. Axon,
          Notes on Chinese Libraries
          (Library Journal, January and February, 1880).

       For an account of the ancient library of Chinese classics in
       stone,

          See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: CHINA.

    {2025}

    LIBRARIES:
       Japan.

       "The Tokyo Library is national in its character, as the
       Congressional Library of the United States, the British Museum
       of Great Britain, etc. It is maintained by the State, and by
       the copyright Act it is to receive a copy of every book,
       pamphlet, etc., published in the empire. The Tokyo Library was
       established in 1872 by the Department of Education with about
       70,000 volumes. In 1873 it was amalgamated with the library
       belonging to the Exhibition Bureau and two years later it was
       placed under the control of the Home Department, while a new
       library with the title of Tokyo Library was started by the
       Education Department at the same time with about 28,000
       volumes newly collected. Thus the Tokyo Library began its
       career on a quite slender basis; but in 1876, the books
       increased to 68,953, and in 1877 to 71,853. Since that time,
       both the numbers of books and visitors have steadily
       increased, so much so that in 1884 the former reached 102,350
       and latter 115,986, averaging 359 persons per one day. The
       library was then open free to all classes; but the presence of
       too many readers of the commonest text-books and light
       literature was found to have caused much hindrance to the
       serious students. … This disadvantage was somewhat remedied
       by introducing the fee system, which, of course, placed much
       restriction to the visitors of the library. … It is very
       clear from the character of the library that it is a reference
       library and not a circulating library. But as there are not
       any other large and well-equipped libraries in Tokyo, a system
       of 'lending out' is added, something like that of Königliche
       Bibliothek zu Berlin, with a subscription of 5 yen (about $5)
       per annum. … The Tokyo Library now contains 97,550 Japanese
       and Chinese books and 25,559 European books, besides about
       100,000 of duplicates, popular books, etc., which are not
       used. The average number of books used is 337,262 a year. …
       The Library of the Imperial University, which is also under my
       charge, comprises all the books belonging to the Imperial
       University of Japan. These books are solely for the use of the
       instructors, students, and pupils, no admittance being granted
       to the general public. The library contains 77,991 European
       books and 101,217 Japanese and Chinese books. As to other
       smaller libraries of Japan, there are eight public and ten
       private libraries in different parts of the empire. The books
       contained in them are 66,912 Japanese and Chinese books and
       4,731 European books with 43,911 visitors! Besides these, in
       most of towns of respectable size, there are generally two or
       three small private circulating libraries, which contain books
       chiefly consisting of light literature and historical works
       popularly treated."

          I. Tanaka,
          Tokyo Library
          (San Francisco Conference of Librarians, 1891).

    LIBRARIES:
       India.

       The first free library in a native state of India was opened
       in 1892, with 10,000 volumes, 7,000 being in English. It was
       founded by the brother of the Maharajah.

          Library Journal,
          volume 17, page 395.

       ----------LIBRARIES: End----------

    LIBURNIANS, The.

          See KORKYRA.

    LIBYAN SIBYL.

          See SIBYLS.

    LIBYANS, The.

       "The name of Africa was applied by the ancients only to that
       small portion of country south of Cape Bon; the rest was
       called Libya. The bulk of the population of the northern
       coast, between Egypt and the Pillars of Hercules, was of the
       Hamitic race of Phut, who were connected with the Egyptians
       and Ethiopians, and to whom the name of Libyans was not
       applied until a later date, as this name was originally
       confined to some tribes of Arian or Japhetic race, who had
       settled among the natives. From these nations sprung from Phut
       descended the races now called Berbers, who have spread over
       the north of Africa, from the northernmost valleys of the
       Atlas to the southern limits of the Sahara, and from Egypt to
       the Atlantic; perhaps even to the Canaries, where the ancient
       Guanches seem to have spoken a dialect nearly approaching that
       of the Berbers of Morocco. These Berbers—now called Amazigh,
       or Shuluh, in Morocco; Kabyles, in the three provinces of
       Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli; Tibboos, between Fezzan and
       Egypt; and Tuariks in the Sahara—are the descendants of the
       same great family of nations whose blood, more or less pure,
       still runs in the veins of the tribes inhabiting the different
       parts of the vast territory once possessed by their ancestors.
       The language they still speak, known through the labours of
       learned officers of the French army in Africa, is nearly
       related to that of Ancient Egypt. It is that in which the few
       inscriptions we possess, emanating from the natives of Libya,
       Numidia, and Mauritania in olden times, are written. The
       alphabet peculiar to these natives, whilst under the
       Carthaginian rule, is still used by the Tuariks. Sallust, who
       was able to consult the archives of Carthage, and who seems
       more accurate than any other classical writer on African
       history, was acquainted with the annals of the primitive
       period, anterior to the arrival of the Arian tribes and the
       settlement of the Phœnician colonies. Then only three races,
       unequally distributed in a triple zone, were to be met with
       throughout Northern Africa. Along the shore bordering the
       Mediterranean were the primitive Libyans, who were Hamites,
       descendants of Phut; behind them, towards the interior, but on
       the western half only, were the Getulians … ; further still
       in the interior, and beyond the Sahara, were the negroes,
       originally called by the Greek name 'Ethiopians, which was
       afterwards erroneously applied to the Cushites of the Upper
       Nile. Sallust also learnt, from the Carthaginian traditions,
       of the great Japhetic invasion of the coast of Africa. … The
       Egyptian monuments have acquainted us with the date of the
       arrival of these Indo-Europeans in Africa, among whom were the
       Libyans, properly so called, the Maxyans, and Macæ. It was
       contemporary with the reigns of Seti I. and Ramses II."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History of the East,
          book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2).

          See, also, NUMIDIANS; and AMORITES.

    LICINIAN LAWS, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 376-367.

    LICINIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 307-323.

    LICTORS.
    FASCES.

       "The fasces were bundles of rods (virgæ) of elm or birchwood,
       tied together round the handle of an axe (securis) with (most
       likely red) straps. The iron of the axe, which was the
       executioner's tool, protruded from the sticks. The fasces were
       carried on their left shoulders by the lictors, who walked in
       front of certain magistrates, making room for them, and
       compelling all people to move out of the way (summovere),
       barring Vestals and Roman matrons. To about the end of the
       Republic, when a special executioner was appointed, the
       lictors inflicted capital punishment. The king was entitled to
       twelve fasces, the same number being granted to the consuls.
       … The dictator was entitled to twenty-four lictors. …
       Since 42 B. C. the Flamen Dialis and the Vestals also were
       entitled to one lictor each. In case a higher official met his
       inferior in the street, he was saluted by the lictors of the
       latter withdrawing the axe and lowering the fasces."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 107, foot-note.

    {2026}

    LIDUS,
    LEUD,
    LATT, The.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

       ----------LIÈGE: Start--------

    LIÈGE:
       The Episcopal Principality.

       "Liège lies on the borderland of the French and German
       speaking races. … It was the capital of an ecclesiastical
       principality, whose territory extended some distance up the
       river and over the wooded ridges and green valleys of the
       Ardennes. The town had originally sprung up round the tomb of
       St. Lambert—a shrine much frequented by pilgrims. … The
       Prince Bishop of Liège was the vassal of the emperor, but his
       subjects had long considered the kings of France their natural
       protectors. It was in France that they found a market for
       their manufactures, from France that pilgrims came to the tomb
       of St. Lambert or to the sylvan shrine of St. Hubert.
       Difference of language and rivalry in trade separated them
       from their Dutch-speaking neighbours. We hear, as early as the
       10th century, of successful attempts on the part of the people
       of Liège, supported and directed by their bishops, to subdue
       the lords of the castles in their neighbourhood. A population
       of traders, artizans, and miners, were unlikely to submit to
       the pretensions of a feudal aristocracy. Nor was there a
       burgher oligarchy, as in many of the Flemish and German towns.
       Every citizen was eligible to office if he could obtain a
       majority of the votes of the whole male population.
       Constitutional limits were imposed on the power of the bishop;
       but he was the sole fountain of law and justice. By suspending
       their administration he could paralyse the social life of the
       State, and by his interdicts annihilate its religious life.
       Yet the burghers were involved in perpetual disputes with
       their bishop. When the power of the Dukes of Burgundy was
       established in the Low Countries, it was to them that the
       latter naturally applied for assistance against their unruly
       flock. John the Fearless defeated the citizens with great
       slaughter in 1408. He himself reckoned the number of slain at
       25,000. In 1431 Liège was compelled to pay a fine of 200,000
       crowns to the Duke of Burgundy." The Duke—Philip the
       Good—afterwards forced the reigning bishop to resign in favor
       of a brother of the Duke of Bourbon, a dissolute boy of
       eighteen, whose government was reckless and intolerable.

          P. F. Willert,
          Reign of Lewis XI.,
          pages 93-94.

          ALSO IN:
          J. F. Kirk,
          History of Charles the Bold,
          book 1, chapter 7.

    LIÈGE: A. D. 1467-1468.
       War with Charles the Bold of Burgundy
       and destruction of the city.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468;
          also, DINANT.

    LIÈGE: A. D. 1691.
       Bombardment by the French.

       The Prince-bishop of Liège having joined the League of
       Augsburg against Louis XIV., and having received troops of the
       Grand Alliance into his city, the town was bombarded in May,
       1691, by the French General Boufflers. There was no attempt at
       a siege; the attack was simply one of destructive malice, and
       the force which made it withdrew speedily.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

    LIÈGE: A. D. 1702.
       Reduced by Marlborough.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

    LIÈGE: A. D. 1792-1793.
       Occupation and surrender by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
          and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

       ----------LIÈGE: Start--------

       ----------LIEGNITZ: Start----------

    LIEGNITZ, The Battle of (1241).

       On the 9th of April, A. D. 1241, the Mongols, who had already
       overrun a great part of Russia, defeated the combined forces
       of Poland, Moravia and Silesia in a battle which filled all
       Europe with consternation. It was fought near Lignitz (or
       Liegnitz), on a plain watered by the river Keiss, the site
       being now occupied by a village called Wahlstadt, i. e.,
       "Field of Battle." "It was a Mongol habit to cut off an ear
       from each corpse after a battle, so as to have a record of the
       number slain; and we are told they filled nine sacks with
       these ghastly trophies," from the field of Lignitz.

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, page 144.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

    LIEGNITZ:
       Battle of (1760).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

       ----------LIEGNITZ: End----------

    LIGERIS, The.

       The ancient name of the river Loire.

    LIGHT BRIGADE, The Charge of the.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

    LIGII, The.

          See LYGIANS.

    LIGNY, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

    LIGONIA.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

    LIGURIAN REPUBLIC, The.

       The mediæval republic of Genoa is often referred to as the
       Ligurian Republic; but the name was distinctively given by
       Napoleon to one of his ephemeral creations in Italy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER), and 1804-1805.

    LIGURIANS, The.

       "The whole of Piedmont in its present extent was inhabited by
       the Ligurians: Pavia, under the name of Ticinum, was founded
       by a Ligurian tribe, the Lævians. When they pushed forward
       their frontier among the Apennines into the Casentino on the
       decline of the Etruscans, they probably only recovered what
       had before been wrested from them. Among the inhabitants of
       Corsica there were Ligurians. … The Ligurians and Iberians
       were anciently contiguous; whereas in aftertimes they were
       parted by the Gauls. We are told by Scylax, that from the
       borders of Iberia, that is, from the Pyrenees, to the Rhone,
       the two nations were dwelling intermixed. … But it is far
       more probable that the Iberians came from the south of the
       Pyrenees into Lower Languedoc, as they did into Aquitaine, and
       that the Ligurians were driven back by them. When the Celts,
       long after, moving in an opposite direction, reached the shore
       of the Mediterranean, they too drove the Ligurians close down
       to the coast, and dwelt as the ruling people amongst them, in
       the country about Avignon, as is implied by the name
       Celto-Ligurians. … Of their place in the family of nations
       we are ignorant: we only know that they were neither Iberians
       nor Celts."

          G. B. Niebuhr,
          History of Rome,
          volume 1.

       "On the coast of Liguria, the land on each side of the city of
       Genoa, a land which was not reckoned Italian in early times,
       we find people who seem not to have been Aryan. And these
       Ligurians seem to have been part of a race which was spread
       through Italy and Sicily before the Aryan settlements, and to
       have been akin to the non-Aryan inhabitants of Spain and
       southern Gaul, of whom the Basques … remain as a remnant."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          I. Taylor,
          Origin of the Aryans,
          chapter 2, section 7.

          See, also, APPENDIX A, VOLUME 1.

    {2027}

       ----------LILLE: Start--------

    LILLE: A. D. 1583.
       Submission to Spain.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585
          LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

    LILLE: A. D. 1667.
       Taken by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

    LILLE: A. D. 1668.
       Ceded to France.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

    LILLE: A. D. 1708.
       Siege and capture by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

    LILLE: A. D. 1713.
       Restoration to France.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

       ----------LILLE: End--------

    LILLEBONNE, Assembly of.

       A general assembly of Norman barons convened by Duke William,
       A. D. 1066, for the considering of his contemplated invasion
       of England.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Norman Conquest,
          chapter 13, section 3 (volume 3).

    LILLIBULLERO.

       "Thomas Wharton, who, in the last Parliament, had represented
       Buckinghamshire, and who was already conspicuous both as a
       libertine and as a Whig, had written [A. D. 1688, just prior
       to the Revolution which drove James II. from the English
       throne] a satirical ballad on the administration of Tyrconnel
       [Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel, James' Lord Deputy in
       Ireland.]

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

       In this little poem an Irishman congratulates a brother
       Irishman, in a barbarous jargon, on the approaching triumph of
       Popery and of the Milesian race. … These verses, which were
       in no respect above the ordinary standard of street poetry,
       had for burden some gibberish which was said to have been used
       as a watchword by the insurgents of Ulster in 1641. The verses
       and the tune caught the fancy of the nation. From one end of
       England to the other all classes were constantly singing this
       idle rhyme. It was especially the delight of the English army.
       More than seventy years after the Revolution, a great writer
       delineated, with exquisite skill, a veteran who had fought at
       the Boyne and at Namur. One of the characteristics of the good
       old soldier is his trick of whistling Lillibullero. Wharton
       afterwards boasted that he had sung a King out of three
       kingdoms. But in truth the success of Lillibullero was the
       effect, and not the cause, of that excited state of public
       feeling which produced the Revolution. … The song of
       Lillibullero is among the State Poems. In Percy's Relics the
       first part will be found, but not the second part, which was
       added after William's landing."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 9, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          W. W. Wilkins,
          Political Ballads of the 17th and 18th Centuries,
          volume 1, page 275.

    LILY OF FLORENCE, The.

          See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.

       ----------LILYBÆUM: Start--------

    LILYBÆUM: B. C. 368.
       Siege by Dionisius.

       "This town, close to the western cape of Sicily, appears to
       have arisen as a substitute for the neighbouring town of Motye
       (of which we hear little more since its capture by Dionysius
       in 396 B. C.), and to have become the principal Carthaginian
       station." Lilybæum was first besieged and then blockaded by
       the Syracuse tyrant, Dionysius, B. C. 368; but he failed to
       reduce it. It was made a powerful stronghold by the
       Carthaginians.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 83.

    LILYBÆUM: B. C. 277.
       Siege by Pyrrhus.

          See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

    LILYBÆUM: B. C. 250-241.
       Siege by the Romans.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

       ----------LILYBÆUM: End--------

    LIMA:
       Founded by Pizarro (1535).

          See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

    LIMBURG:
       Capture by the Dutch (1632).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

       ----------LIMERICK: Start--------

    LIMERICK: A. D. 1690-1691.
       Sieges and surrender.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

    LIMERICK: A. D. 1691.
       The treaty of surrender and its violation.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1691.

       ----------LIMERICK: End--------

    LIMES, The.

       This term was applied to certain Roman frontier-roads. "Limes
       is not every imperial frontier, but only that which is marked
       out by human hands, and arranged at the same time for being
       patrolled and having posts stationed for frontier-defence,
       such as we find in Germany and in Africa. … The Limes is
       thus the imperial frontier-road, destined for the regulation
       of frontier-intercourse, inasmuch as the crossing of it was
       allowed only at certain points corresponding to the bridges of
       the river boundary, and elsewhere forbidden. This was
       doubtless effected in the first instance by patrolling the
       line, and, so long as this was done, the Limes remained a
       boundary road. It remained so, too, when it was fortified on
       both sides, as was done in Britain and at the mouth of the
       Danube; the Britannic wall is also termed Limes."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 4, foot-note.

    LIMIGANTES, The.

       The Limigantes were a tribe occupying, in the fourth century,
       a region of country between the Danube and the Theiss, who
       were said to have been formerly the slaves of a Sarmatian
       people in the same territory and to have overpowered and
       expelled their masters. The latter, in exile, became
       dependents of the warlike nation of the Quadi. At the end of a
       war with the latter, A. D. 357-359, in which they were greatly
       humbled, the Emperor Constantius commanded the Limigantes to
       surrender their stolen territory to its former owners. They
       resisted the mandate and were exterminated.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 18-19.

       The Limigantes were a branch of the Iazyges or Jazyges, a
       nomadic Sarmatian or Sclavonic people who were settled in
       earlier times on the Palus Mæotis.

    LIMISSO.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.

       ----------LIMOGES: Start--------

    LIMOGES,
       Origin of the town.

          See LEMOVICES.

    LIMOGES, A. D. 1370.
       Massacre by the Black Prince.

       A foul crime which stains the name of "the Black Prince."
       Taking the city of Limoges, in France, after a short siege, A.
       D. 1370, he ordered a promiscuous massacre of the population,
       and more than 3,000 men, women and children were slain, while
       the town was pillaged and burned.

          Froissart,
          Chronicles
          (translated by Johnes),
          book 1, chapters 288, 290.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

       ----------LIMOGES: End--------

    LIMONUM.

          See POITIERS.

    LIMOUSIN,
       Early inhabitants of the.

          See LEMOVICES.

    {2028}

    LINCOLN, Abraham.
       Election to the Presidency.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

    LINCOLN, Abraham.
       Inauguration and Presidential administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-MARCH), to 1865 (APRIL).

    LINCOLN, Abraham.
       Gettysburg address.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (NOVEMBER).

    LINCOLN, Abraham.
       Reëlection to the Presidency.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

    LINCOLN, Abraham.
       Visit to Richmond.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

    LINCOLN, Abraham.
       Assassination.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

    LINCOLN, General Benjamin,
       in the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
          1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
          1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

    LINCOLN, Battle of.

          See LAMBETH, TREATY OF.

    LINCOLN, Origin of.

          See LINDUM.

    LINDISWARA,
    LINDESFARAS.

       "Dwellers about Lindum," or Lincoln; a name given for a time
       to the Angles who seized and settled in that English district.

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    LINDSEY, Kingdom of.

       One of the small and transient kingdoms of the Angles in early
       England.

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 7, section 70 (volume 1).

    LINDUM.

       The Roman city from which sprang the English city of Lincoln.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    LINGONES, The.

       A tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory embraced parts in the
       modern French departments of the Haute-Marne, the Aube, the
       Yonne and the Côte-d'Or.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2).

          See, also, ROME: B. C. 390-347.

    LINKÖPING, Battle of (1598).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

    LION AND THE SUN, The Order of the.

       A Persian order, instituted in 1808.

    LION OF ST. MARK, The Winged.

       The standard of the Venetian republic. "Historians have failed
       or omitted to fix the precise time when this ensign of the
       lion was first adopted by the Republic. But when the two
       granite columns ['trophies of a successful raid in the
       Archipelago'], still the conspicuous ornaments of the Piazetta
       of St. Mark, were erected, in or about 1172, a winged lion in
       bronze was placed on one of them, and a statue of St.
       Theodore, a patron of earlier standing, on the other."

          The Republic of Venice
          (Quarterly Review, Oct., 1874),
          page 423.

          See, also, VENICE: A. D. 829.

    LIPAN, Battle of (1434).

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

       ----------LISBON: Start--------

    LISBON:
       Origin and early history.

          See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

    LISBON: A. D. 1147.
       Capture from the Moors.
       Made the capital of Portugal.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

    LISBON: A. D. 1755.
       The great Earthquake.

       "On the morning of the 1st of November in this year, at the
       same period, though in less or greater degree a far-spreading
       earthquake ran through great part both of Europe and Barbary.
       In the north its effects, as usual with earthquakes in that
       region, were happily slight and few. Some gentle vibrations
       were felt as far as Dantzick. … In Madrid a violent shock
       was felt, but no buildings, and only two human beings,
       perished. In Fez and in Morocco, on the contrary, great
       numbers of houses fell down, and great multitudes of people
       were buried beneath the ruins. But the widest and most fearful
       destruction was reserved for Lisbon. Already, in the year
       1531, that city had been laid half in ruins by an earthquake.
       The 1st of November 1755 was All Saints' Day, a festival of
       great solemnity; and at nine in the morning all the churches
       of Lisbon were crowded with kneeling worshippers of each sex,
       all classes, and all ages, when a sudden and most violent
       shock made every church reel to its foundations. Within the
       intervals of a few minutes two other shocks no less violent
       ensued, and every church in Lisbon—tall column and towering
       spire—was hurled to the ground. Thousands and thousands of
       people were crushed to death, and thousands more grievously
       maimed, unable to crawl away, and left to expire in lingering
       agony. The more stately and magnificent had been the fabric,
       the wider and more grievous was the havoc made by its ruin.
       About one fourth, as was vaguely computed, of all the houses
       in the city toppled down. The encumbered streets could scarce
       afford an outlet to the fugitives; 'friends,' says an
       eye-witness, 'running from their friends, fathers from their
       children, husbands from their wives, because every one fled
       away from their habitations full of terror, confusion, and
       distraction.' The earth seemed to heave and quiver like an
       animated being. The sun was darkened with the clouds of lurid
       dust that arose. Frantic with fear a headlong multitude rushed
       for refuge to a large and newly built stone pier which jutted
       out into the Tagus, when a sudden convulsion of the stream
       turned this pier bottom uppermost, like a ship on its keel in
       the tempest, and then engulphed it. And of all the living
       creatures who had lately thronged it,—full 3,000, it is
       said,—not one, even as a corpse, ever rose again. From the
       banks of the river other crowds were looking on in speechless
       affright, when the river itself came rushing in upon them like
       a torrent, though against wind and tide. It rose at least
       fifteen feet above the highest spring tides, and then again
       subsided, drawing in or dashing to pieces every thing within
       its reach, while the very ships in the harbour were violently
       whirled around. Earth and water alike seemed let loose as
       scourges on this devoted city. 'Indeed every clement,' says a
       person present, 'seemed to conspire to our destruction … for
       in about two hours after the shock fires broke out in three
       different parts of the city, occasioned from the goods and the
       kitchen fires being all jumbled together.' At this time also
       the wind grew into a fresh gale, which made the fires spread
       in extent and rage with fury during three days, until there
       remained but little for them to devour. Many of the maimed and
       wounded are believed to have perished unseen and unheeded in
       the flames; some few were almost miraculously rescued after
       being for whole days buried where they fell, without light or
       food or hope. The total number of deaths was computed at the
       time as not less than 30,000."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 32 (volume 4).

    LISBON: A. D. 1807.
       Occupied by the French.
       Departure of the Royal Family for Brazil.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

       ----------LISBON: End--------
    {2029}

    LISLE.

          See LILLE.

    LISSA, Battle of (1866).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

    LIT DE JUSTICE.

          See BED OF JUSTICE.

       ----------LITHUANIA: Start--------

    LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.
       Formation of the Grand Duchy.

       "From 1224 [when Russia was prostrated by the Mongol conquest]
       to 1487 … is a period of obscuration in Russian history,
       during which Russia is nothing in the Slavonian world. The
       hour of Russia's weakness was that in which the Lithuanians,
       formerly a mere chaos of Slavo-Finnish tribes, assumed
       organization and strength. Uniting the original Lithuanian
       tribes into one government, and extending his sway over those
       territories, formerly included in the Russian Empire, which
       the Mongolian destruction of the Russian power had left
       without a ruler, a native chief, named Ringold, founded (1235)
       a new state called the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania. The limits of
       this state extended from the Baltic coast, which it touched at
       a single point, across the entire continent, almost to the
       Black Sea, with Lithuania proper as its northern nucleus, and
       the populations along the whole course of the Dnieper as its
       subjects. The Lithuanians, thus made formidable by the extent
       of their dominion, were at this time still heathens."

          Poland: Her History and Prospects
          (Westminster Review, January, 1855),
          page 119.

          See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

    LITHUANIA: A. D. 1386. Union with Poland under the Jagellon
    kings.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

       ----------LITHUANIA: End--------

    LITHUANIANS.
    LETTS.

       "They and the Slavonians are branches of the same Sarmatian
       family; so, of course, their languages, though different, are
       allied. But next to the Slavonic what tongues are nearest the
       Lithuanic? Not the speech of the Fin, the German, or the Kelt,
       though these are the nearest in geography. The Latin is liker
       than any of these; but the likest of all is the ancient sacred
       language of India—the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Puranas, the
       Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. And what tongue is the nearest
       to the Sanskrit? Not those of Tibet and Armenia, not even
       those of Southern India. Its nearest parallel is the obscure
       and almost unlettered languages of Grodno, Wilna, Vitepsk,
       Courland, Livonia, and East Prussia. There is a difficult
       problem here. … The present distribution of the Lithuanian
       populations is second only in importance to that of the
       Ugrians. Livonia is the most convenient starting-point. Here
       it is spoken at present; though not aboriginal to the
       province. The Polish, German, and Russian languages have
       encroached on the Lithuanian, the Lithuanian on the Ugrian. It
       is the Lett branch of the Lithuanian which is spoken by the
       Letts of Livonia (Liefland), but not by the Liefs. The same is
       the case in Courland. East Prussia lies beyond the Russian
       empire, but it is not unnecessary to state that, as late as
       the sixteenth century, a Lithuanian tongue was spoken there.
       Vilna, Grodno, and Vitepsk are the proper Lithuanian
       provinces. There, the original proper Lithuanic tongue still
       survives; uncultivated, and day by day suffering from the
       encroachment of the Russian, but, withal, in the eyes of the
       ethnologist, the most important language in Europe."

          R. G. Latham,
          Ethnology of Europe,
          chapter 6.

    LITTLE BIG HORN, Battle of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

    LITTLE BRETHREN.

          See BEGUINES, &c.

    LITTLE ROCK, Federal occupation of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

    LITTLE RUSSIA.

          See RUSSIA, GREAT.

    LITTLE YAHNI, Battle of (1877).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

    LITURGIES.

       "It was not only by taxation of its members that the
       [Athenian] State met its financial needs, but also by many
       other kinds of services which it demanded from them, and
       which, though not, like the former, producing an income, yet
       nevertheless saved an expense. Such services are called
       Liturgies [i. e.; properly, services for the
       people.'—Footnote]. They are partly ordinary or 'encyclic'—
       such, that is, as occurred annually, even in times of peace,
       according to a certain order, and which all bore some relation
       to worship and to the celebration of festivals—and partly
       extraordinary, for the needs of war. Among the former class
       the most important is the so-called Choregia, i. e., the
       furnishing of a chorus for musical contests and for festivals.
       … A similar though less burdensome Liturgy was the
       Gymnasiarchy for those feasts which were celebrated with
       gymnastic contests. The gymnasiarch, as it seems, was
       compelled to have all who wished to come forward as
       competitors trained in the gymnasia, to furnish them with
       board during the time of training, and at the games themselves
       to furnish the necessary fittings and ornaments of the place
       of contest. … More important and more costly than all these
       ordinary or encyclic Liturgies was the extraordinary Liturgy
       of trierarchy, i. e., the equipment of a ship of war."

          G. F. Schumann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

       "The Liturgiæ, which are sometimes considered as peculiar to
       the Athenians, … were common to all democracies at least [in
       the Greek states], and even to certain aristocracies or
       oligarchies. … The Liturgiæ of the Greeks were distinguished
       by a much more generous and noble characteristic than the
       corresponding services and contributions of the present day.
       They were considered honorable services. … Niggardliness in
       the performance of them was considered disgraceful. The state
       needed no paid officer, or contractors to superintend or
       undertake their execution. … The ordinary Liturgiæ … are
       principally the choregia, the gymnasiarchia, and the feasting
       of the tribes [or hestiasis]. … The lampadarchy, if not the
       only kind, was certainly the most important and expensive kind
       of gymnasiarchy. The race on foot with a torch in the hand was
       a common game. The same kind of race was run with horses for
       the first time at Athens in the time of Socrates. The art
       consisted, besides other particulars, in running the fastest,
       and at the same time not extinguishing the torch. … Since
       the festivity was celebrated at night, the illumination of the
       place which was the scene of the contest was necessary. Games
       of this kind were celebrated specially in honor of the gods of
       light and fire. … The expenses of the feasting of the tribes
       were borne by a person selected for this purpose from the
       tribe. … The entertainments, the expenses of which were
       defrayed by means of this liturgia, were different from the
       great feastings of the people, the expenses of which were paid
       from the treasury of the theorica. They were merely
       entertainments at the festivals of the tribes."

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of the Athenians
          (translated by Lamb),
          book 3, chapters 1 and 21-23.

          ALSO IN:
          E. G. Bulwer-Lytton,
          Athens,
          book 5, chapter 2.

    {2030}

    LITUS, The.

       In the Salic law, of the Franks, the litus appears as
       representing a class in that Germanic nation. He "was no doubt
       identical with the serf whom Tacitus represents as cultivating
       the soil, and paying a rent in kind to his lord. That the
       litus was not free is evident from the mention of his master
       and the fact that he could be sold; though we find a weregild
       set upon his life equal to that of a free Roman."

          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 10.

    LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY, The.

          See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

    LIVERPOOL MINISTRY, The,

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

    LIVERY, Origin of the term.

       "After an ancient custom, the kings of France, at great
       solemnities, gave such of their subjects as were at court
       certain capes or furred mantles, with which the latter
       immediately clothed themselves before leaving the court. In
       the ancient 'comptes' (a sort of audits) these capes were
       called 'livrées' (whence, no doubt, our word livery), because
       the monarch gave them ('les livrait') himself."

          J. F. Michaud,
          History of the Crusades,
          book 13.

    LIVERY COMPANIES.

          See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

    LIVERY OF SEIZIN.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    LIVINGSTON MANOR, The.

       Robert Livingston, "secretary of Albany," son of a Scotch
       clergyman, began to acquire a landed estate, by purchases from
       the Indians, soon after his arrival in America, which was
       about 1674. "The Mohegan tribes on the east side of the Hudson
       had become reduced to a few old Indians and squaws, who were
       ready to sell the lands of which they claimed the ownership.
       Livingston's position as clerk of Indian affairs gave him
       exceptional opportunities to select and to purchase the best
       lands in desirable localities. … In 1702, Lord Bellomont
       [then governor of New York] writes, 'I am told Livingston has
       on his great grant of 16 miles long and 24 broad, but four or
       five cottages, occupied by men too poor to be farmers, but are
       his vassals.' After the close of the war [Queen Anne's War],
       Livingston made more rapid progress in his improvements. He
       erected flour and timber mills, and a new manor-house." In
       1715 Livingston obtained from Governor Hunter a confirmatory
       patent, under an exact and careful survey of his estate.
       "Although it does not give the number of acres, the survey
       computes the area of the manor to contain 160,240 acres. It
       was now believed to be secure against any attack. … Philip,
       the second proprietor, was not disturbed as to title or
       limits. He was a merchant, and resided in New York, spending
       his summers at the Manor House. … His son, Robert, succeeded
       him as the third proprietor, but he had hardly come into
       possession before he began to be harassed by his eastern
       neighbors, the people of Massachusetts. … Massachusetts, by
       her charter, claimed the lands lying west of her eastern
       boundary to the Pacific Ocean. She had long sought to make
       settlements within the province of New York. Now as her
       population increased she pushed them westward, and gradually
       encroached on lands within the limits of a sister province. In
       April, 1752, Livingston wrote to Governor Clinton, and entered
       complaint against the trespassers from Massachusetts. A long
       correspondence between the governors of the two provinces
       followed, but settled nothing. The trouble continued," for a
       number of years, and frequent riots were incident to it, in
       which several men were killed. At length, "the boundary
       between New York and Massachusetts was finally settled, and
       the claimants ceased their annoyance. … The Revolution was
       approaching. The public mind was occupied with politics. …
       Land titles ceased to be topics of discussion. The proprietors
       of the old manor, and all bearing their name, with a few
       unimportant exceptions, took a decided stand in favor of
       independence. During the war that followed, and for some years
       after its close, their title and possession of their broad
       acres were undisputed. But in 1795 another effort was made to
       dispossess them. The old methods of riots and arrests were
       abandoned. The title was now attacked by the tenants, incited
       and encouraged by the envious and disaffected. A petition,
       numerously signed by the tenants of the manor, was sent to the
       Legislature. … The committee to which the petition was
       referred reported adversely, and this was approved by the
       House on March 23, 1795. … After the failure of 1795 to
       break the title, there was a season of comparative quiet
       continued for nearly forty years. Then a combination was
       formed by the tenants of the old manorial estates, including
       those of large landed proprietors in other parts of the State,
       termed 'anti-renters.' It was a civil association with a
       military organization. It was their purpose to resist the
       payment of rents. The tenants of the Van Rensselaer and the
       Livingston Manors, being the most numerous, were the
       projectors and leaders, giving laws and directions. …
       Landlords and officers were intimidated by bands disguised as
       Indians, and some property was destroyed. The anti-renters
       carried their grievances into politics, throwing their votes
       for the party which would give them the most favorable
       legislation. In 1844, they petitioned the Legislature to set
       aside as defective the Van Rensselaer title, and put the
       tenants in legal possession of the farms they occupied. The
       petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the
       Assembly, the late Judge William Allen being chairman.
       Anti-renters of known ability were on the committee, and a
       favorable report was anticipated. But after a long and
       thorough investigation of the title … the committee
       unanimously reported against the prayer of the petition. This
       put an end to the combination, and to the anti-rent war,
       although resistance to the collection of rents in isolated
       cases, with bloodshed and loss of life, is still [1885]
       continued. The landlords, however, particularly the
       Livingstons, were tired of the strife. They adopted measures
       of compromise, selling to their tenants the lands they
       occupied at reduced valuations. Only small portions of the old
       manor now remain in the hands of Robert Livingston's
       descendants."

          G. W. Schuyler,
          Colonial New York,
          volume I, pages 243-285.

          ALSO IN:
          E. P. Cheyney,
          Anti-Rent Agitations in New York
          (University of Pennsylvania Pubs.).

    {2031}

    LIVONIA: 12th-13th Centuries.
       First introduction of Commerce and Christianity.

       "Till the year A. D. 1158 … Livonia was well-nigh utterly
       unknown to the rest of Europe. Some traders of Bremen then
       visited it, and formed several settlements along the coast.
       These commercial relations with their western neighbours first
       opened up the country to missionary enterprise, and in the
       year A. D. 1186 one of the merchant-ships of Bremen brought to
       the mouth of the Düna a venerable canon named Meinhard."
       Meinhard died in 1196, having accomplished little. He was
       succeeded by a Cistercian abbot named Berthold, who, being
       driven away by the obstinate pagans, returned wrathfully in
       1198, with a crusading army, which Pope Innocent III. had
       commissioned him to lead against them. This was the beginning
       of a long and merciless crusading warfare waged against the
       Livonians, or Lieflanders, and against their Prussian and
       other Sclavonic neighbors, until all were forced to submit to
       the religious rites of their conquerors and to call themselves
       Christians. For the furthering of this crusade, Berthold's
       successor, Albert von Apeldern, of Bremen (who founded the
       town of Riga), "instituted, in the year A. D. 1201, with the
       concurrence of the emperor Otho IV. and the approbation of the
       Pope, the knightly 'Order of the Sword,' and placed it under
       the special protection of the Virgin Mary. The members of this
       order bound themselves by solemn vows to hear mass frequently,
       to abstain from marriage, to lead a sober and chaste life, and
       to fight against the heathen. In return for these services
       they were to have and to enjoy whatever lands they might wrest
       with their swords from their pagan adversaries. … Albert von
       Apeldern made Riga the starting-point of his operations.
       Thence, aided by Waldemar II. king of Denmark, he directed the
       arms of his crusaders against Esthonia, and the neighbouring
       countries of Semgallen and Courland. On these war-wasted
       districts he succeeded in imposing a nominal form of
       Christianity." The Order of the Sword was subsequently united
       with the Teutonic Order, which turned its crusading energies
       from the Moslems of the Holy Land to the heathendom of the
       Baltic.

          G. F. Maclear,
          Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
          chapters 15-16.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

          See, also
          PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

    LLANOS.

          See PAMPAS.

    LLORENS, Battle of (1645).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

    LOANO, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    LOBBY, The.

       "'The Lobby' is the name given in America to persons, not
       being members of a legislature, who undertake to influence its
       members, and thereby to secure the passing of bills. The term
       includes both those who, since they hang about the chamber,
       and make a regular profession of working upon the members, are
       called 'lobbyists,' and those persons who on any particular
       occasion may come up to advocate, by argument or solicitation,
       any particular measure in which they happen to be interested.
       The name, therefore, does not necessarily impute any improper
       motive or conduct, though it is commonly used in what Bentham
       calls a dyslogistic sense."

          J. Bryce,
          The American Commonwealth,
          volume 1, appendix note (B) to chapter 16.

    LOBOSITZ, OR LOWOSITZ, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

    LOCH LEVEN, Mary Stuart's captivity at.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

    LOCHLANN.

       The Celtic name for Norway, meaning Lakeland.

    LOCKE'S CONSTITUTION FOR THE CAROLINAS.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

    LOCOFOCOS.

       "In 1835, in the city and county of New York, a portion of the
       democrats organized themselves into the 'equal rights' party.
       At a meeting in Tammany Hall they attempted to embarrass the
       proceedings of the democratic nominating committee, by
       presenting a chairman in opposition to the one supported by
       the regular democrats. Both parties came to a dead lock, and,
       in the midst of great confusion, the committee extinguished
       the lights. The equal rights men immediately relighted the
       room with candles and locofoco matches, with which they had
       provided themselves. From this they received the name of
       locofocos, a designation which, for a time, was applied to the
       whole democratic party by the opposition."

          W. R. Houghton,
          History of American Politics,
          page 219.

    LOCRI.

       The city of Locri, or Locri Epizephyrii, an ancient Greek
       settlement in Southern Italy, was founded by the Locrians as
       early as B. C. 683. The elder Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse,
       married a Locrian woman and showed great favor to the city, of
       which he acquired control; but it suffered terribly from his
       son, the younger Dionysius, who transferred his residence to
       Locri when first driven from Syracuse.

    LOCRIANS, The.

          See LOKRIANS.

    LODGER FRANCHISE.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    LODI, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    LODI, Treaty of (1454).

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454;
          and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

    LOEN, OR STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

    LŒTIC COLONIES.

       During and after the civil wars of the declining years of the
       Roman empire, large numbers of Germans were enlisted in the
       service of the rival factions, and were recompensed by gifts
       of land, on which they settled as colonists. "They were called
       Lœti, and the colonies lœtic colonies, probably from the
       German word 'leute,' people, because they were regarded as the
       people or men of the empire."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 3, chapter 9, foot-note.

    LOG, The.

          See EPHAH.

    LOG CABIN AND HARD CIDER CAMPAIGN.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.

    LOGAN CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

    LOGAN'S WRONGS.
    LOGAN'S WAR.
    LOGAN'S FAMOUS SPEECH.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

    LÖGBERG, The.

          See THING.

    LOGI, The.

          See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

    LOGISTÆ AND EUTHYNI, The.

       "In Athens, all accounts, with the exception of those of the
       generals, were rendered to the logistæ and euthyni. Both
       authorities, before and after the archonship of Euclid,
       existed together at the same time. Their name itself shows
       that the logistæ were auditors of accounts. The euthyni were
       in immediate connection with them. … The logistæ were the
       principal persons in the auditing board."

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens
          (translated by Lamb),
          book 2, chapter 8.

    {2032}

    LOGOGRAPHI, The.

       The earlier Ionian Greek historians "confined their attention
       to the circle of myths and antiquities connected with single
       families, single cities and districts. These were the Ionic
       'logographi,' so called because they noted down in easy
       narrative the remarkable facts that they had collected and
       obtained by inquiry as to the foundation of the cities, the
       myths of the prehistoric age, and the natural, political, and
       social condition of different countries."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

    LOGOTHETES.

       A class of officers created under Justinian for the
       administration of the imperial finances in Italy, after its
       conquest from the Goths. Their functions corresponded with
       those of a modern auditor, or comptroller.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 5, chapter 15 (volume 4).

    LOGSTOWN.

       About the middle of the 18th century, Logstown was "an
       important Indian village a little below the site of the
       present city of Pittsburg. Here usually resided Tanacharisson,
       a Seneca chief of great note, being head sachem of the mixed
       tribes which had migrated to the Ohio and its branches. He was
       generally surnamed the half-king, being subordinate to the
       Iroquois confederacy."

          W. Irving,
          Life of Washington,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

    LOIDIS.

          See ELMET.

    LOJA: Sieges and capture by the Spaniards (1482-1483).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

    LOJERA, Battle of (1353).

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

    LOKRIANS, The.

       "The coast [of Greece, in ancient times] opposite to the
       western side of Eubœa, from the neighbourhood of Thermopylæ as
       far as the Bœotian frontier at Anthedon, was possessed by the
       Lokrians, whose northern frontier town, Alpeni, was
       conterminous with the Malians. There was, however, one narrow
       strip of Phokis—the town of Daphnus, where the Phokians also
       touched the Eubœan sea—which broke this continuity and
       divided the Lokrians into two sections,—Lokrians of Mount
       Knemis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and Lokrians of Opus, or
       Opuntian Lokrians. … Besides these two sections of the
       Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely separate, and
       said to have been colonised from Opus,—the Lokrians surnamed
       Ozolæ,—who dwelt apart on the western side of Phokis, along
       the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf. … Opus prided
       itself on being the mother-city of the Lokrian name. … The
       whole length of this Lokrian coast is celebrated for its
       beauty and fertility, both by ancient and modern observers."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

    LOLLARDS. The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;
          and BEGUINES.—BEGHARDS.

    LOLLARDS' TOWER.

       When the persecution of the Lollards, or disciples of Wyclif,
       began in England, under Henry IV., the prisons were soon
       crowded, and the Archbishop of Canterbury found need of
       building an additional tower to his palace at Lambeth for the
       custody of them. The Lollards' Tower, as it was named, is
       still standing, with the rings in its walls to which the
       captives were chained.

    LOMBARDS, OR LANGOBARDI.
       Early history.

       "The Langobardi … are ennobled by the smallness of their
       numbers; since, though surrounded by many powerful nations,
       they derive security, not from obsequiousness, but from their
       martial enterprise."

          Tacitus,
          Germany,
          Oxford translation,
          chapter 40.

       "In the reign of Augustus, the Langobardi dwelt on this side
       the Elbe, between Luneburg and Magdeburg. When conquered and
       driven beyond the Elbe by Tiberius, they occupied that part of
       the country where are now Prignitz, Ruppin, and part of the
       Middle Marche. They afterward founded the Lombard kingdom in
       Italy."

          Tacitus,
          Germany,
          Oxford translation,
          Translator's note.

       The etymology which explains the name of the Lombards or
       Langobardi by finding in it a reference to the length of their
       beards is questioned by some modern writers. Sheppard ("Fall
       of Rome") conjectures that the name originally meant
       "long-spears" rather than "long-beards." Other writers derive
       the name "from the district they inhabited on the banks of the
       Elbe, where Börde (or Bord) still signifies 'a fertile plain
       by the side of a river,' and a district near Magdeburg is
       still called the lange Börde. According to this view,
       Langobardi would signify 'inhabitants of the long bord of the
       river'; and traces of their name are supposed still to occur
       in such names as Bardengau and Bardewick, in the neighbourhood
       of the Elbe."

          Dr. W. Smith,
          Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 42.

       From the Elbe the Langobardi moved in time to the Danube.
       "Here they encountered the Gepidæ, who, … after having taken
       a leading part in the defeat and dispersion of the Huns in the
       great battle of Netad [A. D. 453], had settled in the plains
       of Upper Hungary and on the Transylvanian hills. For thirty
       years these two powerful tribes continued a contest in which
       both sides sought the assistance of the Greek emperor, and
       both were purposely encouraged in their rivalry with a view to
       their common destruction." In 566 the struggle was decided by
       a tremendous battle in which the Gepidæ were crushed. The
       Lombards, in this last encounter, had secured the aid of the
       pretended Avars, then lately arrived on the Danube; but the
       prestige of the overwhelming victory attached itself to the
       name of the young Lombard king, Alboin. "In the days of
       Charlemagne, the songs of the German peasant still told of his
       beauty, his heroic qualities, and the resistless vigour of his
       sword. His renown crossed the Alps, and fell, with a
       foreboding sound, upon the startled ears of the Italians, now
       experienced in the varied miseries of invasion."

          J. G. Sheppard,
          Fall of Rome,
          lecture 6.

    LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.
       Conquests and settlement in Italy.

       When the Lombards and the Avars crushed the nation of the
       Gepidæ (see AVARS), in 566, it was one of the terms of the
       bargain between them that the former should surrender to the
       Avars, not only the conquered territory—in Wallachia,
       Moldavia, Transylvania and part of Hungary—but, also, their
       own homes in Pannonia and Noricum. No doubt the ambitious
       Lombard king, Alboin, had thoughts of an easy conquest of
       Italy in his mind when he assented to so strange an agreement.
       Fourteen years before, the Lombard warriors had traversed the
       sunny peninsula in the army of Narses, as friends and allies
       of the Roman-Greeks.
    {2033}
       The recollection of its charms, and of its still surviving
       wealth, invited them to return. Their old leader, Narses, had
       been deposed from the exarchate at Ravenna; it is possible
       that he encouraged their coming. "It was not an army, but an
       entire nation, which descended the Alps of Friuli in the year
       568. The exarch Longinus, who had succeeded Narses, shut
       himself up within the walls of Ravenna, and offered no other
       resistance. Pavia, which had been well fortified by the kings
       of the Ostrogoths, closed its gates, and sustained a siege of
       four years. Several other towns, Padua, Monzelice, and Mantua,
       opposed their isolated forces, but with less perseverance. The
       Lombards advanced slowly into the country, but still they
       advanced; at their approach, the inhabitants fled to the
       fortified towns upon the sea coast in the hope of being
       relieved by the Greek fleet, or at least of finding a refuge
       in the ships, if it became necessary to surrender the place.
       … The islands of Venice received the numerous fugitives from
       Venetia, and at their head the patriarch of Aquileia, who took
       up his abode at Grado; Ravenna opened its gates to the
       fugitives from the two banks of the Po; Genoa to those from
       Liguria; the inhabitants of La Romagna, between Rimini and
       Ancona, retired to the cities of the Pentapolis; Pisa, Rome,
       Gaeta, Naples, Amalfi, and all the maritime towns of the south
       of Italy were peopled at the same time by crowds of
       fugitives."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 11 (volume 1).

       "From the Trentine hills to the gates of Ravenna and Rome, the
       inland regions of Italy became, without a battle or a siege,
       the lasting patrimony of the Lombards. … One city, which had
       been diligently fortified by the Goths, resisted the arms of a
       new invader; and, while Italy was subdued by the flying
       detachments of the Lombards, the royal camp was fixed above
       three years before the western gate of Ticinum, or Pavia. …
       The impatient besieger had bound himself by a tremendous oath
       that age, and sex, and dignity should be confounded in a
       general massacre. The aid of famine at length enabled him to
       execute his bloody vow; but as Alboin entered the gate his
       horse stumbled, fell, and could not be raised from the ground.
       One of his attendants was prompted by compassion, or piety, to
       interpret this miraculous sign of the wrath of Heaven: the
       conqueror paused and relented. … Delighted with the
       situation of a city which was endeared to his pride by the
       difficulty of the purchase, the prince of the Lombards
       disdained the ancient glories of Milan; and Pavia during some
       ages was respected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 45.

    LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-754.
       Their kingdom.

       Alboin survived but a short time the conquest of his Italian
       kingdom. He was murdered in June, 573, at the instigation of
       his wife, the Gepid princess Rosamond, whose alliance with him
       had been forced and hateful. His successor, Clef, or Clepho, a
       chief elected by the assembly of the nation at Pavia, reigned
       but eighteen months, when he, too, was murdered. After a
       distracted period of ten years, in which there was no king,
       the young son of Clepho, named Autharis, came to manhood and
       was raised to the throne. "Under the standard of their new
       king, the conquerors of Italy withstood three successive
       invasions [of the Franks and the Alemanni], one of which was
       led by Childebert himself, the last of the Merovingian race
       who descended from the Alps. … During a period of 200 years
       Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
       Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … From Pavia, the
       royal seat, their kingdom [that of the Lombards] was extended
       to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines
       of the Avars, the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and
       Burgundy. In the language of modern geography, it is now
       represented by the Terra Firma of the Venetian republic,
       Tyrol, the Milanese, Piedmont, the coast of Genoa, Mantua,
       Parma, and Modena, the grand duchy of Tuscany, and a large
       portion of the ecclesiastical state from Perugia to the
       Adriatic. The dukes, and at length the princes, of Beneventum,
       survived the monarchy, and propagated the name of the
       Lombards. From Capua to Tarentum, they reigned near 500 years
       over the greatest part of the present kingdom of Naples."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 45.

    LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
       The Fall of their monarchy.
       Charlemagne's conquest.

       Until 754 the Lombard kings pursued a generally prosperous
       career of aggrandizement, in Italy. They had succeeded, at the
       last, in expelling the exarchs of the Eastern Empire from
       Ravenna and in taking possession of that capital, with much of
       the territory and many of the cities in central Italy which
       depended on it. These successes inflamed their determination
       to acquire Rome, which had practically resumed its
       independence, and theoretically reconstituted itself a
       republic, with the Pope, in fact, ruling it as an actual
       prince. In 753 the Papal chair was filled by Stephen II. and
       the Lombard throne by King Aistaulf, or Astolphus. The former,
       being newly threatened by the latter, made a journey to the
       court of the Frank king, Pippin, to solicit his aid. Pippin
       was duly grateful for the sanction which the preceding pope
       had given to his seizure of the Merovingian crown, and he
       responded to the appeal in a vigorous way. In a short campaign
       beyond the Alps, in 754, he extorted from the Lombard king a
       promise to make over the cities of the exarchate to the Pope
       and to respect his domain. But the promise was broken as soon
       as made. The Franks were hardly out of Italy before Aistulf
       was ravaging the environs of Rome and assailing its gates. On
       this provocation Pippin came back the next year and humbled
       the Lombard more effectually, stripping him of additional
       territory, for the benefit of the Pope, taking heavy ransom
       and tributes from him, and binding him by oaths and hostages
       to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of the Franks. This
       chastisement sufficed for nearly twenty years; but in 773 the
       Pope (now Hadrian) was driven once more to appeal to the Frank
       monarch for protection against his northern neighbors. Pippin
       was dead and his great son Charles, or Charlemagne, had
       quarrels of his own with Lombardy to second the Papal call. He
       passed the Alps at the head of a powerful army, reduced Pavia
       after a year-long siege and made a complete conquest of the
       kingdom, immuring its late king in a cloister for the
       remainder of his days. He also confirmed, it is said, the
       territorial "donations" of his father to the Holy See and
       added some provinces to them. "Thus the kingdom of the
       Lombards, after a stormy existence of over two hundred years,
       was forever extinguished.
    {2034}
       Comprising Piedmont, Genoa, the Milanese, Tuscany, and several
       smaller states, it constituted the most valuable acquisition,
       perhaps, the Franks had lately achieved. Their limits were
       advanced by it from the Alps to the Tiber; yet, in the
       disposal of his spoil, the magnanimous conqueror regarded the
       forms of government which had been previously established. He
       introduced no changes that were not deemed indispensable. The
       native dukes and counts were confirmed in their dignities; the
       national law was preserved, and the distributions of land
       maintained, Karl receiving the homage of the Lombard lords as
       their feudal sovereign, and reserving to himself only the name
       of King of Lombardy."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapters 15-16.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 49.

          J. I. Mombert,
          Charlemagne,
          book 1, chapter 2,
          and book 2, chapter 2.

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapters 4-5.

          See, also,
          PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

       ----------LOMBARDY: Start--------

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 754.
       Charlemagne's reconstitution of the kingdom.

          See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 961-1039.
       The subjection to Germany.

          See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1056-1152.
       The rise of the Republican cities.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1154-1183.
       The wars of Frederick Barbarossa against the Communes.
       The League of Lombardy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183;
          and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
          MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1183-1250.
       The conflict with Frederick II.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1250-1520.
       The Age of the Despots.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1277-1447.
       Rise and domination of the Visconti of Milan, and the
       dissolution of their threatening tyranny.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1310-1313.
       Visit of the Emperor Henry VII.
       His coronation with the Iron Crown.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1327-1330.
       Visit and coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1360-1391.
       The Free Companies and the wars with Florence
       and with the Pope.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1412-1422.
       Reconquest by Filippo Maria Visconti, third duke of Milan.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1447-1454.
       Disputed succession of the Visconti in Milan.
       The duchy seized by Francesco Sforza.
       War of Venice, Naples, and other States against Milan and
       Florence.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1492-1544.
       The struggle for the Milanese territory, until its acquisition
       by the Spanish crown.

          See references under MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496, to 1544.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1713.
       Cession of the duchy of Milan to Austria.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1745-1746.
       Occupied by the Spaniards and French
       and recovered by the Austrians.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1745; and 1746-1747.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1749-1792.
       Under Austrian rule, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1796-1797.
       Conquest by Bonaparte.
       Creation of the Cisalpine Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
          1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
          and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1799.
       French evacuation.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1800.
       Recovery by the French.

          See FRANCE: A: D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1805.
       The Iron Crown bestowed on Napoleon, as King of Italy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814.
       French evacuation.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814-1815.
       Restored to Austria.
       Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
          VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
          ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815;
          and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1848-1849.
       The struggle for freedom from Austrian misrule
       and its failure.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    LOMBARDY: A. D. 1859.
       Emancipation from the Austrians.
       Absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

       ----------LOMBARDY: End----------

    LOMBARDY, The iron crown of.

       The crown of the Lombard kings was lined with an iron band,
       believed to have been wrought of the nails used in the
       Crucifixion. Hence it was called the Iron Crown.

          J. I. Mombert,
          History of Charles the Great,
          book 2, chapter 2.

    LONATO, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    LONDINIUM.
       The Roman name of the city of London.

          See LONDON.

       ----------LONDON: Start----------

    LONDON:
       The origin of the city and its name.

       "When Plautius [Aulus Plautius, who, in the reign of the
       Emperor Claudius, A. D. 43, led the second Roman invasion of
       Britain, that of Cæsar having been the first] withdrew his
       soldiers from the marshes they had vainly attempted to cross,
       he, no doubt, encamped them somewhere in the neighbourhood. I
       believe the place was London. The name of London refers
       directly to the marshes, though I cannot here enter into a
       philological argument to prove the fact. At London the Roman
       general was able both to watch his enemy and to secure the
       conquests he had made, while his ships could supply him with
       all the necessaries he required. When, in the autumn of the
       year 43, he drew the lines of circumvallation round his camp,
       I believe he founded the present metropolis of Britain. The
       notion entertained by some antiquaries that a British town
       preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to rest upon, and is
       inconsistent with all we know of the early geography of this
       part of Britain."

          E. Guest,
          Origines Celticæ,
          volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.

       "Old as it is, London is far from being one of the oldest of
       British cities; till the coming of the Romans, indeed, the
       loneliness of its site seems to have been unbroken by any
       settlement whatever. The 'dun' was, in fact, the centre of a
       vast wilderness. … We know nothing of the settlement of the
       town; but its advantages as the first landing-place along the
       Thames secured for it at once the command of all trading
       intercourse with Gaul, and through Gaul with the empire at
       large. So rapid was its growth that only a few years after the
       landing of Claudius [who joined Aulus Plautius in the autumn of
       43] London had risen into a flourishing port."

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          chapter 3.

    {2035}

       "The derivation of 'Londinium' from 'Llyn-din,' the lake fort,
       seems to agree best with the situation and the history. The
       Roman could not frame to pronounce the British word 'Llyn,' a
       word which must have sounded to his ears very much like
       'Clun,' or 'Lun,' and the fact, if it is a fact, that Llyn was
       turned into Lon, goes to increase the probability that this is
       the correct derivation of the name. The first founder called
       his fastness the 'Fort of the Lake,' and this is all that
       remains of him or it. … London was in those days
       emphatically a Llyndin, the river itself being more like a
       broad lake than a stream, and behind the fortress lying the
       great northern lake,' as a writer so late as Fitzstephen calls
       it, where is now Moorfields. I take it, it was something very
       like an island, if not quite—a piece of high ground rising
       out of lake, and swamp, and estuary."

          W. J. Loftie,
          History of London,
          chapter 1, and foot-note.

    LONDON: A. D. 61.
       Destruction by the Iceni.

       Londinium was one of the Roman towns in Britain destroyed by
       the Iceni, at the time of the furious insurrection to which
       they were incited by their outraged queen Boadicea, A. D. 61.
       It "was crowded with Roman residents, crowded still more at
       this moment with fugitives from the country towns and villas:
       but it was undefended by walls, its population of traders was
       of little account in military eyes, and Suetonius sternly
       determined to leave it, with all the wealth it harboured, to
       the barbarians, rather than sacrifice his soldiers in the
       attempt to save it. … Amidst the overthrow of the great
       cities of southern Britain, not less than 70,000 Roman
       colonists … perished. The work of twenty years was in a
       moment undone. Far and wide every vestige of Roman
       civilization was trodden into the soil. At this day the
       workmen who dig through the foundations of the Norman and the
       Saxon London, strike beneath them on the traces of a double
       Roman city, between which lies a mass of charred and broken
       rubbish, attesting the conflagration of the terrible
       Boadicea."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 51.

    LONDON: 4th Century.
       The Roman Augusta and its walls.

       "It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor]
       himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer
       wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which
       still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in
       the history of London not second in importance even to its
       foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête
       du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial
       Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be
       assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall:
       and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in
       an immense tract of what was until then open country,
       especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and
       Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the
       new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never
       without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the
       increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place.
       The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very
       clear. The population to be protected might very well have
       been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed
       a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles
       and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from
       Blackfriars to the Tower."

          W. J. Loftie,
          History of London,
          chapter 2 (volume 1).

       "The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D.
       380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls
       it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we
       learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the
       inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head
       quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the
       reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by
       the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons.
       Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and
       cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way
       of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years
       previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan
       for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is
       on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as
       an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous
       chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it
       is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as
       applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must
       probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in
       relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from
       Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a
       mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London
       Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those
       of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of
       the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the
       island."

          Charles Roach Smith,
          Illustrations of Roman London,
          pages 11-12.

    LONDON: 4th Century.
       The growth of the Roman city.

       "That London gradually increased in importance beyond the
       dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it
       in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads
       beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times
       of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or
       'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities
       of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was
       considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times,
       appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The
       walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on
       the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length,
       and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended
       across the river on the Kentish side."

          H. M. Scarth,
          Roman Britain,
          chapter 15.

       "Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides
       of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook,
       which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. …
       Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the
       mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern
       parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge
       by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent
       mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had
       brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other
       side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon
       ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings
       of Roman streets."

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Roach Smith,
          Antiquities of Roman London.

    {2036}

    LONDON: 6th-9th Centuries.
       During the Saxon conquest and settlement.

       For nearly half a century after its conquest by the
       East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the
       6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We
       know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate
       of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within
       its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least
       as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from
       the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls
       [see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the
       settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here
       as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had
       been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the
       East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal
       life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a
       century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of
       Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury,
       remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the
       first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the
       midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine
       how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman
       towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared.
       But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the
       stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier
       topographical history. The story of early London is not that
       of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman
       for those of English life, but of a number of little groups
       scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each
       growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes,
       religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing
       together into a municipal union which remained weak and
       imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed
       was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for
       whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here
       that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the
       Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged
       which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the
       means of communication to any part of Britain."

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          pages 149 and 452-459.

       "London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century]
       to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be
       the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom
       was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of
       Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the
       conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex,
       and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there,
       at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the
       history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be
       compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of
       the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her.
       Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had
       spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now.
       Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At
       last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their
       headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make
       truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their
       own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience
       and political sagacity, the possession of London was a
       necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His
       preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict
       is the story of his life. His first great success was the
       capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task
       of all his later years."

          W. J. Loftie,
          History of London,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          See, also,
          ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

    LONDON: A. D. 1013-1016.
       Resistance to the Danes.

       See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

    LONDON: 12th Century.
       Magnitude and importance of the city.

       "We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of
       Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the
       Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on
       account of the greatness of their city; into the community of
       which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed,
       the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them,
       were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city
       in England. There have been different estimates of its
       population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it
       could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls
       within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 8, part 3 (volume 3).

    LONDON: 14th Century.
       Guilds.
       Livery Companies.

          See GUILDS.

    LONDON: A. D. 1381.
       In the hands of the followers of Wat Tyler and John Ball.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

    LONDON: 16th Century.
       In Shakespeare's time.

       "The London of those days did not present the gigantic
       uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become
       wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as
       yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of
       moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and
       gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with
       the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of
       originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and
       domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then
       the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows
       and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay
       attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live
       apart in other districts; the nobility still had their
       mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen
       Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to
       some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through
       the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of
       her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or
       Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her
       magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where
       the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of
       the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the
       brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was
       crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as
       crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined
       its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses.
       Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream,
       and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of
       'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the
       Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by
       catching salmon.
    {2037}
       In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all,
       the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was
       to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops:
       'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best!
       Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of
       every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid
       all this life every now and again would be seen the
       perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding
       processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of
       train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and
       gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their
       existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money,
       and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists'
       shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of
       smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than
       7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for
       promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and
       its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew
       Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities,
       where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great
       sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris
       Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was
       here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a
       pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear
       loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less
       attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit
       and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these
       amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the
       theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the
       Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni
       Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of
       his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at
       an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports
       of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in
       1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls;
       however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino,
       estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of
       foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the
       colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there
       amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and
       the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames
       alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of
       Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen,
       sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical
       events had put new life into the English nation, and given it
       an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more
       especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon
       literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare
       had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the
       greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which
       lay principally in London."

          K. Elze,
          William Shakespeare,
          chapter 3.

    LONDON: A. D. 1647.
       Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

    LONDON: A. D. 1665
       The Great Plague.

       "The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the
       first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning
       of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to
       public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes
       from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar
       means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A
       third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the
       suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself,
       people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and
       especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the
       17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not
       been started. Such being the conditions of existence in
       London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two,
       now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long
       drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant
       reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its
       strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that
       the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their
       flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that
       ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which
       had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of
       St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two
       Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268.
       The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous
       as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated
       that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of
       the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the
       deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his
       ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now
       became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the
       Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the
       only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the
       corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the
       earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather
       was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly
       broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a
       physician, only died a more painful death by cupping,
       scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come
       back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected
       from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who
       remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached
       repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms
       were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the
       first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so
       that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of
       the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular
       swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague
       spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The
       patients frequently expired the same day that they were
       seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were
       circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the
       streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart,
       and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness
       of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number
       of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality
       recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that
       month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the
       beginning of October.
    {2038}
       A change of weather at length occurred, and the average
       declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the
       number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas
       came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In
       all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during
       the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate
       estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the
       appalling figure of 100,000 at least."

          W. J. Loftie,
          History of London,
          chapter 11 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN;
          S. Pepys,
          Diary, 1665.

    LONDON: A. D. 1666.
       The Great Fire.

       "While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive
       success on either side, a calamity happened in London which
       threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out
       [September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread
       itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could
       extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of
       the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide
       effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of
       their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the
       flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and
       nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up
       of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400
       streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of
       the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the
       houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent
       east wind which blew; these were so many concurring
       circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of
       the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied
       with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some
       ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the
       Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great
       calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city
       and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time,
       and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular
       than before. … London became much more healthy after the
       fire."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 64.

       "I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as
       far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate
       hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate,
       Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill,
       &c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of
       yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The
       ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of
       my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find
       that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in
       ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient
       pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100
       more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see
       one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were
       calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and
       Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all
       ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of
       what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and
       tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not
       asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger
       sight than any I had yet beheld."

          J. Evelyn,
          Diary,
          September 7, 1666 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          S. Pepys,
          Diary, September 2-15, 1666
          (volume 4).

          L. Phillimore,
          Sir Christopher Wren,
          chapters 6-7.

    LONDON: A. D. 1685.
       The most populous capital in Europe.
       The first lighting of the streets.

       "There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been,
       during about half a century, the most populous capital in
       Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least
       1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million.
       London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long
       ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There
       is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then
       bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole
       trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest
       vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The
       shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to
       have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a
       third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be
       noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II.
       [1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change
       which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body
       of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An
       ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters
       patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive
       right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate
       consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on
       moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to
       twelve of the clock."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

    LONDON: A. D. 1688.
       The Irish Night.

       The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the
       morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak
       of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to
       promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic
       chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic
       States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of
       December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places
       presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met
       at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity.
       … In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the
       provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more
       formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed,
       and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible
       that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King
       James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which
       had been composed for the most part of troops brought over
       from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish
       soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and
       children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in
       the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere
       terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while
       their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for
       fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern
       preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if
       such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at
       all the windows. The public places were as bright as at
       noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than
       20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak
       of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms.
       During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection
       of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not
       been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers
       were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant
       ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant
       from each other."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 10.

    {2039}

    LONDON: A. D. 1780.
       The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

    LONDON: A. D. 1848.
       The last Chartist demonstration.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.

    LONDON: A. D. 1851.
       The great Exhibition.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.

       ----------LONDON: End----------

    LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.
       Charter and undertakings in Virginia.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.

    LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.
       The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.

          See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;
          and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.

       ----------LONDONDERRY: Start--------

    LONDONDERRY:
       Origin and Name.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

    LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688.
       The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

    LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689.
       The Siege.

       James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the
       Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter
       Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from
       the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March,
       to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom,
       if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his
       forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the
       Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary
       had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within
       the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the
       summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire
       of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry
       crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate
       opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the
       strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite
       bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles
       Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a
       summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very
       great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon
       suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the
       presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy,
       who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen
       to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel,
       being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired
       them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and
       Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They
       mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under
       eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but
       they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000
       accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them
       to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's
       estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon
       possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of
       April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun.
       … No impression was made during nine days upon the
       determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced
       his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege
       went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the
       commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and
       the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and
       insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in
       which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part
       of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy
       stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains,
       and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the
       15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in
       the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay
       at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the
       heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his
       command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring
       that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he
       would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring
       districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to
       starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus
       beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for
       three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all
       the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and
       the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary
       villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed
       his displeasure at this proceeding."

          C. Knight,
          Crown History of England,
          chapter 34.

       "The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more
       frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more
       by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that
       fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack
       was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were
       so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.
       Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell
       down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain
       remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted
       hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison
       appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of
       the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which
       few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was
       five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and
       but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was
       likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to
       slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by
       the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half
       dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of
       the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen
       far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from
       England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving
       expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he
       might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of
       success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy
       and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a
       frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,
       broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,
       and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th
       of July.
    {2040}
       The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic
       undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The
       enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,
       on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;
       and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins
       marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.
       … So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the
       annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The
       garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to
       about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely
       ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO in:
          W. H. Torriano,
          William the Third,
          chapter 21.

          See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

       ----------LONDONDERRY: End--------

    LONE JACK, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    LONE STAR, Order of the.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

    LONE STAR FLAG.
    LONE STAR STATE.

       On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas
       adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the
       flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas
       is often called the Lone Star State.

       ----------LONG ISLAND: Start--------

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614.
       Explored by the Dutch.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624.
       Settlement of Brooklyn.

          See BROOKLYN.

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634.
       Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

          See NEW ALBION.

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650.
       Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English
       of Connecticut.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664.
       Title acquired for the Duke of York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673.
       The Dutch reconquest.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674.
       Annexed to New York.

             See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

    LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
       The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

       ----------LONG ISLAND: End--------

    LONG KNIVES, The.

          See YANKEE.

    LONG PARLIAMENT.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

    LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.

       The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four
       miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and
       one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the
       communication of their city with its port, were called the
       Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the
       walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of
       Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth
       had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum.
       The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of
       the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C.
       404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

    LONGJUMEAU, Peace of (1568).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    LONGSTREET, General James.
       Siege of Knoxville.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    LONGUEVILLE,
       The Duchess de, and the Fronde.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

    LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, its position, and the battle on it.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
          and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    LOOM, Cartwright's invention of the power.

          See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

    LOPEZ, The Tyranny of.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

    LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).

          See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

    LORD.

       "Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band
       of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own
       free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their
       chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death,
       and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return,
       they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could
       distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his
       character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his
       official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name
       which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and
       with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has
       settled down into the modern form of Lord."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History Norman Conquests,
          chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1).

       On the Latin equivalent, 'Dominus,'

          See IMPERATOR: FINAL SIGNIFICATION.

    LORD CHANCELLOR, The.

          See CHANCELLOR.

    LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

    LORDS, British House of.

       "The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased
       to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,'
       and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the
       Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary
       character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed
       and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a
       consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs,
       practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the
       national council were issued."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 7.

       "The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in
       which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost
       always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have
       been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by
       something like the monopoly of the best Government
       appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They
       are able to command the field sports and open-air life that
       conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats
       disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five
       families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break,
       and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers
       were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825,
       only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were
       represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family
       has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging
       the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in
       this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but
       the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688,
       with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords
       would by this time have been practically extinguished.
    {2041}
       Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only
       three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost
       to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the
       Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to
       the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we
       have to seck for the springs of national life."

          C. H. Pearson,
          National Life and Character,
          pages 70-73.

       "The British peerage is something unique in the world. In
       England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying
       may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the
       British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's
       mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an
       aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an
       aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of
       Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times
       in English history when there has been a strong tendency to
       aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the
       king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of
       Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or
       people, but which had driven out both king and people, an
       aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into
       whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged
       body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never
       seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense,
       the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a
       body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which
       no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its
       members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or
       distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial
       political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England
       there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble
       in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from
       generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in
       the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists
       in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and
       privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to
       himself only; his children are legally commoners; his
       grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other
       commoners. … A certain great position in the state is
       hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none.
       The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his
       own person the whole nobility of the family."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Practical Bearings of European History
          (Lectures to American Audiences),
          pages 305-307.

       "At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of
       Lords, made up thus:
       Peers, 469;
       Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5;
       Representative Peers of Scotland, 16;
       Representative Peers of Ireland, 28;
       Lords Spiritual, 27.

       The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are
       appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior.
       Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly
       judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak
       and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of
       the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from
       that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary.
       As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who
       number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who
       number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in
       Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and
       hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords
       Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
       Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and
       Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine
       bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles
       have been given take their seats in the House immediately on
       appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of
       seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats
       in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop
       of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no
       vote."

          E. Porritt,
          The Englishman at Home,
          chapter 6.

       For an account of the transient abolition of the House of
       Lords in 1649,

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

          See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
          and ESTATES, THE THREE.

    LORDS OF ARTICLES.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603; and 1688-1690.

    LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557; and 1558-1560.

    LORDS OF THE ISLES.

          See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504;
          and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

    LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, The.

          See ESTATES, THE THREE.

    LORENZO DE' MEDICI (called The Magnificent),
       The rule of.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

       ----------LORRAINE: Start--------

    LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
       Formation and dissolution of the kingdom.

       In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three
       grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder,
       Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom
       of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself,
       Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so
       formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian
       kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic
       dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or
       France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of
       the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier,
       by France on the other."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 1, part 1, note.

       "Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or
       Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century
       instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides
       Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the
       dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land,
       having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of
       Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it
       has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the
       Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided
       between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept
       its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the
       two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on
       the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern
       Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the
       royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly
       to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East
       is considerably larger."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 6, section 1.

    {2042}

       "Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share
       of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by
       disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further
       partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched
       and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three
       sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of
       his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor
       Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third
       of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of
       Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received
       the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine,"
       and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as
       follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their
       allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh,
       the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories
       included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés,
       Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of
       Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and
       Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in
       intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of
       Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg,
       the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of
       Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved
       kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine
       family competitors successively came into the field for that
       much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles
       of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French
       dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of
       Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon
       forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot
       of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of
       those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon
       tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely
       Belgic territories, especially that very important district
       successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and
       Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us.
       Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves,
       Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories
       of the Belgic and German tongues."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          volume 1, pages 361-370.

          See, also, VERDUN, TREATY OF.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
       The dukedom established.

       The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately
       constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or
       Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang
       the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian
       duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the
       rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this
       proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur.
       "Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. …
       Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the
       Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed
       themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by
       influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians,
       accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed
       themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the
       Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender
       throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win
       Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm:
       he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was
       resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was
       constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert,
       son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of
       the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little
       later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry
       the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived
       the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho
       gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under
       Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine.
       Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his
       cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French
       Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant
       has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for
       our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is
       accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the
       hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received
       investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this
       disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the
       French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions
       over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions,
       and granted the same to be held without let or interference
       from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German
       Empire."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, part 2, chapter 1
          and chapter 4, part 2.

       "Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained
       them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic
       Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to
       reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was
       thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was
       retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line
       still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom
       of Belgium."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1).

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1430.
       Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou
       and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples.
       Union with Bar.

          See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1476.
       Short-lived conquest by Charles the Bold.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559.
       Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house.
       Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
       Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France.
       Ruin and depopulation of the duchy.
       Its possession by the French.

       Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government,
       the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with
       France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility,
       made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. …
       Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes,
       and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than
       in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and
       career of the members of the house of Guise had brought
       Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the
       closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an
       independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624
       by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of
       the last duke. …
    {2043}
       He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French
       Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de
       Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long
       sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke
       of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the
       Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while
       Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often
       omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France
       had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory.
       His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain
       by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to
       keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles,
       and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to
       trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of
       Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In
       January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by
       which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or
       state without the knowledge and permission of the French king.
       Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these
       causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions.
       They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition
       could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a
       second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of
       Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of
       the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little
       change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act
       in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans,
       the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had
       married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every
       way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He
       seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have
       to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second
       time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the
       duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles'
       forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false
       as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret,
       and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a
       treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the
       most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered
       his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of
       Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should
       be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu
       said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles
       pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the
       duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke
       also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two
       branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier
       of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the
       imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed
       again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered
       them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled
       with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking
       possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was
       entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its
       inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and
       misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar
       and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every
       side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed,
       and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than
       could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the
       inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned,
       cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the
       country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in
       that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as
       a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was
       granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz,
       and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should
       remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the
       duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies
       whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his
       dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as
       of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly
       took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French
       again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the
       whole province was in their hands. It so continued until
       1663."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

       "The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered
       to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses,
       formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and
       sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine,
       which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally
       culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria
       Theresa."

          A. Gindely,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          volume 2, chapter 6, section 3.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.
       Desertion of the cause of the duke in the
       Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1659.
       Restored to the duke with some shearing of territory.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1679.
       Restoration refused by the duke.

          See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1680.
       Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with
       boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1697.
       Restored to the duke by the Treaty of Ryswick.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.
       Ceded to France.
       Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    LORRAINE: A. D, 1871.
       One fifth ceded to the German empire by France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

    LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879.
       Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German
       imperial province.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

       ----------LORRAINE: End----------

    LOSANTIVILLE.

          See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

    LOSE-COAT FIELD, Battle of.

       In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward
       IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir
       Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King
       Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a
       place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away
       their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a
       prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the
       rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the
       battle of Lose-coat Field."

          J. Gairdner,
          Houses of Lancaster and York,
          chapter 8.

       The engagement is sometimes called the Battle of Stamford.

    {2044}

    LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

          See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH;
          also, SAMARIA.

    LOTHAIRE,
       King of France, A. D. 954-986.

       Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;
       King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.

       Lothaire II.,
       Emperor, 1133-1137;
       King of Germany, 1125-1137.

    LOTHARINGIA.

          See LORRAINE.

    LOTHIAN.

          See SCOTLAND: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

    LOUIS,
       King of Portugal, A. D. 1861-1889.

       Louis of Nassau, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, to 1573-1574.

       Louis I. (called The Pious),
       Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;
       King of Aquitaine, 781-814;
       King of the Franks, 814-840.

       Louis I. (called The Great),
       King of Hungary, 1342-1382;
       King of Poland, 1370-1382.

       Louis I.,
       King of Naples, 1382-1384;
       Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.

       Louis I., King of Sicily, 1342-1355.

       Louis II. (called The Stammerer),
       King of France, 877-879.

       Louis II. (called The German),
       King of the East Franks (Germany), 843-875.

       Louis II.,
       King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1516-1526.

       Louis II.,
       King of Naples, 1389-1399;
       Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

       Louis III.,
       King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;
       East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.

       Louis III. (called The Child),
       King of the East Franks (Germany), 899-910.

       Louis III., King of Provence, 1417-1434.

       Louis III.,
       Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence,
       and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.

       Louis IV., King of France, 936-954.

       Louis V. (of Bavaria),
       Emperor, 1327-1347;
       King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;
       King of Italy, 1327-1347.

       Louis V., King of France, 986-987.

       Louis VI. (called The Fat), King of France, 1108-1137.

       Louis VII., King of France, 1137-1180.

       Louis VIII., King of France, 1223-1226.

       Louis IX. (called Saint Louis), King of France, 1226-1270.

       Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),
       King of France, 1314-1316;
       King of Navarre, 1305-1316.

       Louis XI., King of France, 1461-1483.

       Louis XII., King of France, 1498-1515.

       Louis XIII., King of France, 1610-1643… .

       Louis XIV. (called "The Grand Monarch "),
       King of France, 1643-1715.

       Louis XV., King of France, 1715-1774.

       Louis XVI., King of France, 1774-1793.

       Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796,
       during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.

       Louis XVIII., King of France; 1814-1824.

       Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

          See NAPOLEON III.

       Louis Philippe,
       King of France (of the House of Orleans), 1830-1848.

    LOUIS, Saint, Establishments of.

          See WAGER OF BATTLE.

       ----------LOUISBOURG: Start--------

    LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1720-1745.
       The fortification of the Harbor.

          See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

    LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1745.
       Surrender to the New Englanders.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

    LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1748.
       Restoration to France.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

    LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1757.
       English designs against, postponed.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

    LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.
       Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.

          See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

       ----------LOUISBOURG: End--------

    LOUISIANA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
          and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.
       Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by
       Charles I. of England.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.
       Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La
       Salle.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
       Iberville's colonization.
       Separation in government from New France.
       Crozat's monopoly.
       The French territorial claim.

       "The court of France had been engaged in wars and political
       intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been
       effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve
       years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate
       fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition
       for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on
       foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M.
       D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished
       naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful
       agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape
       Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30
       guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of
       marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children,
       he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the
       Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served
       in the armies of France and had received an honorable
       discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and
       implements requisite for opening settlements in the
       wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that
       this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following
       March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from
       the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth
       of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of
       it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians,
       which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before.
       "Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect
       a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about
       fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore,
       and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his
       colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New
       Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected
       them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and
       hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and
       security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two
       brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The
       following September an English corvette appeared in the river,
       intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and
       retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered
       terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle,
       with many others, died.
    {2045}
       "Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an
       additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with
       several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal
       settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi;
       others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay
       of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold
       and occupy the country; for his principal object was to
       colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now
       built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54
       miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below
       the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been
       joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French
       Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river
       nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez
       tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the
       site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702
       war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and
       by order of the King of France the headquarters of the
       commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile
       River. This was the first European settlement within the
       present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola
       was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the
       French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between
       Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The
       whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30
       families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of
       the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now
       threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was
       broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to
       France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the
       colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380
       souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each
       other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi,
       Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements
       of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada,
       although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent.
       Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible
       only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country
       under its jurisdiction. The government of Louisiana was
       accordingly placed [1711] in the hands of a governor-general.
       The headquarters, or seat of the colonial government, was
       established at Mobile, and a new fort was erected upon the
       site of the present city of Mobile. … In France it was still
       believed that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise
       and speculation. The court, therefore, determined to place the
       resources of the province under the influence of individual
       enterprise. For this purpose, a grant of exclusive privileges,
       in all the commerce of the province, for a term of 15 years,
       was made to Anthony Crozat, a rich and influential merchant of
       France. His charter was dated September 26th, 1712. At this
       time the limits of Louisiana, as claimed by France, were very
       extensive. As specified in the charter of Crozat, it was
       'bounded by New Mexico on the west, by the English lands of
       Carolina on the east, including all the establishments, ports,
       havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle
       of Dauphin, heretofore called Massacre; the River St. Louis,
       heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far
       as the Illinois together with the River St. Philip, heretofore
       called Missouri, the River St. Jerome, heretofore called
       Wabash, with all the lands, lakes, and rivers mediately or
       immediately flowing into any part of the River St. Louis or
       Mississippi.' Thus Louisiana, as claimed by France at that
       early period, embraced all the immense regions of the United
       States from the Alleghany Mountains on the east to the Rocky
       Mountains on the west, and northward to the great lakes of
       Canada."

          J. W. Monette,
         History of the Discovery and Settlement of the
         Valley of the Mississippi,
         book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

    Louisiana: A. D. 1717-1718.
       Crozat's failure and John Law's Mississippi Bubble.
       The founding of New Orleans.

       "Crozat's failure was, in the nature of things, foreordained.
       His scheme, indeed, proved a stumbling-block to the colony and
       a loss to himself. In five years (1717) he was glad to
       surrender his monopoly to the crown. From its ashes sprung the
       gigantic Mississippi Scheme of John Law, to whom all
       Louisiana, now including the Illinois country, was granted for
       a term of years. Compared with this prodigality Crozat's
       concession was but a plaything. It not only gave Law's Company
       proprietary rights to the soil, but power was conferred to
       administer justice, make peace or war with the natives, build
       forts, levy troops and with consent of the crown to appoint
       such military governors as it should think fitting. These
       extraordinary privileges were put in force by a royal edict,
       dated in September, 1717. The new company [called the Western
       Company] granted lands along the river to individuals or
       associated persons, who were sometimes actual emigrants,
       sometimes great personages who sent out colonists at their own
       cost, or again the company itself undertook the building up of
       plantations on lands reserved by it for the purpose. One
       colony of Alsatians was sent out by Law to begin a plantation
       on the Arkansas. Others, more or less flourishing, were
       located at the mouth of the Yazoo, Natchez and Baton Rouge.
       All were agricultural plantations, though in most cases the
       plantations themselves consisted of a few poor huts covered
       with a thatch of palm-leaves. The earliest forts were usually
       a square earthwork, strengthened with palisades about the
       parapet. The company's agricultural system was founded upon
       African slave labor. Slaves were brought from St. Domingo or
       other of the West India islands. By some their employment was
       viewed with alarm, because it was thought the blacks would
       soon outnumber the whites, and might some day rise and
       overpower them; but we find only the feeblest protest entered
       against the moral wrong of slavery in any record of the time.
       Negroes could work in the fields, under the burning sun, when
       the whites could not. Their labor cost no more than their
       maintenance. The planters easily adopted what, indeed, already
       existed among their neighbors. Self-interest stilled
       conscience. The new company wisely appointed Bienville
       governor. Three ships brought munitions, troops, and stores of
       every sort from France, with which to put new life into the
       expiring colony. It was at this time (February, 1718) that
       Bienville began the foundation of the destined metropolis of
       Louisiana. The spot chosen by him was clearly but a fragment
       of the delta which the river had been for ages silently
       building of its own mud and driftwood.
    {2046}
       It had literally risen from the sea. Elevated only a few feet
       above sea-level, threatened with frequent inundation, and in
       its primitive estate a cypress swamp, it seemed little suited
       for the abode of men, yet time has confirmed the wisdom of the
       choice. Here, then, a hundred miles from the Gulf, on the
       alluvial banks of the great river, twenty-five convicts and as
       many carpenters were set to work clearing the ground and
       building the humble log cabins, which were to constitute the
       capital, in its infancy. The settlement was named New Orleans,
       in honor of the Regent, Orleans, who ruled France during the
       minority of Louis XV.

          S. A. Drake,
          The Making of the Great West,
          pages 126-128.

          ALSO IN:
          A. McF. Davis,
          Canada and Louisiana
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 5, chapter 1).

          A. Thiers,
          The Mississippi Bubble,
          chapters 3-8.

          C. Mackay,
          Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

    LOUISIANA: A. D 1719-1750.
       Surrendered to the Crown.
       Massacre of French by the Natchez,
       and destruction of that tribe.
       Unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws.

       "The same prodigality and folly which prevailed in France
       during the government of John Law, over credit and commerce,
       found their way to his western possessions; and though the
       colony then planted survived, and the city then founded became
       in time what had been hoped,—it was long before the influence
       of the gambling mania of 1718-19-20 passed a way. Indeed the
       returns from Louisiana never repaid the cost and trouble of
       protecting it, and, in 1732, the Company asked leave to
       surrender their privileges to the crown, a favor which was
       granted them. But though the Company of the West did little
       for the enduring welfare of the Mississippi valley, it did
       something; the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, rice, and silk,
       was introduced, the lead mines of Missouri were opened, though
       at vast expense and in hope of finding silver; and, in
       Illinois, the culture of wheat began to assume some degree of
       stability and of importance. In the neighborhood of the river
       Kaskaskia, Charlevoix found three villages, and about Fort
       Chartres, the head quarters of the Company in that region, the
       French were rapidly settling. All the time, however, during
       which the great monopoly lasted, was, in Louisiana, a time of
       contest and trouble. The English, who, from an early period,
       had opened commercial relations with the Chickasaws, through
       them constantly interfered with the trade of the Mississippi.
       Along the coast, from Pensacola to the Rio del Norte, Spain
       disputed the claims of her northern neighbor: and at length
       the war of the Natchez struck terror into the hearts of both
       white and red men. Amid that nation … D'Iberville had marked
       out Fort Rosalie [on the site of the present city of Natchez],
       in 1700, and fourteen years later its erection had been
       commenced. The French, placed in the midst of the natives, and
       deeming them worthy only of contempt, increased their demands
       and injuries until they required even the abandonment of the
       chief town of the Natchez, that the intruders might use its
       site for a plantation. The inimical Chickasaws heard the
       murmurs of their wronged brethren, and breathed into their
       ears counsels of vengeance; the sufferers determined on the
       extermination of their tyrants. On the 28th of November, 1729,
       every Frenchman in that colony died by the hands of the
       natives, with the exception of two mechanics: the women and
       children were spared. It was a fearful revenge, and fearfully
       did the avengers suffer for their murders. Two months passed
       by, and the French and Choctaws in one day took 60 of their
       scalps; in three months they were driven from their country
       and scattered among the neighboring tribes; and within two
       years the remnants of the nation, chiefs and people, were sent
       to St. Domingo and sold into slavery. So perished this ancient
       and peculiar race, in the same year in which the Company of
       the West yielded its grants into the royal hands. When
       Louisiana came again into the charge of the government of
       France, it was determined, as a first step, to strike terror
       into the Chickasaws, who, devoted to the English, constantly
       interfered with the trade on the Mississippi. For this purpose
       the forces of New France, from New Orleans to Detroit, were
       ordered to meet in the country of the inimical Indians, upon
       the 10th of May, 1736, to strike a blow which should be
       final." D'Artaguette, governor of Illinois, was promptly at
       the rendezvous, with a large force of Indians, and a small
       body of French, but Bienville, from the southern province,
       proved dilatory. After waiting ten days, D'Artaguette attacked
       the Chickasaws, carried two of their defenses, but fell and
       was taken prisoner in the assault of a third; whereupon his
       Indian allies fled. Bienville, coming up five days afterwards,
       was repulsed in his turn and retreated, leaving D'Artaguette
       and his captive companions to a fearful fate. "Three years
       more passed away, and again a French army of nearly 4,000
       white, red and black men, was gathered upon the banks of the
       Mississippi, to chastise the Chickasaws. From the summer of
       1739 to the spring of 1740, this body of men sickened and
       wasted at Fort Assumption, upon the site of Memphis. In March
       of the last named year, without a blow struck, peace was
       concluded, and the province of Louisiana once more sunk into
       inactivity. Of the ten years which followed we know but little
       that is interesting."

          J. H. Perkins,
          Annals of the West,
          pages 61-63.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Dumont,
          Historical Memoirs
          (French's Historical Collections of Louisiana, part 5).

          C. Gayarre,
          Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
          2d series, lectures 5-7.

          S. G. Drake,
          Aboriginal Races of North America,
          book 4, chapter 5.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.
       The Casket Girls.
       Wives for the colonists.

       "In the beginning of 1728 there came a vessel of the company
       with a considerable number of young girls, who had not been
       taken, like their predecessors, from houses of correction. The
       company had given to each of them a casket containing some
       articles of dress. From that circumstance they became known in
       the colony under the nickname of the 'filles à la cassette',
       or 'the casket girls.' … Subsequently, it became a matter of
       importance in the colony to derive one's origin from the
       casket girls, rather than from the correction girls."

          C. Gayarre,
          Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
          page 396.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1755.
       Settlement of exiled Acadians.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1763.
       East of the Mississippi, except New Orleans, ceded to
       Great Britain, and west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans,
       to Spain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

    {2047}

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768.
       Spanish occupation and the revolt against it.
       The short-lived republic of New Orleans.

       "Spain accepted Louisiana [west of the Mississippi, with New
       Orleans] with reluctance, for she lost France as her bulwark,
       and, to keep the territory from England, assumed new expenses
       and dangers. Its inhabitants loved the land of their ancestry;
       by every law of nature and human freedom, they had the right
       to protest against the transfer of their allegiance." Their
       protests were unavailing, however, and their appeals met the
       response: "France cannot bear the charge of supporting the
       colony's precarious existence." In March, 1766, Antonio de
       Ulloa arrived at New Orleans from Havana, to take possession
       for the Spanish king. "Ulloa landed with civil officers, three
       capuchin monks, and 80 soldiers. His reception was cold and
       gloomy. He brought no orders to redeem the seven million
       livres of French paper money, which weighed down a colony of
       less than 6,000 white men. The French garrison of 300 refused
       to enter the Spanish service, the people to give up their
       nationality, and Ulloa was obliged to administer the
       government under the French flag by the old French officers,
       at the cost of Spain. In May of the same year, the Spanish
       restrictive system was applied to Louisiana; in September, an
       ordinance compelled French vessels having special permits to
       accept the paper currency in pay for their cargoes, at an
       arbitrary tariff of prices. … The ordinance was suspended,
       but not till the alarm had destroyed all commerce. Ulloa
       retired from New Orleans to the Balise. Only there, and
       opposite Natchez, and at the river Iberville, was Spanish
       jurisdiction directly exercised. This state of things
       continued for a little more than two years. But the arbitrary
       and passionate conduct of Ulloa, the depreciation of the
       currency with the prospect of its becoming an almost total
       loss, the disputes respecting the expenses incurred since the
       session of 1762, the interruption of commerce, a captious
       ordinance which made a private monopoly of the traffic with
       the Indians, uncertainty of jurisdiction and allegiance,
       agitated the colony from one end to the other. It was proposed
       to make of New Orleans a republic, like Amsterdam or Venice,
       with a legislative body of 40 men, and a single executive. The
       people of the country parishes crowded in a mass into the
       city, joined those of New Orleans, and formed a numerous
       assembly, in which Lafrénière, John Milhet, Joseph Milhet, and
       the lawyer Doucet were conspicuous. … On the 25th of
       October, 1768, they adopted an address to the superior
       council, written by Lafrénière and Caresse, rehearsing their
       griefs; and, in their petition of rights, they claimed freedom
       of commerce with the ports of France and America, and the
       expulsion of Ulloa from the colony. The address, signed by 500
       or 600 persons, was adopted the next day by the council … ;
       when the French flag was displayed on the public square,
       children and women ran up to kiss its folds, and it was raised
       by 900 men, amid shouts of 'Long live the king of France! we
       will have no king but him.' Ulloa retreated to Havana, and
       sent his representations to Spain. The inhabitants elected
       their own treasurer and syndics, sent envoys to Paris, … and
       memorialized the French monarch to stand as intercessor
       between them and the Catholic king, offering no alternative
       but to be a colony of France or a free commonwealth."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 316-318.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Thompson,
          Story of Louisiana,
          chapter 4.

          C. Gayarré,
          History of Louisiana: French Domination,
          volume 2, lecture 3-6.

    LOUISIANA: A. D., 1769.
       Spanish authority established by "Cruel O'Reilly."

       "It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic
       result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month
       followed the October uprising without one of those incidents
       that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people.
       In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted
       his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French
       cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans.
       Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the
       governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still
       remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is
       probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was
       struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any
       strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time
       which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to
       June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people
       of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news
       that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in
       overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone
       choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white
       cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a
       republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out
       upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and
       called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100
       men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with
       dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the
       next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken,
       to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and
       Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of
       the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive
       but brave and manly address presented the homage of the
       people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word
       seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was
       answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate
       justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and
       to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more
       than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of
       the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled
       its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force
       of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under
       Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial
       militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired
       from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly,
       accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces
       of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal
       possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the
       principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a
       planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of
       his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met
       his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate
       where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former
       attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan [a young
       ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse [a merchant], Marquis, and
       Joseph Milhet [a merchant] were condemned to be hanged.
    {2048}
       The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials
       saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the
       fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners
       were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year.
       "'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. …
       O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain
       and govern. On organizing the cabildo [a feebly constituted
       body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part
       of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana
       Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de
       Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the
       province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher
       commission of captain-general he continued for a time in
       control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the
       Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the
       public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at
       least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the
       name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of
       notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the
       vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in
       which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large
       portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770,
       O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops,
       leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established.
       The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He
       had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it
       only with velvet strokes."

          G. W. Cable,
          The Creoles of Louisiana,
          chapter 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
          History and Present Condition of New Orleans
          (United States Tenth Census, volume 19).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1779-1781.
       Spanish reconquest of West Florida.

          See FLORIDA: A. D.1779-1781.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
       The question of the
       Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between
       Spain and the United States.
       Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee.
       Wilkinson's intrigues.

       "Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains
       into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was
       in progress. … At once it became a question of vital
       importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce
       with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must
       cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was
       the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left
       free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was
       not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the
       north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the
       present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the
       northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787],
       was the property of the United States, but the west bank,
       together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That
       power, while conceding to the people of the United States the
       free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American
       ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive
       jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs
       duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of
       the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would
       place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not
       merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the
       very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable
       that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful
       resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat
       it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to
       recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As
       citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper
       portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the
       sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a
       natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it
       needed support—with the opinions of publicists of
       acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty
       of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter,
       then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the
       free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and
       length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the
       payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right
       and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers
       seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said
       that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay,
       while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent
       to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was
       specially charged with the duty to see that the free
       navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors
       to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was
       compelled to return home with the American claim still
       disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this
       country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions,
       but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its
       claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain
       a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf
       to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should
       forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was
       given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a
       united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to
       threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the
       feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and
       uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed
       themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled
       to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice
       in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well
       as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and
       perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter
       a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. …
       One of the difficult questions which confronted the new
       government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to
       deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish
       levies on American commerce were in some cases almost
       prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad
       valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy
       backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time
       submit to pay them. If the national government failed to
       secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in
       such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most
       prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James
       Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was
       shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the
       setting up of an independent State Government.
    {2049}
       In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to
       impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an
       amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley.
       His representations for a time had considerable effect, and
       the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but
       Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish
       limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable
       settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this
       invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine
       good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view
       was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers
       and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the
       course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by
       liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been
       allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with
       the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from
       New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay;
       a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which
       probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he
       came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal
       relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his
       appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound
       the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He
       came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the
       country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was
       particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver
       up the posts within American limits was known to have been
       influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British
       agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception.
       … Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European
       wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own
       American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and
       at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to
       Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby
       among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the
       people of the United States for the term of three years to
       make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for
       their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free
       from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental
       expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty
       contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the
       American authorities that a decisive step had been taken
       towards the complete recognition of American claims. The
       treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of
       Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to
       it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory
       from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the
       mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated.
       … The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow
       of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda
       was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United
       States while the war of Independence was pending and formed
       acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea
       of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from
       England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he
       enlisted in the French service and for a time held important
       military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his
       old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the
       necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were
       approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the
       relations between France and the United States seemed likely
       to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils
       likely to result from the extension of territory, listened
       with approval to the project of a combined attack by British
       and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have
       been willing, with the approval of the government, to
       personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned
       upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great
       reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest
       interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of
       her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to
       France."

          T. M. Cooley,
          The Acquisition of Louisiana
          (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3).

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Safford,
          The Blennerhassett Papers,
          chapter 5.

          H. Marshall,
          History of Kentucky,
          volume 1, chapters 12-15.

          J. H. Monette,
          Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
          book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2).

          J. M. Brown,
          The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.

          T. M. Green,
          The Spanish Conspiracy.

    LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803.
       The last days of Spanish rule.
       The great domain transferred to France,
       and sold by Napoleon to the United States.
       The bounds of the purchase.

       "During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted
       every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line
       as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and
       another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory
       and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until
       the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the
       Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the
       province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly
       made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force,
       and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The
       man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy,
       insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the
       border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above
       the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de
       Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee
       fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy
       of restricting immigration and of discriminating against
       Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had
       been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should
       not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but
       that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans
       all their produce during the space of three years. This limit,
       it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government,
       or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island
       of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the
       expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant
       at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and
       refused to designate another place in accordance with the
       stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a
       storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the
       United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration
       in the direction of Louisiana.
    {2050}
       Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to
       the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared
       imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new
       intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders
       to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the
       Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These
       orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between
       his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration
       increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the
       Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more
       years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and
       Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy
       religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. …
       On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more
       grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This
       effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and
       the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. …
       Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the
       irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from
       Spain and that this meant a division of the territories
       between France and the United States. To a large majority of
       Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors.
       The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France
       was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of
       Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the
       21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had
       hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of
       25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his
       implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his
       design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the
       colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He
       must take possession and hold it, or he must see England
       become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars
       and political complications and well understanding that it
       would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American
       enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United
       States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government.
       … Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not
       be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly
       surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was
       signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing
       to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the
       territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens …
       was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was
       ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the
       United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this
       strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to
       another republic a whole country without in the least
       consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and
       all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby,
       we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States
       could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that
       attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people,
       just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."

          M. Thompson,
          The Story of Louisiana,
          chapter 6, with foot-note.

       "No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the
       territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio
       del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might
       at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat
       vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with
       Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky
       Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it
       extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend
       has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public
       papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact.
       But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he
       purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our
       title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources.
       Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we
       can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"

          Judge T. M. Cooley,
          The Acquisition of Louisiana
          (Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3).

       "By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the
       north included all that was contiguous to the waters that
       flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern
       boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern
       waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht,
       France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle
       the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary,
       marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude.
       This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond
       the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was
       based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of
       the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against
       Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763,
       between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power
       ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi
       River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of
       France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created
       by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and
       its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by
       the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all
       territory north of the 42d degree."

          Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson,
          The Louisiana Purchase
          (Papers of American Historical Association,
          volume 1, page 259).

       As its southwestern and southeastern boundaries were
       eventually settled by treaty with Spain [see FLORIDA: A. D.
       1819-1821], the Louisiana purchase embraced 2,300 square miles
       in the present state of Alabama, west of the Perdido and on
       the gulf, below latitude 31° north; 3,600 square miles in the
       present state of Mississippi, south of the same latitude; the
       whole of the present states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,
       Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas; Minnesota, west of the
       Mississippi; Kansas, all but the southwest corner; the whole
       of the Indian Territory, and so much of Colorado, Wyoming, and
       Montana as lies on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains.
       If it is held that the French claim was good to the Pacific,
       then we may say that we owe the remainder of Montana, with
       Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the same great purchase.

          T. Donaldson,
          The Public Domain,
          page 105.

       On the constitutional and political aspects of the Louisiana
       purchase,

          See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1803.

       Detailed accounts of the interesting circumstances and
       incidents connected with the negotiation at Paris will be
       found in the following works:—

          H. Adams,
          History of the United States:
          First Administration of Jefferson;
          volume 2, chapters 1-3.

          D. O. Gilman,
          James Monroe,
          chapter 4.

          B. Marbois,
          History of Louisiana,
          part 2.

          American State Papers: Foreign Relations,
          volume 2, pages 506-583.

    {2051}

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1805.
       Lewis and Clark's exploration
       of the northwestern region of the purchase, to the Pacific.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.
       The purchase divided into
       the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana.
       The first named becomes the State of Louisiana;
       the second becomes the Territory of Missouri.

       "On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act dividing
       the province into two parts on the 33d parallel of latitude,
       the present northern boundary of Louisiana, and establishing
       for the lower portion a distinct territorial government, under
       the title of the territory of Orleans. The act was to go into
       effect in the following October. One of its provisions was the
       interdiction of the slave-trade. … The labors of the
       legislative council began on the 4th of December. A charter of
       incorporation was given by it to the city of New Orleans."

           G: E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
           History and Present Condition of New Orleans
           (United States Tenth Census, volume 19). pages 32-33.

       "All north of the 33d parallel of north latitude was formed
       into a district, and styled the District of Louisiana. For
       judicial and administrative purposes this district, or upper
       Louisiana as we shall continue to call it, was attached to the
       territory of Indiana." But in March, 1805, Congress passed an
       act "which erected the district into a territory of the first
       or lowest grade, and changed its title from the District to
       the Territory of Louisiana." Seven years later, in June 1812,
       the Territory of Orleans (the lower Louisiana of old) having
       been received into the federal Union as the State of
       Louisiana, the territory which bore the ancient name was
       advanced by act of Congress "from the first to the second
       grade of territories, and its name changed to Missouri."

          L. Carr,
          Missouri,
          chapter 5.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1806-1807.
       Burr's Filibustering conspiracy.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.
       The Territory of Orleans admitted to the Union as
       the State of Louisiana.

       "The population of the Territory of Orleans had been augmented
       annually by emigration from the United States. According to
       the census of 1810, the whole territory, exclusive of the
       Florida parishes, contained an aggregate of 76,550 souls. Of
       this number, the city of New Orleans and its precincts
       contained 24,552 persons, leaving 52,000 souls for the
       remainder of the territory. Besides these, the inhabitants of
       the Florida parishes amounted, probably, to not less than
       2,500, including slaves. … Congress, by an act approved
       February 11th, 1811, … authorized the election of a
       convention to adopt a Constitution, preparatory to the
       admission of the Territory into the Union as an independent
       state. The convention, consisting of 60 delegates from the
       original parishes, met according to law, on the first Monday
       in November, and concluded its labors on the 22d day of
       January following, having adopted a Constitution for the
       proposed new 'State of Louisiana.' … The Constitution was
       accepted by Congress, and the State of Louisiana was formally
       admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812, upon an
       equal footing with the original states, from and after the
       30th day of April, it being the ninth anniversary of the
       treaty of Paris. A few days subsequently, a 'supplemental act'
       of Congress extended the limits of the new state by the
       addition of the Florida parishes.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

       This gave it the boundaries it has at present."

          J. W. Monette,
          Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
          book 5, chapter 15 (volume 2).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1813-1814.
       The Creek War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1815.
       Jackson's defense of New Orleans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1861 (January).
       Secession from the Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (April).
       Farragut's capture of New Orleans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    LOUISIANA: A. D.1862 (May-December).
       New Orleans under General Butler.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (June).
       Appointment of a Military Governor.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
       Reconstruction of the state under President Lincoln's plan.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
       The Red River Expedition.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865.
       President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed state
       government.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
       The first Reconstruction experiment.
       The Riot at New Orleans.
       Establishment of military rule.

       "In 1865 the returned Confederates, restored to citizenship by
       the President's amnesty proclamation soon got control of
       almost all the State [as reorganized under the constitution
       framed and adopted in 1864].

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

       The Legislature was in their hands, as well as most of the
       State and municipal offices; so, when the President, on the
       20th of August, 1866, by proclamation, extended his previous
       instructions regarding civil affairs in Texas so as to have
       them apply to all the seceded States, there at once began in
       Louisiana a system of discriminative legislation directed
       against the freedmen, that led to flagrant wrongs in the
       enforcement of labor contracts, and in the remote parishes to
       numbers of outrages and murders. To remedy this deplorable
       condition of things, it was proposed, by those who had
       established the government of 1864, to remodel the
       constitution of the State; and they sought to do this by
       reassembling the convention, that body before its adjournment
       having provided for reconvening under certain conditions, in
       obedience to the call of its president. Therefore, early in
       the summer of 1866, many members of this convention met in
       conference at New Orleans, and decided that a necessity
       existed for reconvening the delegates, and a proclamation was
       issued accordingly by B. K. Howell, President pro tempore.
    {2052}
       Mayor John T. Monroe and the other officials of New Orleans
       looked upon this proposed action as revolutionary, and by the
       time the convention assembled (July 30) such bitterness of
       feeling prevailed that efforts were made by the mayor and city
       police to suppress the meeting. A bloody riot followed,
       resulting in the killing and wounding of about 160 persons. I
       happened [the writer is General Sheridan, then in command of
       the Military Division of the Gulf] to be absent from the city
       at the time, returning from Texas, where I had been called by
       affairs on the Rio Grande. On my way up from the mouth of the
       Mississippi I was met on the night of July 30 by one of my
       staff, who reported what had occurred, giving the details of
       the massacre—no milder term is fitting—and informing me
       that, to prevent further slaughter, General Baird, the senior
       military officer present, had assumed control of the municipal
       government. On reaching the city I made an investigation, and
       that night sent [a brief report, which was followed, on the
       6th of August, by an extended account of the facts of the
       riot, containing the following statements]: … 'The
       convention assembled at 12 M. on the 30th, the timid members
       absenting themselves because the tone of the general public
       was ominous of trouble. … About 1 P. M. a procession of say
       from 60 to 130 colored men marched up Burgundy Street and
       across Canal Street toward the convention, carrying an
       American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten
       men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal
       Street a row occurred. … On arrival at the front of the
       Institute [where the convention was held] there was some
       throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been
       held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of
       disorder. The procession entered the Institute with the flag,
       about 6 or 8 remaining outside. A row occurred between a
       policeman and one of these colored mob, and a shot was again
       fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate
       fire on the building through the windows by the policemen.
       This had been going on for a short time, when a white flag was
       displayed from the windows of the Institute, whereupon the
       firing ceased, and the police rushed into the building. From
       the testimony of wounded men, and others who were inside the
       building, the policemen opened an indiscriminate fire upon the
       audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they
       retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The door was
       broken in, and the firing again commenced, when many of the
       colored and white people either escaped throughout the door or
       were passed out by the policemen inside; but as they came out
       the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired
       upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens that
       formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken
       prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were
       fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were
       stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with
       brickbats. … Some were killed and wounded several squares
       from the scene.' … Subsequently a military commission
       investigated the subject of the riot, taking a great deal of
       testimony. The commission substantially confirmed the
       conclusions given in my despatches, and still later there as
       an investigation by a select committee of the House of
       Representatives. … A list of the killed and wounded was
       embraced in the committee's report, and among other
       conclusions reached were the following: … 'This riotous
       attack upon the convention, with its terrible results of
       massacre and murder, was not an accident. It was the
       determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to
       break up this convention by armed force.' … The committee
       held that no legal government existed in Louisiana, and
       recommended the temporary establishment of a provisional
       government therein." In the following March the Military
       Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1867 (MARCH).

       General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the fifth
       military district therein defined, consisting of Louisiana and
       Texas.

          P. H. Sheridan,
          Personal Memoirs,
          volume 2, chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          Report of Select Committee on New Orleans Riot,
          39th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Report, Number 16.

    LOUISIANA: A. D. 1868.
       Reconstruction complete.
       Restored representation in Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.

       ----------LOUISIANA: End----------

    LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY:
       Threatened by the Rebel Army under Bragg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
         A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

       ----------LOUVAIN: Start--------

    LOUVAIN: A. D. 1635.
       Unsuccessful siege by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

    LOUVAIN: A. D. 1706.
       Taken by Marlborough and the Allies.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

       ----------LOUVAIN: End--------

    LOUVAIN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

    LOUVRE, The.

       "The early history of the Louvre is involved in great
       obscurity. The name of its founder and the period of its
       erection are alike unknown; the first notice of it we meet
       with upon record is in the 7th century, when Dagobert kept
       here his horses and hounds. The kings [Merovingeans] called
       'fainéans' often visited it, when after dinner they rode in a
       sort of coach through the forest, which covered this side of
       the river, and in the evening returned in a boat, fishing by
       the way, to the city, where they supped and slept. There is no
       mention of this royal dwelling under the second, nor even
       under the third race of kings, till the reign of Philip
       Augustus. About the year 1204, that prince converted it into a
       kind of citadel, surrounded with wide ditches and flanked with
       towers. … The walls erected by Philip Augustus did not take
       in the Louvre, but after having remained outside of Paris more
       than six centuries, it was enclosed by the walls begun in
       1367, under Charles V., and finished in 1383, under Charles
       VI. … Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and Louis XIII.,
       inhabited the Louvre and added to its buildings. Nothing
       remains of the old château of Philip Augustus, which Charles
       V. repaired; the most ancient part now in existence is that
       called 'le Vieux Louvre,' begun by Francis I. in 1539, and
       finished by Henry II. in 1548."

          History of Paris
         (London, 1827), chapter 2 (volume 2).

    {2053}

       The origin of the word Louvre is believed to be a Saxon word,
       'Leowar' or 'Lower,' which meant a fortified camp. … Francis
       I. did little more than decide the fate of the old Louvre by
       introducing the new fashion. His successors went on with the
       work; and the progress of it may be followed, reign after
       reign, till the last visible fragment of the Gothic castle had
       been ruthlessly carted away. … Vast as is the Louvre that we
       know, it is as nothing in comparison with the prodigious
       scheme imagined by Richelieu and Louis XIII.; a scheme which,
       though never carried out, gave a very strong impulse to the
       works, and ensured the completion of the present building, at
       least in a subsequent reign. … Happily for the Louvre Louis
       XIV. interested himself in it before he engulfed his millions
       at Marly and Versailles. … The sums of money expended on the
       Louvre and Tuileries defy all calculation. … The greatest
       spender on these palaces was Napoleon III."

          P. G. Hamerton.
          Paris in Old and Present Times,
          chapter 6.

    LOVERS, War of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

    LOW CHURCH.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

    LOW COUNTRIES, The.

          See NETHERLANDS.

    LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

          See SCOTCH HIGHLAND and LOWLAND.

    LOWOSITZ, OR LOBOSITZ, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

    LOYALISTS, American.

          See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

    LOYOLA, and the founding of the Order of Jesus.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

       ----------LUBECK: Start--------

    LUBECK:
       Origin and rise.

       "Near the mouth of the river Trave there had long existed a
       small settlement of pirates or fishermen. The convenience of
       the harbour had led to this settlement and it had been much
       frequented by Christian merchants. The unsettled state of the
       country, however, afforded them little security, and it had
       been often taken and plundered by the Pagan freebooters. When
       Henry acquired the dominion of the soil [Henry the Lion, Duke
       of Saxony, who subdued the heathen Wendish tribe of the
       Oborites, A. D. 1165, and added their country to his
       dominions] he paid particular attention to this infant
       establishment, and under the shadow of his power the city of
       Lubeck (for so it became) arose on a broad and permanent
       basis. He made it … the seat of a bishop; he also
       established a mint and a custom-house, and by the grant of a
       municipal government, he secured the personal, while he
       prepared the way for the political, rights of its burghers.
       The ancient name of the harbour was Wisby, and by a
       proclamation addressed to the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and
       Russians, he invited them to frequent it, with an assurance
       that the ways should be open and secure by land and water. …
       This judicious policy was rewarded by a rapid and large
       increase to the wealth and commerce of Lubeck."

          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover,
          volume 1, pages 229-230.

          See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

    LUBECK: A. D. 1801-1803.
       One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    LUBECK: A. D. 1806.
       Battle of French and Prussians.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

    LUBECK: A. D. 1810.
       Annexation to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

    LUBECK: A. D. 1810-1815.
       Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

          See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
          and VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.

    LUBECK: A. D. 1866.
       Surrender of free privileges.
       Entrance into the Zollverein.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

       ----------LUBECK: End--------

    LUBECK, Treaty of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

    LUCANIANS, The.

          See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

       ----------LUCCA: Start--------

    LUCCA:
       The founding of the city.

          See MUTINA AND PARMA.

    LUCCA: 8th Century.
       The seat of Tuscan government.

          See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

    LUCCA: A. D. 1248-1278.
       In the wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

    LUCCA: A. D. 1284-1293.
       War with Pisa.

          See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

    LUCCA: A. D. 1314-1328.
       The brief tyranny of Uguccione della Faggiuola,
       and the longer despotism of Castruccio Castracani.
       Erected into an imperial duchy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    LUCCA: A. D. 1335-1341.
       Acquired by Mastino della Scala of Verona.
       Sold to Florence.
       Taken by Pisa.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

    LUCCA: A. D. 1805.
       Conferred on the sister of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    LUCCA: A. D. 1814-1860.

       After the fall of Napoleon Lucca was briefly occupied by the
       Neapolitans; then, in the new arrangements, figured for some
       time as a distinct duchy; afterwards became part of Tuscany,
       until its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

       ----------LUCCA: End--------

    LUCENA, Battle of (1483).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

    LUCERES, The.

          See ROME: BEGINNING AND NAME.

    LUCHANA, Battle of (1836).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

    LUCIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1144-1145.

       Lucius III., Pope, 1181-1185.

    LUCKA, Battle of (1308).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    LUCKNOW, The siege of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
          and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

    LUCOTECIA.

          See LUTETIA.

    LUD.
          Ancient Lydia.

    LUDDITES, Rioting of the.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

    LUDI.
    LUDI CIRCENSES, ETC.

       "Public games (Ludi) formed an important feature in the
       worship of the gods [in ancient Rome], and in the earlier ages
       were always regarded as religious rites; so that the words
       Ludi, Feriae and Dies Festi are frequently employed as
       synonymous. Games celebrated every year upon a fixed day were
       denominated Ludi Stati. Such were the Ludi Romani s. Magni,
       held invariably on the 21st of September; the Megalesia on 4th
       April; the Floralia on 28th April, and many others. …
       Another classification of Ludi was derived from the place
       where they were exhibited and the nature of the exhibition …

       1. Ludi Circenses, chariot races and other games exhibited in
       a circus.
       2. Ludi Scenici, dramatic entertainments exhibited in a
       theatre.
       3. Munera Gladiatoria, prize-fights, which were usually
       exhibited in an amphitheatre."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 10.

    {2054}

    LUDI MAXIMI ROMANI.

          See ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

    LUDI SÆCULARES, The.

          See SECULAR GAMES.

    LUDOVICO (called Il Moro),
       Duke of Milan, A. D. 1494-1500.

    LUDWIG.

          See LOUIS.

    LUGDUNENSIS AND LUGDUNUM.

          See LYONS: UNDER THE ROMANS.

    LUGUVALLIUM.

       The Roman military station at the western extremity of the
       Roman wall in Britain; the site of the modern city of
       Carlisle.

          H. M. Scarth,
          Roman Britain,
          chapter 8.

    LUITPERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 700-701.

    LUKETIA.

          See LUTETIA.

    LUNA: Destruction by the Northmen.

          See NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.

    LUND, Battle of (1676).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

    LUNDY, Benjamin, and the rise of the Abolitionists.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

    LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    LUNEBURG, Duchy of.

          See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY;
          and A. D. 1178-1183.

    LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of (A. D. 880).

          See EBBSDORF.

    LUNEVILLE, The Treaty of (1801).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    LUPERCAL.
    LUPERCALIA.

       The Lupercal was the wolf cave in which, according to Roman
       legend, the twins, Romulus and Remus, were nursed by a
       she-wolf. It was supposed to be situated at the foot of the
       Palatine Hill. "The Lupercal is described by Dionysius as
       having once been a large grotto, shaded with thick bushes and
       large trees, and containing a copious spring of water. This
       grotto was dedicated to Lupercus, an ancient Latin pastoral
       divinity, who was worshipped by shepherds as the protector of
       their flocks against wolves. A festival was held every year,
       on the 15th of February, in the Lupercal, in honour of
       Lupercus; the place contained an altar and a grove sacred to
       the god. … Gibbon tells us the festival of the Lupercalia,
       whose origin had preceded the foundation of Rome, was still
       celebrated in the reign of Anthemus, 472 A.D."

          H. M. Westropp,
          Early and Imperial Rome,
          page 35.

       "At the Lupercalia youths ran through the streets dressed
       in goats' skins, beating all those they met with
       strips of goats' leather."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 13.

    LURIS.

          See GYPSIES.

    LUSIGNAN, House of.

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187, 1192-1229, and 1291;
          also, CYPRUS: A. D. 1191, and 1192-1489.

    LUSITANIA.
    LUSITANIANS.

       The Lusitani or Lusitanians were the people who resisted the
       Roman conquest of Spain most obstinately—with even more
       resolution than their neighbors and kinsmen, the Celtiberians.
       In 153 B. C. they defeated a Roman army, which lost 6,000 men.
       The following year they inflicted another defeat, on the
       prætor Mummius, who lost 9,000 of his soldiers. Again, in 151,
       the prætor Galba suffered a loss of 7,000 men at their hands.
       But, in 150, Galba ravaged the Lusitanian country so
       effectually that they sued for peace. Pretending to arrange
       terms of friendship with them, this infamous Roman persuaded
       three large bands of the Lusitanians to lay down their arms,
       which being done he surrounded them with his troops and
       massacred them in cold blood. One of the few who escaped was a
       man named Viriathus, who became thenceforth the leader of his
       surviving countrymen in a guerrilla warfare which lasted for
       ten years, and which cost the Romans thousands of men. In the
       end they could not vanquish Viriathus, but basely bribed some
       traitors in his own camp to murder him. The Roman province
       which was afterwards formed out of the country of the
       Lusitanians, and which took their name, has been mistakenly
       identified with the modern kingdom of Portugal, which it
       coincided with only in part.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Stephens,
          The Story of Portugal,
          chapter 1.

          See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

       On the settlement of the Alans,

          See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

    LUSTRUM.

       After the [Roman] Censors had concluded the various duties
       committed to their charge, they proceeded in the last place to
       offer up, on behalf of the whole Roman people, the great
       expiatory sacrifice called Lustrum, and this being offered up
       once only in the space of five years, the term Lustrum is
       frequently employed to denote that space of time. … On the
       day fixed, the whole body of the people were summoned to
       assemble in the Campus Martius in martial order (exercitus)
       ranked according to their Classes and Centuries, horse and
       foot. The victims, consisting of a sow, a sheep, and a bull,
       whence the sacrifice was termed Suovetaurilia, before being
       led to the altar, were carried thrice round the multitude, who
       were then held to be purified and absolved from sin, and while
       the immolation took place the Censor recited a set form of
       prayer for the preservation and aggrandizement of the Roman
       State."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 5.

    LUTETIA,
    LUKETIA,
    LUCOTECIA.

       The beginning of the great city of Paris was represented by a
       small town named as above—the stronghold of the Gallic people
       called the Parisii—built on one of the islands in the Seine
       which Paris now covers and surrounds.

          See PARIS, BEGINNING OF.

    LUTHER, Martin, and the Reformation.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521,
          1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
          also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    LUTHER: On Education.

          See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: GERMANY.

    LUTTER, Battle of (1626).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

    LÜTZEN, Battle of (1632).
       Death of Gustavus Adolphus.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    LÜTZEN, OR GROSS GÖRSCHEN, Battle of (1813).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).

    LUXEMBURG, The House of:
       Its aggrandizement in the Empire, in Bohemia, Hungary,
       and Brandenburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313, and 1347-1493;
          also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442;
          and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168=1417.

       ----------LUXEMBURG: Start--------

    {2055}

    LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1713.
       Ceded to Holland.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1795.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1867.
       Separated from Germany and formed into a neutral state.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

       ----------LUXEMBURG: End--------

    LUZZARA, Battle of (1702).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

    LYCEUM, The Athenian.

          See ACADEMY, THE ATHENIAN;
          and GYMNASIA, GREEK;
          also, relative to the suppression of the Lyceum,
          see ATHENS: A. D. 529.

    LYCIAN LEAGUE, The.

       "Probably the best constructed Federal Government that the
       ancient world beheld. The account given by Strabo, our sole
       authority, is so full, clear, and brief, that I cannot do
       better than translate it. The 'ancestral constitution of the
       Lykian League' is described by the great geographer in these
       words: 'There are three and twenty cities which have a share
       in the suffrage, and they come together from each city in the
       common Federal Assembly, choosing for their place of meeting
       any city which they think best. And, among the cities, the
       greatest are possessed of three votes apiece, the middle ones
       of two, and the rest of one; and in the same proportion they
       pay taxes, and take their share of other public burthens. …
       And, in the Federal Assembly, first the Lykiarch is chosen and
       then the other Magistrates of the League, and bodies of
       Federal Judges are appointed; and formerly they used to
       consult about war, and peace, and alliance; this now, of
       course, they cannot do, but these things must needs rest with
       the Romans.' … On the practical working of this constitution
       Strabo bestows the highest praise. Lykia was, in his day, a
       Roman dependency, but it retained its own laws and internal
       government."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapter 4, section 4.

    LYCIANS, The.

       The people who occupied in ancient times the extreme southern
       peninsula of Asia Minor. "The ancients knew of no unmixed
       population in this district. The Phœnicians explored the
       Lycian Taurus as well as the Cilician; and by land also
       Semitic tribes seem to have immigrated out of Syria and
       Cilicia; and these tribes formed the tribe of the Solymi.
       Another influx of population was conducted to this coast by
       means of the Rhodian chain of islands: men of Crete came
       across, who called themselves Termili or Trameli, and
       venerated Sarpedon as their Hero. After an arduous struggle,
       they gradually made themselves masters of the land encircled
       by sea and rock. … From the mouth of the Xanthus the Cretans
       entered the land. There Leto had first found a hospitable
       reception; in Patara, near by, arose the first great temple of
       Apollo, the god of light, or Lycius, with the worship of whom
       the inhabitants of the land became subsequently to such a
       degree identified as to receive themselves from the Greeks on
       whose coasts they landed the same name as the god, viz.,
       Lycians. … We know that the Lycians, in courage and
       knowledge of the sea fully the equals of the most seafaring
       nation of the Archipelago, from a desire of an orderly
       political life, renounced at an early period the public
       practice of piracy, which their neighbours in Pisidia and
       Cilicia never relinquished. Their patriotism they proved in
       heroic struggles, and in the quiet of home developed a greater
       refinement of manners, to which the special honour in which
       they held the female sex bears marked testimony."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    LYCURGUS, Constitution of.

          See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION.

    LYDIANS, The.

       "On the western coast of Asia Minor the nation of the Lydians,
       which possessed the vallies of the Hermus and Mæander, had
       early arrived at a monarchy and a point of civilization far in
       advance of the stages of primitive life. … When the Greeks
       forced the Phenicians from the islands of the Ægean sea, and
       then, about the end of the eleventh and beginning of the tenth
       century, B. C., landed on the western coast of Asia Minor, the
       Lydians were not able any more than the Teucrians and Mysians
       in the North, or the Carians in the South, to prevent the
       establishment of the Greeks on their coasts, the loss of the
       ancient native sanctuaries at Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus, and
       the founding of Greek cities in their land on the mouths of
       the Lydian rivers, the Hermus and the Cayster, though the
       Greek emigrants came in isolated expeditions over the sea. It
       was on the Lydian coasts that the most important Greek cities
       rose: Cyme, Phocæa, Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus. Priene, Myus,
       and Miletus were on the land of the Carians."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 4, chapter 17.

       "On the basis of a population related to the Phrygians and
       Armenians arose the nation of the Lydians, which through its
       original ancestor, Lud, would appear in Eastern tradition also
       to be reckoned as a member of the Semitic family. As long as
       we remain unacquainted with the spoken and written language of
       the Lydians, it will be impossible to define with any accuracy
       the mixture of peoples which here took place. But, speaking
       generally, there is no doubt of the double relationship of
       this people, and of its consequent important place in
       civilization among the groups of the nations of Asia Minor.
       The Lydians became on land, as the Phœnicians by sea, the
       mediators between Hellas and Anterior Asia. … The Lydians
       are the first among the nations of Asia Minor of whom we have
       any intimate knowledge as a political community."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

       The first, perhaps legendary, dynasty of Lydia, called the
       Atyadæ, was followed by one called the Herakleidæ by the
       Greeks, which is said to have ruled over 500 years. The last
       king of that family, Kandaules, was murdered, about B. C. 715,
       by Gyges, who founded the dynasty of the Mermnadæ, under whom
       the Lydian dominion was extended over most of Asia Minor, and
       its kings contended on fairly equal terms with the power of
       the Medes. But their monarchy was overthrown by Cyrus, B. C.
       546, and the famous Crœsus, last of their line, ended his days
       as an attendant and counselor of the Persian king.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 17 and 32.

       Recent discoveries tend to the conclusion that the primitive
       inhabitants of Lydia were of a race to which the Hittites
       belonged.

          A. H. Sayce,
          editor, Ancient Empires of the East,
          appendix 4.

          See, also,
          ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539;
          and PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

    {2056}

    LYGIANS, The.

       "Of all the invaders of Gaul [in the reign of Probus, A.
       D.277] the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people
       who reigned over a wide domain on the frontiers of Poland and
       Silesia. In the Lygian nation the Arii held the first rank by
       their numbers and fierceness. 'The Arii' (it is thus that they
       are described by the energy of Tacitus) 'study to improve by
       art and circumstances the innate terrors of their barbarism.
       Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They
       choose for the combat the darkest hour of the night.' … Yet
       the arms and discipline of the Romans easily discomfited these
       horrid phantoms. The Lygii were defeated in a general
       engagement, and Semno, the most renowned of their chiefs, fell
       alive into the hands of Probus. That prudent emperor,
       unwilling to reduce a brave people to despair, granted them an
       honourable capitulation and permitted them to return in safety
       to their native country. But the losses which they suffered in
       the march, the battle, and the retreat, broke the power of the
       nation; nor is the Lygian name ever repeated in the history
       either of Germany or of the empire."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 12.

       "Lygii appears to have been the generic name of the Slavonians
       on the Vistula. They are the same people as those called Lekhs
       by Nestor, the Russian chronicler of the twelfth century.
       These Lekhs are the ancestors of the Poles."

          See
          Latham,
          The Germania of Tacitus,
          page 158.

          W. Smith,
          Note to above, from Gibbon.

       "The Ligii were a widely-spread tribe, comprehending several
       clans. Tacitus names the Harii [or Arii], Helvecones, Manimi,
       Elisii, and Nahanarvali. Their territory was between the Oder
       and Vistula, and would include the greater part of Poland, and
       probably a portion of Silesia."

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.

       "The Elysii are supposed to have given name to Silesia."

          Note to the Oxford Translation of Tacitus: Germany,
          chapter 43.

    LYKIANS, The.

          See LYCIANS.

    LYMNE, in Roman times.

          See PORTUS LEMANIS.

    LYON, General Nathaniel:
       Campaign in Missouri, and death.

          See MISSOURI; A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER; MISSOURI).

       ----------LYONS: Start--------

    LYONS:
       Under the Romans.

       Minutius Plancus, Roman governor of Gallia Comata, or the Gaul
       of Cæsar's conquest, founded, B. C. 43, a city called
       Lugdunum, at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saone. A few
       years later, under Augustus, it was made the capital of a
       province to which it gave its name—Lugdunensis—and which
       comprised the whole of central Gaul, between the Loire and the
       Seine with the Armorican peninsula. In time the name Lugdunum
       became softened and shorn to Lyons. "Lyons, which stood on the
       west side of the Rhone, not so near the confluence of the
       Sâone as now, appears to have been settled by fugitive Romans
       driven out of Vienne by another party. It grew with as
       marvelous a rapidity as some of our western cities, for in
       fifteen years it swelled from a simple colony into a
       metropolis of considerable splendor. … Lugdun appears to
       have been a Keltic designation, and, as the 'g' in that speech
       took the sound of 'y' and 'd' was silent, we can easily see
       how the name became Lyon."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 2, chapter 5, with foot-note.

       "Not having originated out of a Celtic canton, and hence
       always with a territory of narrow limits, but from the outset
       composed of Italians and in possession of the full Roman
       franchise, it [Lyons] stood forth unique in its kind among the
       communities of the three Gauls—as respects its legal
       relations, in some measure resembling Washington in the North
       American federation. … Only the governor of the middle or
       Lugudunensian province had his seat there; but when emperors
       or princes stayed in Gaul they as a rule resided in Lyons.
       Lyons was, alongside of Carthage, the only city of the Latin
       half of the empire which obtained a standing garrison, after
       the model of that of the capital. The only mint for imperial
       money which we can point to with certainty, for the earlier
       period of the empire, is that of Lyons. Here was the
       headquarters of the transit-dues which embraced all Gaul; and
       to this as a centre the Gallic network of roads converged. …
       Thus Lugudunum rapidly rose into prosperity. … In the later
       period of the empire, no doubt, it fell behind Treves."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 3.

    LYONS: A. D. 500.
       Under the Burgundians.

          See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

    LYONS: 10th Century.
       In the kingdom of Aries.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843—933.

    LYONS: 12th Century.
       The Poor Men of Lyons."

          See WALDENSES.

    LYONS: A. D. 1685-1698.
       Loss in the silk weaving industry by the Huguenot exodus.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

    LYONS: A. D. 1793-1794.
       Revolt against the Revolutionary government at Paris.
       Siege and capture and fearful vengeance by the Terrorists.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
          and 1793—1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    LYONS: A. D. 1795.
       Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
       The White Terror.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

       ----------LYONS: End----------

    LYONS, Battle of (A. D. 197).

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

    LYSIMACHUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280.

    LYTTON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1876, 1877;
          and AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

    MAARMORS.

          See MORMAERS.

    MACÆ, The.

          See LIBYANS.

    McALLISTER, Fort, The storming of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

    MACALO, Battle of (1427).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    MACBETH, King of Scotland: A. D. 1039-1054.

    MACCABEES, The.

          See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

    MACCIOWICE, Battle of (1794).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

    McCLELLAN, General George B.
       Campaign in West Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

    McCLELLAN, General George B:
       Appointment to chief command.
       Organization of the Army of the Potomac.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    {2057}

    McCLELLAN, General George B:
       Protracted inaction through the winter of 1861-62.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

    McCLELLAN, General George B:
       Peninsular campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
          (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

    McCLELLAN, General George B:
       During General Pope's campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA),
          to (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, VIRGINIA).

    McCLELLAN, General George B:
       Antietam Campaign, and removal from command.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND);
          and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    McCLELLAN, General George B:
       Defeat in Presidential election.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

    MACDONALD, Marshal.
       Campaigns of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL),
          1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
          GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
          1813 (APRIL-MAY), (AUGUST), (OCTOBER),
          (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
          and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    MACDONOUGH, Commodore Thomas,
       and his victory on Lake Champlain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).

    McDOWELL, Battle at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    MACE, as a symbol of authority, The.

       "The club or mace, formed originally of hard wood, and the
       latter, subsequently either wholly or in part of metal, would
       naturally be adopted as one of the earliest weapons of
       primitive man, but it soon came to be regarded as a symbol of
       authority. … In the Middle Ages the mace was a common weapon
       with ecclesiastics, who, in consequence of their tenures,
       frequently took the field, but were, by a canon of the Church,
       forbidden to wield the sword. It strikes me as not improbable
       that in this custom we have the origin of the use of the mace
       as a symbol of authority by our cathedral and other ancient
       religious bodies. … In all probability its use by lay
       corporations may be traced to the corps of sergeants-at-mace,
       instituted as a body-guard both by Philip Augustus of France
       and our own Richard I., whilst with the Crusaders in
       Palestine. We learn that when the former monarch was in the
       Holy Land he found it necessary to secure his person from the
       emissaries of a sheik, called 'the Old Man of the Mountain,'
       who bound themselves to assassinate whomsoever he assigned.
       'When the king,' says an ancient chronicler, 'heard of this he
       began to reflect seriously, and took counsel how he might best
       guard his person. He therefore instituted a guard of
       serjeants-à-maces who night and day were to be about his
       person in order to protect him.' These sergens-à-maces were
       'afterwards called sergeants-at-arms, for Jean Bouteiller, …
       who lived in the time of Charles VI., that is, at the
       conclusion of the fourteenth century tells us, "The sergens
       d'armes are the mace-bearers that the king has to perform his
       duty, and who carry maces before the king; these are called
       sergeants-at-arms, because they are sergeants for the king's
       body.'" We learn further that Richard I. of England soon
       imitated the conduct of the French king, but he seems to have
       given his corps of sergeants-at-arms a more extensive power.
       Not only were they to watch round the king's tent in complete
       armour, with a mace, a sword, a bow and arrows, but were
       occasionally to arrest traitors and other offenders about the
       court, for which the mace was deemed a sufficient authority.
       … Hence, in all probability, was derived the custom of the
       chief magistrate of a municipality, who, as such, is the
       representative of the sovereign, being attended by his
       mace-bearer, as a symbol of the royal authority thus delegated
       to him."

          W. Kelly,
          The Great Mace
          (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 3).

       ----------MACEDONIA: Start--------

    MACEDONIA AND MACEDONIANS, The.

       "The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from
       the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great
       perfection in Greek military organization, without any of the
       loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely
       destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate
       cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the
       foreign mercenary whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings
       of patriotism—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good
       system of central or pacific administration. But the
       Macedonians of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an
       aggregate only of rude inland tribes, subdivided into distinct
       petty principalities, and separated from the Greeks by a wider
       ethnical difference even than the Epirots; since Herodotus,
       who considers the Epirotic Molossians and Thesprotians as
       children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary respecting
       the Macedonians. In the main, however, they seem at this early
       period analogous to the Epirots in character and civilization.
       They had some few towns, but they were chiefly village
       residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. … The original
       seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the chain
       of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of
       the chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects
       Olympus with Pindus, and which forms the north-western
       boundary of Thessaly; but they did not reach so far eastward
       as the Thermaic Gulf. … The Macedonian language was
       different from Illyrian, from Thracian, and seemingly also
       from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, yet apparently
       not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots; so that the
       acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs and
       people. … The large and comparatively productive region
       covered by the various sections of Macedonians, helps to
       explain that increase of ascendency which they successively
       acquired over all their neighbours. It was not however until a
       late period that they became united under one government. At
       first, each section—how many we do not know—had its own
       prince or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the
       southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally
       distinct and independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats
       somewhat north-west of the Elymiots. … The section of the
       Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and
       became known as 'The Macedonians' had their original centre at
       Ægæ or Edessa—the lofty, commanding and picturesque site of
       the modern Vodhena."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 508.
       Subjection to Persia.

          See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 383-379.
       Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy by Sparta.

          See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

    {2058}

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 359-358.
       Accession and first proceedings of King Philip.
       His acquisition of Amphipolis.

          See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336.
       Philip's conquest of Thessaly.
       Intervention in the Sacred War.
       Victory at Chæronea.
       Mastery of Greece.
       Preparation to invade Persia.
       Assassination.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348.
       War with the Olynthian Confederacy.
       Destruction of Olynthus.

          See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 340.
       Philip's unsuccessful siege of Byzantium.

          See GREECE: B. C. 340.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335.
       Alexander's campaigns at the north.
       Revolt and destruction of Thebes.

          See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
          Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire
          by Alexander the Great.

       Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the
       midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the
       Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who
       applied himself first, with significant energy, to the
       chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern
       frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE:
       B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne
       "when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than
       his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and
       admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated
       attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He
       had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry,
       light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the
       ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both
       Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the
       shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this
       moderate force was surely as much as any commander could
       handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile
       country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium,
       and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine,
       with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the
       Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek
       mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river
       Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle,
       and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy
       infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left
       wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of
       the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main
       attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in
       echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening
       to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces
       towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No
       sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy
       cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle
       in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he
       completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike
       straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for
       Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the
       coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against
       him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So
       then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards;
       he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and
       stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear
       safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian
       fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and
       had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C.
       333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following
       year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions.
       Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the
       headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great
       king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus,
       the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied
       Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow
       his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous
       cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast
       army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in
       the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded
       him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his
       favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of
       cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander,
       who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and
       occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut
       off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence.
       The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground,
       between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room
       for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high
       ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was
       done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the
       Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the
       Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large
       reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with
       his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops
       opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the
       king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had
       Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of
       the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete,
       for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the
       Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior,
       and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the
       phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued
       about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of
       his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The
       greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt
       prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now
       strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he
       boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the
       battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of
       conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed
       many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332]
       cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and
       showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the
       siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose,
       to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all
       the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a
       short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated
       the country as a province under his sway, with kindness
       towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and
       founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in
       claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the
       Eastern provinces of Darius' empire.
    {2059}
       The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C.
       331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of
       as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian
       cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to
       fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British
       have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant
       cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of
       regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had
       again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he
       blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was
       not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to
       the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects.
       For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to
       occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals
       of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great
       cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam,
       Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all
       full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great
       palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount
       of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than
       £30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more)
       had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of
       gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the
       army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for
       luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered
       and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of
       comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey
       such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far
       stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors.
       And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded
       himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the
       Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the
       unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake
       Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian
       passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The
       narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything
       in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian
       as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus,
       his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C.
       330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself
       married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus
       assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius'
       legitimate successor."

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          The Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 49-50 (volume 6).

          E. S. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles: Arabela.

          T. A. Dodge,
          Alexander,
          chapters 18-31.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
       Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana.
       His invasion of India.
       His death at Babylon.
       His character and aims.

       "After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian,
       Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia
       and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of
       Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on
       the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a
       little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went
       on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern
       Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh
       mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul.
       Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh),
       but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death.
       Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda,
       now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed
       the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and
       defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their
       country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier
       of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave
       Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C.
       327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer
       India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager
       for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus
       he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their
       way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself
       marched westwards with the army through the deserts of
       Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings,
       through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B.
       C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some
       months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and
       punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela,
       Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his
       way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with
       his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up
       the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were
       displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at
       Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief
       officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to
       break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and
       to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between
       the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in
       the regiments which had hitherto contained none but
       Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike
       districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner.
       Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an
       expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for
       ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and
       carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus
       they were to be put together again, and so make their way to
       Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring
       of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his
       journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of
       the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh
       troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition
       was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with
       fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two
       years old."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Greece (Primer),
          chapter 7.

       "Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander
       master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the
       immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and
       Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the
       world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of
       Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries
       was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek,
       Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the
       11th century.
    {2060}
       The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the
       Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of
       the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very
       possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times,
       from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and
       Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for
       nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in
       Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities.
       But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they
       became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they
       fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their
       government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but
       their ruler might himself still have remained European and
       Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the
       possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary
       possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither
       Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved
       in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone
       too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his
       conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the
       character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him
       put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was
       himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman
       success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told
       of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus,
       Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than
       Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously
       believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a
       stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in
       pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human
       parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the
       conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the
       heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and
       genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand
       which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual,
       honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he
       demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held
       that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly
       ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little
       respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage
       which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of
       respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and
       Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal
       Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece
       to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth
       refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political
       exiles. This last was an interference with the internal
       government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by
       Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in
       other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst
       failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The
       unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness;
       no man can tell what might have been done by one of such
       mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his
       career. That he looked forward to still further conquests
       seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests,
       alike those which were won and those which were still to be
       won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he
       to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of
       Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much
       warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of
       Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and
       eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr.
       Grote denies him all merit of the kind."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Alexander
          (Historical Essays, series 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7).

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322.
       Revolt in Greece.
       The Lamian War.
       Subjugation of Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
       The Partition of the Empire of Alexander.
       First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi
       or Successors of Alexander.

       Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of
       three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the
       sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son,
       Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the
       haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both
       widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of
       Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king,
       Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards
       united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under
       the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last
       proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of
       Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was
       quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The
       provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now
       divided between the generals of his army, who are known in
       history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division
       was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see
       EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia,
       Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater
       and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The
       remaining provinces either did not come under the new division
       [see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of
       notice,"

          A. H. L. Heeren,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          page 222.

       Meantime, "the body of Alexander lay unburied and neglected,
       and it was not until two years after his death that his
       remains were consigned to the tomb. But his followers still
       shewed their respect for his memory by retaining the feeble
       Arrhidæus on the throne, and preventing the marriage of
       Perdiccas with Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip; a union
       which manifestly was projected to open a way to the throne.
       But while this project of marriage occupied the attention of
       the regent, a league had secretly been formed for his
       destruction; and the storm burst forth from a quarter whence
       it was least expected. … The barbarous tribes of the
       Cappadocians and Paphlagonians … asserted their independence
       after the death of Alexander, and chose Ariarathes for their
       leader. Perdiccas sent against them Eumenes, who had hitherto
       fulfilled the peaceful duties of a secretary; and sent orders
       to Antigonus and Leonatns, the governors of Western Asia, to
       join the expedition with all their forces. These commands were
       disobeyed; and Perdiccas was forced to march with the royal army
       against the insurgents. He easily defeated these undisciplined
       troops, but sullied his victory by unnecessary cruelty.
    {2061}
       On his return he summoned the satraps of Western Asia to
       appear before his tribunal, and answer for their disobedience.
       Antigonus, seeing his danger, entered into a league with
       Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, Antipater the governor of
       Macedon, and several other noblemen, to crush the regency.
       Perdiccas, on the other hand, leaving Eumenes to guard Lower
       Asia, marched with the choicest divisions of the royal army
       against Ptolemy, whose craft and ability he dreaded even more
       than his power. Antipater and Craterus were early in the
       field; they crossed the Hellespont with the army that had been
       left for the defence of Macedon. … Seduced by … false
       information, they divided their forces; Antipater hastening
       through Phrygia in pursuit of Perdiccas, while Craterus and
       Neoptolemus marched against Eumenes. They encountered him in
       the Trojan plain, and were completely defeated. … Eumenes
       sent intelligence of his success to Perdiccas; but two days
       before the messenger reached the royal camp the regent was no
       more. His army, wearied by the long siege of Pelusium, became
       dissatisfied; their mutinous dispositions were secretly
       encouraged by the emissaries of Ptolemy … and Perdiccas was
       murdered in his tent (B. C. 321). … In the meantime a brief
       struggle for independence had taken place in Greece, which is
       commonly called the Lamian war [see GREECE: B. C. 323-322].
       … As soon as Ptolemy had been informed of the murder of
       Perdiccas, he came to the royal army with a large supply of
       wine and provisions. His kindness and courteous manners so won
       upon these turbulent soldiers, that they unanimously offered
       him the regency; but he had the prudence to decline so
       dangerous an office. On his refusal, the feeble Arrhidæus and
       the traitor Python were appointed to the regency, just as the
       news arrived of the recent victory of Eumenes. This
       intelligence filled the royal army with indignation. … They
       hastily passed a vote proclaiming Eumenes and his adherents
       public enemies. … The advance of an army to give effect to
       these decrees was delayed by a new revolution. Eurydice, the
       wife of Arrhidæus, a woman of great ambition and considerable
       talent for intrigue, wrested the regency from her feeble
       husband and Python, but was stripped of power on the arrival
       of Antipater, who reproached the Macedonians for submitting to
       the government of a woman; and, being ably supported by
       Antigonus and Seleucus, obtained for himself the office of
       regent. No sooner had Antipater been invested with supreme
       power than he sent Arrhidæus and Eurydice prisoners to Pella,
       and entrusted the conduct of the war against Eumenes to the
       crafty and ambitious Antigonus. … Eumenes was unable to cope
       with the forces sent against him; having been defeated in the
       open field, he took shelter in Nora, a Cappadocian city, and
       maintained a vigorous defence, rejecting the many tempting
       offers by which Antigonus endeavoured to win him to the
       support of his designs (B. C. 318). The death of Antipater
       produced a new revolution in the empire; and Eumenes in the
       meantime escaped from Nora, accompanied by his principal
       friends. … Antipater, at his death, bequeathed the regency
       to Polysperchon, excluding his son Cassander from power on
       account of his criminal intrigues with the wicked and
       ambitious Eurydice. Though a brave general, Polysperchon had
       not the qualifications of a statesman; he provoked the
       powerful resentment of Antigonus by entering into a close
       alliance with Eumenes; and he permitted Cassander to
       strengthen himself in southern Greece, where he seized the
       strong fortress of Munychia. … Polysperchon, unable to drive
       Cassander from Attica, entered the Peloponnesus to punish the
       Arcadians, and engaged in a fruitless siege of Megalopolis. In
       the meantime Olympias, to whom he had confided the government
       of Macedon, seized Arrhidæus and Eurydice, whom she had
       murdered in prison. Cassander hasted, at the head of all his
       forces, to avenge the death of his mistress: Olympias, unable
       to meet him in the field, fled to Pydna; but the city was
       forced to surrender after a brief defence, and Olympias was
       immediately put to death. Among the captives were Roxana the
       widow, Alexander Ægus the posthumous son, and Thessalonica the
       youngest daughter, of Alexander the Great. Cassander sought
       and obtained the hand of the latter princess, and thus
       consoled himself for the loss of his beloved Eurydice. By this
       marriage he acquired such influence, that Polysperchon did not
       venture to return home, but continued in the Peloponnesus,
       where he retained for some time a shadow of authority over the
       few Macedonians who still clung to the family of Alexander. In
       Asia, Eumenes maintained the royal cause against Antigonus,
       though deserted by all the satraps, and harassed by the
       mutinous dispositions of his troops, especially the
       Argyraspides, a body of guards that Alexander had raised to
       attend his own person, and presented with the silver shields
       from which they derived their name. After a long struggle,
       both armies joined in a decisive engagement; the Argyraspides
       broke the hostile infantry, but learning that their baggage
       had in the meantime been captured by the light troops of the
       enemy, they mutinied in the very moment of victory, and
       delivered their leader, bound with his own sash, into the
       hands of his merciless enemy (B. C. 315). The faithful Eumenes
       was put to death by the traitorous Antigonus; but he punished
       the Argyraspides for their treachery."

          W. C. Taylor,
          The Student's Manual of Ancient History,
          chapter 11, section 3.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Smith,
          History of the World: Ancient,
          chapter 17 (volume 2).

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 96 (volume 12).

          See, also, GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.
       The first league and war against Antigonus.
       Extermination of the heirs of Alexander.

       "Antigonus was now unquestionably the most powerful of the
       successors of Alexander the Great. As master of Asia, he ruled
       over those vast and rich lands that extended from India to the
       Mediterranean Sea. … Although nearly seventy years old, and
       blind in one eye, he still preserved the vigor of his forces.
       … He was fortunate in being assisted by a son, the famous
       Demetrius, who, though possessed of a very passionate nature,
       yet from early youth displayed wonderful military ability.
       Above all, the prominent representatives of the royal family
       had disappeared, and there remained only the youthful
       Alexander, Herakles, the illegitimate son of Alexander the
       Great, who had no lawful claim whatever to the sovereignty,
       and two daughters of Philip, Kleopatra, who lived at Sardis,
       and Thessalonike, whom Kassander had recently married—none of
       whom were sufficiently strong to assert their rights to the
       throne.
    {2062}
       Thus Antigonus seemed indeed destined to become vicar and
       master of the entire Alexandrian kingdom, and to restore the
       unity of the empire. But not only was this union not realized,
       but even the great realm which Antigonus had established in
       Asia was doomed to inevitable destruction. The generals who
       possessed the various satrapies of the empire could not bear
       his supremacy, and accordingly entered into a convention,
       which gradually ripened into an active alliance against him.
       The principal organ of this movement was Seleukus, who, having
       escaped to Ptolemy of Egypt, first of all persuaded the latter
       to form an alliance—which Kassander of Macedonia and
       Lysimachus of Thrace readily joined—against the formidable
       power of Antigonus. The war lasted for four years, and was
       carried on in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Its fortunes were
       various [the most noteworthy event being a bloody defeat
       inflicted upon Demetrius the son of Antigonus, by Ptolemy, at
       Gaza, in 312], but the result was not decisive. … In 311 B.
       C. a compact was made between Antigonus on one side, and
       Kassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus on the other, whereby 'the
       supreme command in Europe was guaranteed to Kassander, until
       the maturity of Alexander, son of Roxana; Thrace being at the
       same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the
       whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted
       by all that the Hellenic cities should be free.' Evidently
       this peace contained the seeds of new disputes and increasing
       jealousies. The first act of Kassander was to cause the death
       of Roxana and her child in the fortress of Amphipolis, where
       they had been confined; and thus disappeared forever the only
       link which apparently maintained the union of the empire, and
       a ready career now lay open to the ambition of the successors.
       Again, the name of Seleukus was not even mentioned in the
       peace, while it was well known at the time it was concluded
       that he had firmly established his rule over the eastern
       satrapies of Asia. … The troops also of Antigonus,
       notwithstanding the treaty, still remained in Hellas, under
       command of his nephew Ptolemy. Ptolemy of Egypt, therefore,
       accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by
       garrisoning various Hellenic cities, renewed the war and the
       triple alliance against him." A series of assassinations soon
       followed, which put out of the way the young prince Herakles,
       bastard son of Alexander the Great, and Kleopatra, the sister
       of Alexander, who was preparing to wed Ptolemy of Egypt when
       Antigonus brought about her murder, to prevent the marriage.
       Another victim of the jealousies that were rife among the
       Diadochi was Antigonus' nephew Ptolemy, who had deserted his
       uncle's side, but who was killed by the Egyptian Ptolemy. "For
       more than ten years … Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and
       Kassander successively promised to leave the Greeks
       independent, free, and unguarded; but the latter never ceased
       to be guarded, taxed, and ruled by Macedonian despots. We may,
       indeed, say that the cities of Hellas never before had
       suffered so much as during the time when such great promises
       were made about their liberty. The Ætolians alone still
       possessed their independence. Rough, courageous, warlike, and
       fond of freedom, they continued fighting against the
       Macedonian rule."

          T. T. Timayenis,
          History of Greece,
          part 9, chapter 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. P. Mahaffy,
          Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapters 5-6.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
       Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.
       His siege of Rhodes.
       The last combination against Antigonus.
       His defeat and death at Ipsus.
       Partition of his dominions.

       After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three
       years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest
       Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all
       the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307
       B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens,
       with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money.
       Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of
       'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of
       ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the
       Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition
       to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the
       Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius
       the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than
       ten years. … During the first period of his administration
       he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have
       improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with
       useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to
       philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered
       his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for
       luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost
       the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians
       heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus;
       his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city
       to him, and to close his political career by retiring to
       Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to
       the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient
       constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and
       ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with
       the basest and most abject flattery

          See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

       … Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early
       in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to
       Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to
       its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that
       ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient
       naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size
       of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and
       so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the
       strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also
       conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy,
       Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at
       Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon
       Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of
       revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes,
       which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was
       from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his
       name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain
       attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and
       grant the Rhodians peace.

          See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

    {2063}

       Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great
       progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was
       besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus.
       Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently
       defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered
       Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant
       flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during
       which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no
       great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was
       recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his
       assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of
       the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals
       was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in
       which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated.
       Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death.
       Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus,
       whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to
       Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at
       Ipsus, refused to receive him."

          W. Smith,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 45.

       "After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to
       divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in
       the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had
       achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted
       either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that
       they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share
       all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not
       clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor
       is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor
       was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not
       only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the
       Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of
       Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother
       Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty
       remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by
       Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the
       garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right
       as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however
       began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his
       claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in
       its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to
       withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native
       princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of
       Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken
       advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to
       establish their authority over extensive territories in the
       west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus
       must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it
       transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor
       because it would have been more desirable that he should have
       triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory
       led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise
       have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained
       confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have
       subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the
       inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the
       traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and
       his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus
       founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his
       father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of
       Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew,
       while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For
       the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of
       Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as
       the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute
       it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the
       greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an
       independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on
       the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear
       that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as
       to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that
       he should keep whatever he might acquire there."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 59 (volume 7).

          ALSO IN:
          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient History,
          lectures 86-87 (volume 3).

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
       Death of Casander.
       Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.
       Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.
       Abdication and death of Ptolemy.
       Murder of Seleucus.
       Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.

       "Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of
       dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to
       assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect
       his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to
       keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and
       his preparations to reconquer his father's position.
       Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another,
       and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as
       well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected
       in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased,
       apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts.
       So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family
       relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions
       prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to
       extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would
       doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of
       Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious
       reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both
       him and his son prisoners, and released them very
       chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure
       kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles,
       so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the
       poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom
       he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the
       battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world
       arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king
       Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and
       friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter,
       another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy
       (Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy,
       who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest
       son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who
       accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at
       foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake,
       installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life,
       and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours,
       nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject
       before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the
       first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a
       half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister,
       Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and
       popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired
       against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was
       a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death.
    {2064}
       This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the
       country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince
       called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with
       an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a
       great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It
       was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last
       but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too,
       in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B.
       C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of
       Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic
       possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son
       Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of
       his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he
       was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his
       train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army
       which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for
       Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet
       made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were
       full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus
       in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in
       buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME:
       B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to
       make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their
       affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change
       of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were
       pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from
       recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos
       established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard,
       induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against
       Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her
       children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the
       Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and
       thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered
       career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II.
       (Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was
       the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first
       Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them,
       Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant
       for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and
       doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the
       Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by
       his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom,
       that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where
       sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves.
       Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the
       suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria.
       Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in
       possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the
       claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a
       new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a
       terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over
       the world."

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          The Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 60 (volume 8).

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 280-279.
       Invasion by the Gauls.
       Death of Ptolemy Keraunos.

          See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
       Strife for the throne.
       Failures of Pyrrhus.
       Success of Antigonus Gonatus.
       His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.

       "On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of
       Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted
       as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a
       new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,
       the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself
       since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in
       Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by
       his father, and, having taken into his service a body of
       Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master
       of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus
       Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of
       Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia
       and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian
       king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this
       combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his
       claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,
       and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this
       fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the
       Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,
       Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his
       schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing
       in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of
       Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus
       had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose
       recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The
       Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others
       occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above
       all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,
       ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair
       prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body
       of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.
       273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him
       battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his
       soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a
       wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,
       placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who
       might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,
       if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,
       instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and
       employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic
       knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon
       the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition
       into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough
       and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped
       to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the
       capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.
       Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the
       city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately
       threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.
    {2065}
       In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the
       adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then
       slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an
       Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the
       Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced
       his second reign by establishing his influence over most of
       the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with
       the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta
       and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies
       rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon
       succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by
       the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising
       prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even
       acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the
       son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,
       re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,
       invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out
       of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but
       from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was
       able once more to devote his undivided attention to the
       subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and
       rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,
       … he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain
       possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.
       A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the
       Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]
       which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give
       to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little
       inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          pages 261-263.

          ALSO IN:
          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient History,
          lectures 100-102.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 214-168.
       The Roman conquest.
       Extinction of the kingdom.

          See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

    MACEDONIA: B. C. 205-197.
       Last relations with the Seleucid empire.

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

       Slavonic occupation.

          See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7TH CENTURIES.

       ----------MACEDONIA: End----------

    MACEDON IAN DYNASTY, The.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

    MACEDONIAN PHALANX.

          See PHALANX, MACEDONIAN.

    MACEDONIAN WARS, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

    MACERATA, Battle of (1815).

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1815.

    McHENRY, Fort, The bombardment of, by the British.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    MACHICUIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    MACHINE, Political.

          See STALWARTS.

    MACK, Capitulation of, at Ulm.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

    MACKENZIE, William Lyon, and the Canadian Rebellion.

          See CANADA: A. D.1837; and 1837-1838.

       ----------MACKINAW: Start--------

    MACKINAW (MICHILLIMACKINAC):
       Discovery and first Jesuit Mission.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    MACKINAW:
       Rendezvous of the Coureurs de Bois.

          See COUREURS DE BOIS.

    MACKINAW: A. D. 1763.
       Captured by the Indians.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

       ----------MACKINAW: End--------

    McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1890.

    McLEOD CASE, The.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

    MacMAHON, Marshal,
       President of the French Republic, A. D. 1873-1879.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876; and 1875-1889.

    MACON, Fort, Capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

    McPHERSON, General: Death in the Atlanta campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA);
          and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

    MACRINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 217-218.

    MACUSHI, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

    MADAGASCAR: A. D. 1882-1883.
       French claims and demands enforced by war.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

    MADEIRA ISLAND, Discovery of.

       In the year 1419, Joham Gonçalvez Zarco and Tristam Vaz,
       "seeing from Porto Santo something that seemed like a cloud,
       but yet different (the origin of so much discovery, noting the
       difference in the likeness), built two boats, and, making for
       this cloud, soon found themselves alongside a beautiful
       island, abounding in many things, but most of all in trees, on
       which account they gave it the name of Madeira (wood)."

          A. Helps,
          Spanish Conquest,
          book 1, chapter 1.

    MADISON, James,
       and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.

       Presidential election and administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808 to 1817.

    MADRAS: A. D. 1640.
       The founding of the city.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    MADRAS: A. D. 1746-1748.
       Taken by the French.
       Restored to England.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

    MADRAS: A. D. 1758-1759.
       Unsuccessful siege by the French.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

       ----------MADRID: Start--------

    MADRID: A. D. 1560.
       Made the capital of Spain by Philip II.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

    MADRID: A. D. 1706-1710.
       Taken and retaken by the French and Austrian claimants
       of the crown.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1706; and 1707-1710.

    MADRID: A. D. 1808.
       Occupied by the French.
       Popular insurrection.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

    MADRID: A. D. 1808.
       Arrival of Joseph Bonaparte, as king, and his speedy flight.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    MADRID: A. D. 1808 (December).
       Recovery by the French.
       Return of King Joseph Bonaparte.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    MADRID: A. D. 1812.
       Evacuation by the French.
       Occupation of the city by Wellington and his army.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    MADRID: A. D. 1823.
       Again occupied by the French.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    {2066}

    MADRID, The Treaty of (1526).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

       ----------MADRID: End--------

    MÆATÆ, The.

       A common or national name given by the Romans to the tribes in
       Scotland which dwelt between the Forth and the Clyde, next to
       "the wall."

    MÆOTIS PALUS,
    PALUS MÆOTIS.

       The ancient Greek name of the body of
       water now called the Sea of Azov.

       ----------MAESTRICHT: Start--------

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1576.
       The Spanish Fury.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1579.
       Spanish siege, capture and massacre.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1632.
       Siege and capture by the Dutch.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1673.
       Siege and capture by Vauban and Louis XIV.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1676.
       Unsuccessfully besieged by William of Orange.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1678.
       Restored to Holland.

          See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1748.
       Taken by the French and restored to Holland.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
          and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS AND TREATY.

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1793.
       Unsuccessful siege by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

    MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1795.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

       ----------MAESTRICHT: End--------

    MAFRIAN.

          See JACOBITE CHURCH.

    MAGADHA, The kingdom of.

          See INDIA: B. C. 327-312; and 312—.

    MAGDALA, Capture of (1868).

          See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

    MAGDEBURG: A. D. 1631.
       Siege, storming, and horrible sack and massacre
       by the troops of Tilly.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

    MAGELLAN, Voyage of.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

    MAGENTA, Battle of (1859).

       See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

    MAGESÆTAS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    MAGIANS.
    MAGI.

       The priesthood of the ancient Iranian religion—the religion
       of the Avesta and of Zarathrustra, or Zoroaster—as it existed
       among the Medes and Persians. In Eastern Iran the priests were
       called Athravas. In Western Iran "they are not called
       Athravas, but Magush. This name is first found in the
       inscription which Darius caused to be cut on the rock-wall of
       Behistun; afterwards it was consistently used by Western
       writers, from Herodotus to Agathias, for the priests of Iran."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 8 (volume 5).

       "The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long
       subsequent to Darius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or
       caste, originally perhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come
       to be recognised as a true priestly order; and was entrusted
       by the Sassanian princes with the whole control and direction
       of the religion of the state. Its chief was a personage
       holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He bore
       the title of 'Tenpet,' 'Head of the Religion,' or 'Movpetan
       Movpet,' 'Head of the Chief Magi.'"

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 28.

       "To the whole ancient world Zoroaster's lore was best known by
       the name of the doctrine of the Magi, which denomination was
       commonly applied to the priests of India, Persia, and
       Babylonia. The earliest mention of them is made by the prophet
       Jeremiah (xxxix. 3), who enumerated among the retinue of King
       Nebuchadnezzar at his entry into Jerusalem, the 'Chief of the
       Magi' ('rab mag' in Hebrew), from which statement we may
       distinctly gather that the Magi exercised a great influence at
       the court of Babylonia 600 years B. C. They were, however,
       foreigners, and are not to be confounded with the indigenous
       priests. … The name Magi occurs even in the New Testament.
       In the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ii. 1), the Magi
       (Greek 'magoi,' translated in the English Bible by 'wise men')
       came from the East to Jerusalem, to worship the new-born child
       Jesus at Bethlehem. That these Magi were priests of the
       Zoroastrian religion, we know from Greek writers."

          M. Haug,
          Essays on the Religion of the Parsis, 1.

          See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

    MAGNA CARTA.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

    MAGNA GRÆCIA.

       "It was during the height of their prosperity, seemingly, in
       the sixth century B. C., that the Italic Greeks [in southern
       Italy] either acquired for, or bestowed upon, their territory
       the appellation of Magna Græcia, which at that time it well
       deserved; for not only were Sybaris and Kroton then the
       greatest Grecian cities situated near together, but the whole
       peninsula of Calabria may be considered as attached to the
       Grecian cities on the coast. The native Œnotrians and Sikels
       occupying the interior had become hellenised, or
       semi-hellenised, with a mixture of Greeks among them—common
       subjects of these great cities."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 22.

       On the Samnite conquest of Magna Græcia

          See SAMNITES.

    MAGNANO, Battle of (1799).

          See FRANCE: A. D, 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    MAGNATÆ, The.

          See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

    MAGNESIA.

       The eastern coast of Thessaly was anciently so called. The
       Magnetes who occupied it were among the people who became
       subject to the Thessalians or Thesprotians, when the latter
       came over from Epirus and occupied the valley of the Peneus.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 3.

       Two towns named Magnesia in Asia Minor were believed to be
       colonies from the Magnetes of Thessaly. One was on the south
       side of the Meander; the other, more northerly, near the river
       Harmus.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 13.

    MAGNESIA, Battle of (B. C. 190).

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

    MAGNUS I., King of Denmark,
       A. D. 1042-1047.

       Magnus I. (called The Good), King of Norway, 1035-1047.

       Magnus I., King of Sweden, 1275-1290.

       Magnus II., King of Norway, 1066-1069.

       Magnus II., King of Sweden, 1319-1350, and 1359-1363;
       and VII. of Norway, 1319-1343.

       Magnus III., King of Norway, 1093-1103.

       Magnus IV., King of Norway, 1130-1134.

       Magnus V., King of Norway, 1162-1186.

       Magnus VI., King of Norway, 1263-1280.

    {2067}

    MAGYARS, The.

       See HUNGARIANS.

    MAHARAJA.

          See RAJA.

    MAHDI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 775-785.

    MAHDI, The.

       "The religion of Islam acknowledges the mission of Jesus, but
       not His divinity. Since the Creation, it teaches, five
       prophets had appeared before the birth of Mahomet—Adam, Noah,
       Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—each being greater than his
       predecessor, and each bringing a fuller and higher revelation
       than the last. Jesus ranks above all the prophets of the old
       dispensation, but below those of the new, inaugurated by
       Mahomet. In the final struggle He will be but the servant and
       auxiliary of a more august personage—the Mahdi. The literal
       meaning of the word Mahdi is not, as the newspapers generally
       assert, 'He who leads,' a meaning more in consonance with
       European ideas, but 'He who is led.' … If he leads his
       fellow-men it is because he alone is the 'well-guided one,'
       led by God—the Mahdi. The word Mahdi is only an epithet which
       may be applied to any prophet, or even to any ordinary person;
       but used as a proper name it indicates him who is
       'well-guided' beyond all others, the Mahdi 'par excellence,'
       who is to end the drama of the world, and of whom Jesus shall
       only be the vicar. … The Koran does not speak of the Mahdi,
       but it seems certain that Mahomet must have announced him. …
       The idea of the Mahdi once formed, it circulated throughout
       the Mussulman world: we will follow it rapidly in its course
       among the Persians, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of
       the Soudan; but without for an instant pretending to pass in
       review all the Mahdis who have appeared upon the prophetic
       stage; for their name is Legion."

          J. Darmesteter,
          The Mahdi, Past and Present,
          chapters 1-2.

          See, also,
          ISLAM; ALMOHADES;
          and EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.

    MAHDIYA:
       Taken by the Moorish Corsair, Dragut,
       and retaken by the Spaniards (1550).

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

    MAHMOUD I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1730-1754.

       Mahmoud II., Turkish Sultan, 1808-1839.

       Mahmoud, the Afghan, Shah of Persia, 1722-1725.

       Mahmoud, the Gaznevide, The Empire of.

          See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

       ----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: Start--------

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
       The Mission of the Prophet.

       Mahomet (the usage of Christendom has fixed this form of the
       name Mohammad) was born at Mecca, on or about the 20th day of
       August, A. D. 570. He sprang from "the noblest race in Mecca
       and in Arabia [the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashem].
       To his family belonged the hereditary guardianship of the
       Kaaba and a high place among the aristocracy of his native
       city. Personally poor, he was raised to a position of
       importance by his marriage with the rich widow Khadijah, whose
       mercantile affairs he had previously conducted. In his
       fortieth year he began to announce himself as an Apostle of
       God, sent to root out idolatry, and to restore the true faith
       of the preceding Prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Slowly
       and gradually he makes converts in his native city; his good
       wife Khadijah, his faithful servant Zeyd, are the first to
       recognize his mission; his young cousin, the noble Ali, the
       brave and generous and injured model of Arabian chivalry,
       declares himself his convert and Vizier; the prudent, moderate
       and bountiful Abu-Bekr acknowledges the pretensions of the
       daring innovator. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet
       keeps unflinchingly in his path; no threats, no injuries,
       hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and
       the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far purer and
       better morality than had ever been set before them. He claims
       no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asks but for
       simple toleration, for free permission to win men by
       persuasion into the way of truth. … As yet at least his
       hands were not stained with blood, nor his inner life with
       lust."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lecture 2.

       After ten years of preaching at Mecca, and of a private
       circulation and repetition of the successive Suras or chapters
       of the Koran, as the prophet delivered them, Mahomet had
       gained but a small following, while the opposition to his
       doctrines and pretensions had gained strength. But in A. D.
       620 (he being then fifty years of age) he gained the ear of a
       company of pilgrims from Medina and won them to his faith.
       Returning home, they spread the gospel of Islam among their
       neighbors, and the disciples at Medina were soon strong enough
       in numbers to offer protection to their prophet and to his
       persecuted followers in Mecca. As the result of two pledges,
       famous in Mahometan history, which were given by the men of
       Medina to Mahomet, in secret meetings at the hill of Acaba, a
       general emigration of the adherents of the new faith from
       Mecca to Medina took place in the spring of the year 622.
       Mahomet and his closest friend, Abu Bakr, having remained with
       their families until the last, escaped the rage of the
       Koreish, or Coreish, only by a secret flight and a concealment
       for three days in a cave on Mount Thaur, near Mecca. Their
       departure from the cave of Thaur, according to the most
       accepted reckoning, was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. This
       is the date of the Hegira, or flight, or emigration of Mahomet
       from Mecca to Medina. The Mahometan Era of the Hegira, "though
       referring 'par excellence' to the flight of the Prophet, …
       is also applicable to all his followers who emigrated to
       Medina prior to the capture of Mecca; and they are hence
       called Muhâjirîn, i. e., the Emigrants, or Refugees. We have
       seen that they commenced to emigrate from the beginning of
       Moharram (the first month of the Hegira era) two months
       before." The title of the Muhâjirîn, or Refugees, soon became
       an illustrious one, as did that of the Ansar, or Allies, of
       Medina, who received and protected them. At Medina Mahomet
       found himself strongly sustained. Before the year of his
       flight ended, he opened hostilities against the city which had
       rejected him, by attacking its Syrian caravans. The attacks
       were followed up and the traffic of Mecca greatly interfered
       with, until January, 624, when the famous battle of Bedr, or
       Badr, was fought, and the first great victory of the sword of
       Islam achieved.
    {2068}
       The 300 warriors of Bedr formed "the peerage of Islam." From
       this time the ascendancy of Mahomet was rapidly gained, and
       assumed a political as well as a religious character. His
       authority was established at Medina and his influence spread
       among the neighboring tribes. Nor was his cause more than
       temporarily depressed by a sharp defeat which he sustained,
       January, 625, in battle with the Koreish at Ohod. Two years
       later Medina was attacked and besieged by a great force of the
       Koreish and other tribes of Arabs and Jews, against the latter
       of whom Mahomet, after vainly courting their adhesion and
       recognition, had turned with relentless hostility. The siege
       failed and the retreat of the enemy was hastened by a timely
       storm. In the next year Mahomet extorted from the Koreish a
       treaty, known as the Truce of Hodeibia, which suspended
       hostilities for ten years and permitted the prophet and his
       followers to visit Mecca for three days in the following year.
       The pilgrimage to Mecca was made in the holy month, February,
       629, and in 630 Mahomet found adherents enough within the city
       and outside of it to deliver the coveted shrine and capital of
       Arabia into his hands. Alleging a breach of the treaty of
       peace, he marched against the city with an army of 10,000 men,
       and it was surrendered to him by his obstinate opponent, Abu
       Sofiân, who acknowledged, at last, the divine commission of
       Mahomet and became a disciple. The idols in the Kaaba were
       thrown down and the ancient temple dedicated to the worship of
       the one God. The conquest of Mecca was followed within no long
       time by the submission of the whole Arabic peninsula. The most
       obstinate in resisting were the great Bedouin tribe of the
       Hawazin, in the hill country, southeast of Mecca, with their
       kindred, the Bani Thackif. These were crushed in the important
       battle of Honein, and their strong city of Tayif was
       afterwards taken. Before Mahomet died, on the 8th June, A. D.
       632, he was the prince as well as the prophet of Arabia, and
       his armies, passing the Syrian borders, had already
       encountered the Romans, though not gloriously, in a battle
       fought at Muta, not far from the Dead Sea.

          Sir W. Muir,
          Life of Mahomet.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 50.

          J. W. H. Stobart,
          Islam and its Founder,
          chapters 3-9.

          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and his Successors,
          chapters 6-39.

          R. D. Osborn,
          Islam under the Arabs,
          part 1, chapters 1-3.

          See, also,
          ISLAM, and ERA, MAHOMETAN.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
       Abu Bekr.
       Omar.
       The founding of the Caliphate.
       Conquest of Syria.

       The death of Mahomet left Islam without a head. The Prophet
       had neither named a successor (Khalif or Caliph), nor had he
       instituted a mode in which the choice of one should be made.
       His nephew and son-in-law—"the Bayard of Islam," the
       lion-hearted Ali—seemed the natural heir of that strangely
       born sovereignty of the Arab world. But its elders and chiefs
       were averse to Ali, and the assembly which they convened
       preferred, instead, the Prophet's faithful friend, the
       venerable Abu Bekr. This first of the caliphs reigned modestly
       but two years, and on his death, July, A. D. 634, the stern
       soldier Omar was raised to the more than royal place. By this
       time the armies of the crescent were already far advanced
       beyond the frontiers of Arabia in their fierce career of
       conquest. No sooner had Abu Bekr, in 632, set his heel on some
       rebellious movements, which threatened his authority, than he
       made haste to open fields in which the military spirit and
       ambitions of his unquiet people might find full exercise. With
       bold impartiality he challenged, at once, and alike, the two
       dominant powers of the eastern world, sending armies to invade
       the soil of Persia, on one hand, and the Syrian provinces of
       the Roman empire, on the other. The invincible Khaled, or
       Caled, led the former, at first, but was soon transferred to
       the more critical field, which the latter proved to be. "One
       of the fifteen provinces of Syria, the cultivated lands to the
       eastward of the Jordan, had been decorated by Roman vanity
       with the name of 'Arabia'; and the first arms of the Saracens
       were justified by the semblance of a national right." The
       strong city of Bosra was taken, partly through the treachery
       of its commander, Romanus, who renounced Christianity and
       embraced the faith of Islam. From Bosra the Moslems advanced
       on Damascus, but suspended the siege of the city until they
       had encountered the army which the Emperor Heraclius sent to
       its relief. This they did on the field of Aiznadin, in the
       south of Palestine, July 30, A. D. 634, when 50,000 of the
       Roman-Greeks and Syrians are said to have perished, while but
       470 Arabs fell. Damascus was immediately invested and taken
       after a protracted siege, which Voltaire has likened to the
       siege of Troy, on account of the many combats and
       stratagems—the many incidents of tragedy and romance—which
       poets and historians have handed down, in some connection with
       its progress or its end. The ferocity of Khaled was only half
       restrained by his milder colleague in command, Abu Obeidah,
       and the wretched inhabitants of Damascus suffered terribly at
       his hands. The city, itself, was spared and highly favored,
       becoming the Syrian capital of the Arabs. Heliopolis (Baalbec)
       was besieged and taken in January, A. D. 636; Emessa
       surrendered soon after. In November, 636, a great and decisive
       battle was fought with the forces of Heraclius at Yermuk, or
       Yermouk, on the borders of Palestine and Arabia. The
       Christians fought obstinately and well, but they were
       overwhelmed with fearful slaughter. "After the battle of
       Yermuk the Roman army no longer appeared in the field; and the
       Saracens might securely choose, among the fortified towns of
       Syria, the first object of their attack. They consulted the
       caliph whether they should march to Cæsarea or Jerusalem; and
       the advice of Ali determined the immediate siege of the
       latter. … After Mecca and Medina, it was revered and visited
       by the devout Moslems as the temple of the Holy Land, which
       had been sanctified by the revelation of Moses, of Jesus, and
       of Mahomet himself." The defense of Jerusalem, notwithstanding
       its great strength, was maintained with less stubbornness than
       that of Damascus had been. After a siege of four months, in
       the winter of A. D. 637, the Christian patriarch or bishop of
       Jerusalem, who seems to have been first in authority, proposed
       to give up the Holy City, if Omar, the caliph, would come in
       person from Medina to settle and sign the terms of surrender.
       Omar deemed the prize worthy of this concession and made the
       long journey, travelling as simply as the humblest pilgrim and
       entering Jerusalem on foot.
    {2069}
       After this, little remained to make the conquest of all Syria
       complete. Aleppo was taken, but not easily, after a siege, and
       Antioch, the splendid seat of eastern luxury and wealth, was
       abandoned by the emperor and submitted, paying a great ransom
       for its escape from spoliation and the sword. The year 639 saw
       Syria at the feet of the Arabs whom it had despised six years
       before, and the armies of the caliph were ready to advance to
       new fields, east, northwards, and west.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
         chapter 51.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and His Successors,
          volume 2, chapters 3-23.

          S. Ockley,
          History of the Saracens: Abubeker.

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapters 2, 11, 19-21.

          See, also,
          JERUSALEM: A. D. 637;
          and TYRE: A. D. 638.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
       Conquest of Persia.

       During the invasion of Syria, Abu Bekr, the first of the
       Caliphs, sent an expedition towards the Euphrates, under
       command of the redoubtable Khaled (633). The first object of
       its attack was Hira, a city on the western branch of the
       Euphrates, not far from modern Kufa. Hira was the seat of a
       small kingdom of Christian Arabs tributary to Persia and under
       Persian protection and control. Its domain embraced the
       northern part of that fertile tract between the desert and the
       Euphrates which the Arab writers call Sawad; the southern part
       being a Persian province of which the capital, Obolla, was the
       great emporium of the Indian trade. Hira and Obolla were
       speedily taken and this whole region subdued. But, Khaled
       being then transferred to the army in Syria, the Persians
       regained courage, while the energy of the Moslems was relaxed.
       In an encounter called the Battle of the Bridge, A. D. 635,
       the latter experienced a disastrous check; but the next year
       found them more victorious than ever. The great battle of
       Cadesia (Kadisiyeh) ended all hope in Persia of doing more
       than defend the Euphrates as a western frontier. Within two
       years even that hope disappeared. The new Arab general, Sa'ad
       Ibn Abi Wakas, having spent the interval in strengthening his
       forces, and in founding the city of Busrah, or Bassora, below
       the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as that of
       Kufa, which became the Moslem capital, advanced into
       Mesopotamia, A. D. 637, crossing the river without opposition.
       The Persian capital, Ctesiphon, was abandoned to him so
       precipitately that most of its vast treasures fell into his
       hands. It was not until six months later that the Persians and
       Arabs met in battle, at Jalula, and the encounter was fatal to
       the former, 100,000 having perished on the field. "By the
       close of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved
       over the whole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to
       Susa." Then a brief pause ensued. In 641 the Persian king
       Isdigerd—last of the Sassanian house—made a great, heroic
       effort to recover his lost dominions and save what remained.
       He staked all and lost, in the final battle of Nehavend, which
       the Arabs called "Fattah-hul-Futtuh," or "Victory of
       Victories." "The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian
       power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying
       continually from place to place, prolonged an inglorious
       existence for the space of ten more years—from A. D. 641 to
       A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to
       pieces on the occasion of 'the victory of victories,' and made
       no other united effort against the Arabs. Province after
       province was occupied by the fierce invaders; and, at length,
       in A. D. 651, their arms penetrated to Merv, where the last
       scion of the house of Babek had for some years found a refuge.
       … The order of conquest seems to have been the following:
       Media, Northern Persia, Rhagiana, Azerbijan, Gurgan, Tantrist,
       and Khorassan in A. D. 642; Southern Persia, Kerman, Seistan,
       Mekran, and Kurdistan in A. D. 643; Merv, Balkh, Herat, and
       Kharezm in A. D. 650 or 652."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 26, and foot-notes.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and his Successors,
          volume 2, chapters 25-34.

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapters 10-18, 25-26.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
       Conquest of Egypt.

       "It was in the nineteenth or twentieth year of the Hegira [A.
       D. 640 or 641] that Amru, having obtained the hesitating
       consent of the Caliph, set out from Palestine for Egypt. His
       army, though joined on its march by bands of Bedouins lured by
       the hope of plunder, did not at the first exceed 4,000 men.
       Soon after he had left, Omar, concerned at the smallness of
       his force, would have recalled him; but finding that he had
       already gone too far to be stopped, he sent heavy
       reinforcements, under Zobeir, one of the chief Companions,
       after him. The army of Amru was thus swelled to an imposing
       array of from 12,000 to 16,000 men, some of them warriors of
       renown. Amru entered Egypt by Arish, and overcoming the
       garrison at Faroma [ancient Pelusium], turned to the left and
       so passed onward through the desert, reaching thus the
       easternmost of the seven estuaries of the Nile. Along this
       branch of the river he marched by Bubastis towards Upper
       Egypt,"—and, so, to Heliopolis, near to the great ancient
       city of Misr, or Memphis. Here, and throughout their conquest
       of Egypt, the Moslem invaders appear to have found some
       goodwill towards them prevailing among the Christians of the
       Jacobite sect, who had never become reconciled to the Orthodox
       Greeks. Heliopolis and Memphis were surrendered to their arms
       after some hard fighting and a siege of no long duration.
       "Amru lost no time in marching upon Alexandria so as to reach
       it before the Greek troops, hastily called in from the
       outlying garrisons, could rally there for its defence. On the
       way he put to flight several columns which sought to hinder
       his advance; and at last presented himself before the walls of
       the great city, which, offering (as it still does) on the land
       side a narrow and well-fortified front, was capable of an
       obstinate resistance. Towards the sea also it was open to
       succour at the pleasure of the Byzantine Court. But during the
       siege Heraclius died, and the opportunity of relief was
       supinely allowed to slip away." In the end Alexandria
       capitulated and was protected from plunder (see LIBRARIES,
       ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA), paying tribute to the conquerors. "Amru,
       it is said, wished to fix his seat of government at
       Alexandria, but Omar would not allow him to remain so far away
       from his camp, with so many branches of the Nile between. So
       he returned to Upper Egypt. A body of the Arabs crossed the
       Nile and settled in Ghizeh, on the western bank—a movement
       which Omar permitted only on condition that a strong fortress
       was constructed there to prevent the possibility of their
       being surprised and cut off.
    {2070}
       The headquarters of the army were pitched near Memphis. Around
       them grew up a military station, called from its origin
       Fostat, or 'the Encampment.' It expanded rapidly into the
       capital of Egypt, the modern Cairo. … This name 'Cahira,'
       or City of the Victory, is of later date [see below: A. D.
       908-1171]. … Zobeir urged Amru to enforce the right of
       conquest, and divide the land among his followers. But Amru
       refused; and the Caliph, as might have been expected,
       confirmed the judgment. 'Leave the land of Egypt,' was his
       wise reply, 'in the people's hands to nurse and fructify.' As
       elsewhere, Omar would not allow the Arabs to become
       proprietors of a single acre. Even Amru was refused ground
       whereupon to build a mansion for himself. … So the land of
       Egypt, left in the hands of its ancestral occupants, became a
       rich granary for the Hejaz, even as in bygone times it had
       been the granary of Italy and the Byzantine empire. … Amru,
       with the restless spirit of his faith, soon pushed his
       conquests westward beyond the limits of Egypt, established
       himself in Barca, and reached even to Tripoli. … Early in
       the Caliphate of Othman [A. D. 646] a desperate attempt was
       made to regain possession of Alexandria. The Moslems, busy
       with their conquests elsewhere, had left the city
       insufficiently protected. The Greek inhabitants conspired with
       the Court; and a fleet of 300 ships was sent under command of
       Manuel, who drove out the garrison and took possession of the
       city. Amru hastened to its rescue. A great battle was fought
       outside the walls: the Greeks were defeated, and the unhappy
       town was subjected to the miseries of a second and a longer
       siege. It was at last taken by storm and given up to plunder.
       … The city, though still maintaining its commercial import,
       fell now from its high estate. The pomp and circumstance of
       the Moslem Court were transferred to Fostat, and Alexandria
       ceased to be the capital of Egypt."

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapter 24, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 51.

          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and his Successors,
          volume 2, chapters 24 and 35.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 644.
       Assassination of Caliph Omar.

       The death of Omar, the second of the Caliphs, was a violent
       one. "It occurred in November, A. D. 644. One day a slave who
       worked for his master at the carpenter's bench came to see the
       Commander of the Faithful, and complained to him of being
       overworked, and badly treated by the citizen that owned him.
       Omar listened attentively, but arriving at the conclusion that
       the charges were false, sternly dismissed the carpenter to his
       bench. The man retired, vowing to be revenged. The following
       day was Friday, 'the day of the Assembly.' Omar, as usual,
       went to lead the prayers of the assembly in the great mosque.
       He opened his mouth to speak. He had just said 'Allah,' when
       the keen dagger of the offended slave was thrust into his
       back, and the Commander of the Faithful fell on the sacred
       floor, fatally wounded. The people, in a perfect frenzy of
       horror and rage, fell upon the assassin, but with superhuman
       strength he threw them off, and rushing about in the madness
       of despair he killed some and wounded others, and finally
       turning the point of his dagger to his own breast, fell dead.
       Omar lingered several days in great agony, but he was brave to
       the end. His dying words were, 'Give to my successor this
       parting bequest, that he be kind to the men of this city,
       Medina, which gave a home to us, and to the Faith. Tell him to
       make much of their virtues, and to pass lightly over their
       faults. Bid him also treat well the Arab tribes, for verily
       they are the backbone of Islam. Moreover, let him faithfully
       fulfil the covenants made with the Christians and the Jews! O
       Allah! I have finished my course! To him that cometh after me,
       I leave the kingdom firmly established and at peace!' Thus
       perished one of the greatest Princes the Mohammedans were ever
       to know. Omar was truly a great and good man, of whom
       any country and any creed might be proud."

          J. J. Pool,
          Studies in Mohammedanism,
          pages 58-59.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
       Conquest of northern Africa.

       "While Egypt was won almost without a blow, Latin Africa
       [northern Africa beyond Egypt] took sixty years to conquer. It
       was first invaded under Othman in 647, but Carthage was not
       subdued till 698, nor was the province fully reduced for
       eleven years longer. And why? Doubtless because Africa
       contained two classes of inhabitants, not over-friendly to
       each other, but both of whom had something to lose by a
       Saracenic conquest. The citizens of Carthage were Roman in
       every sense, their language was Latin, their faith was
       orthodox; they had no wrongs beyond those which always afflict
       provincials under a despotism; wrongs not likely to be
       alleviated by exchanging a Christian despot at Constantinople
       for an infidel one at Medina or Damascus. Beyond them, in the
       inland provinces, were the native Moors, barbarians, and many
       of them pagans; they had fought for their rude liberty against
       the Cæsars, and they had no intention of surrendering it to
       the Caliphs. Romans and Moors alike long preferred the chances
       of the sword to either Koran or tribute; but their ultimate
       fate was different. Latin civilization and Latin Christianity
       gradually disappeared by the decay and extermination of their
       votaries. The Moors, a people not unlike the Arabs in their
       unconverted state, were at last content to embrace their
       religion, and to share their destinies and their triumphs.
       Arabs and Moors intermingled went on to further conquests; and
       the name of the barbarian converts was more familiarly used in
       Western Europe to denote the united nation than the terrible
       name of the original compatriots of the Prophet."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lecture 3.

       "In their climate and government, their diet and habitation,
       the wandering Moors resembled the Bedoweens of the desert.
       With the religion they were proud to adopt the language, name,
       and origin of Arabs; the blood of the strangers and natives
       was insensibly mingled; and from the Euphrates to the Atlantic
       the same nation might seem to be diffused over the sandy
       plains of Asia and Africa. Yet I will not deny that 50,000
       tents of pure Arabians might be transported over the Nile and
       scattered through the Libyan desert; and I am not ignorant
       that five of the Moorish tribes still retain their barbarous
       idiom, with the appellation and character of 'white'
       Africans."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 51.

       "By 647 the Barbary coast was overrun up to the gates of Roman
       Carthage; but the wild Berber population was more difficult to
       subdue than the luxurious subjects of the Sasanids of Persia
       or the Greeks of Syria and Egypt. Kayrawan was founded as the
       African capital in 670; Carthage fell in 693, and the Arabs
       pushed their arms as far as the Atlantic. From Tangier they
       crossed into Spain in 710."

          S. Lane-Poole,
          The Mohammadan Dynasties,
          page 5.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and his Successors,
          volume 2, chapters 35, 44, 54-55.

          R. D. Osborn,
          Islam under the Arabs,
          part 1, chapters 1-3.

          See, also,
          CARTHAGE: A. D. 698;
          and MOROCCO.

    {2071}

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
       Accession of the Omeyyads.

       Abu Bekr, the immediate successor of Mahomet, reigned but two
       years, dying August, A. D. 634. By his nomination, Omar was
       raised to the Caliphate and ruled Islam until 644, when he was
       murdered by a Persian slave. His successor was Othman, who had
       been the secretary of the Prophet. The Caliphate of Othman was
       troubled by many plots and increasing disaffection, which
       ended in his assassination, A. D. 656. It was not until then
       that Ali, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, was permitted
       to take the Prophet's seat. But the dissensions in the Moslem
       world had grown more bitter as the fields of ambitious rivalry
       were widened, and the factions opposed to Ali were implacable,
       "Now begins the tragic tale of the wrongs and martyrdoms of
       the immediate family of the Prophet. The province of Syria was
       now ruled by the crafty Moawiyah, whose father was Abu-Sofian,
       so long the bitterest enemy of Mahomet, and at last a tardy
       and unwilling proselyte. … Such was the parentage of the man
       who was to deprive the descendants of the Apostle of their
       heritage. Moawiyah gave himself out as the avenger of Othman;
       Ali was represented as his murderer, although his sons, the
       grandsons of the Prophet, had fought, and one of them received
       a wound, in the defence of that Caliph. … Ayesha, too, the
       Mother of the Faithful, Telha and Zobeir, the Prophet's old
       companions, revolted on their own account, and the whole of
       the brief reign of Ali was one constant succession of civil
       war." Syria adhered to Moawiyah. Ayesha, Zobeir and Telha
       gained possession of Bussorah and made that city their
       headquarters of rebellion. They were defeated there by Ali in
       a great battle, A. D. 656, called the Battle of the Camel,
       because the litter which bore Ayesha on the back of a camel
       became the center of the fight. But he gained little from the
       success; nor more from a long, indecisive battle fought with
       Moawiyah at Siffin, in July, A. D. 657. Amru, the conqueror of
       Egypt, had now joined Moawiyah, and his influence enlisted
       that great province in the revolt. At last, in 661, the civil
       war was ended by the assassination of Ali. His eldest son,
       Hassan, who seems to have been a spiritless youth, bargained
       away his claims to Moawiyah, and the latter became undisputed
       Caliph, founding a dynasty called that of the Ommiades, or
       Omeyyads (from Ommiah, or Omeyya, the great grandfather of
       Moawiyah), which occupied the throne for almost a century—not
       at Medina, but at Damascus, to which city the Caliphate was
       now transferred. "In thus converting the Caliphate into an
       hereditary monarchy he utterly changed its character. It soon
       assumed the character of a common oriental empire. … The
       Ommiads were masters of slaves instead of leaders of freemen;
       the public will was no longer consulted, and the public good
       as little; the Commander of the Faithful sank into an earthly
       despot, ruling by force, like any Assyrian conqueror of old.
       The early Caliphs dwelt in the sacred city of Medina, and
       directed the counsels of the Empire from beside the tomb of
       the Prophet. Moawiyah transferred his throne to the conquered
       splendours of Damascus; and Mecca and Medina became tributary
       cities to the ruler of Syria. At one time a rival Caliph,
       Abdallah, established himself in Arabia; twice were the holy
       cities taken by storm, and the Kaaba itself was battered down
       by the engines of the invaders. … Such a revolution however
       did not effect itself without considerable opposition. The
       partizans of the house of Ali continued to form a formidable
       sect. In their ideas the Vicarship of the Prophet was not to
       be, like an earthly kingdom, the mere prize of craft or of
       valour. It was the inalienable heritage of the sacred
       descendants of the Prophet himself. … This was the origin of
       the Shiah sect, the assertors of the rights of Ali and his
       house."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lecture 3.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapters 31-46.

          R. D. Osborn,
          Islam Under the Arabs,
          part 3.

          S. Lane-Poole,
          The Mohammadan Dynasties,
          pages 9-11.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.
       The Tragedy at Kerbela.

       When Ali, or Aly, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, had
       been slain, A. D. 661, and the Caliphate had been seized by
       Moawiyah, the first of the Ommiades, "the followers of 'Aly
       proclaimed his elder son, Hasan, Khalif; but this
       poor-spirited youth was contented to sell his pretensions to
       the throne. … On his death, his brother Hoseyn became the
       lawful Khalif in the eyes of the partisans of the House of
       'Aly, who ignored the general admission of the authority of
       the 'Ommiades.' … For a time Hoseyn remained quietly at
       Medina, leading a life of devotion, and declining to push his
       claims. But at length an opportunity for striking a blow at
       the rival House presented itself, and Hoseyn did not hesitate
       to avail himself of it. He was invited to join an insurrection
       which had broken out at Kufa [A. D. 680], the most mutinous
       and fickle of all the cities of the empire; and he set out
       with his family and friends, to the number of 100 souls, and
       an escort of 500 horsemen, to join the insurgents. As he drew
       nigh to Kufa, he discovered that the rising had been
       suppressed by the 'Ommiade' governor of the city, and that
       the country round him was hostile instead of loyal to him. And
       now there came out from Kufa an army of 4,000 horse, who
       surrounded the little body of travellers [on the plain of
       Kerbela], and cut them off alike from the city and the river.
       … A series of single combats, in which Hoseyn and his
       followers displayed heroic courage, ended in the death of the
       Imam and the men who were with him, and the enslaving of the
       women and children."

          S. Lane-Poole,
          Studies in a Mosque,
          chapter 7.

       "The scene [of the massacre of Hosein and his band] … is
       still fresh as yesterday in the mind of every Believer, and is
       commemorated with wild grief and frenzy as often as the fatal
       day, the Tenth of the first month of the year [tenth of
       Moharram—October 10], comes round. … The tragedy of Kerbala
       decided not only the fate of the Caliphate, but of Mahometan
       kingdoms long after the Caliphate had waned and disappeared.
       … The tragedy is yearly represented on the stage as a
       religious ceremony"—in the "Passion Play" of the Moharram
       Festival.

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapter 49, with foot-note.

          See, also, ISLAM.

    {2072}

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 668-675.
       First repulse from Constantinople.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
       Subjugation of the Turks.

       "After the fall of the Persian kingdom, the river Oxus divided
       the territories of the Saracens and of the Turks: This narrow
       boundary was soon overleaped by the spirit of the Arabs; the
       governors of Chorassan extended their successive inroads; and
       one of their triumphs was adorned with the buskin of a Turkish
       queen, which she dropped in her precipitate flight beyond the
       hills of Bochara. But the final conquest of Transoxana, as
       well as of Spain, was reserved for the glorious reign of the
       inactive Walid; and the name of Catibah, the camel-driver,
       declares the origin and merit of his successful lieutenant.
       While one of his colleagues displayed the first Mahometan
       banner on the banks of the Indus, the spacious regions between
       the Oxus, the Jaxartes, and the Caspian sea were reduced by
       the arms of Catibah to the obedience of the prophet and of the
       caliph. A tribute of two millions of pieces of gold was
       imposed on the infidels; their idols were burned or broken;
       the Mussulman chief pronounced a sermon in the new mosch
       [mosque] of Carizme; after several battles the Turkish hordes
       were driven back to the desert; and the emperors of China
       solicited the friendship of the victorious Arabs. To their
       industry the prosperity of the province, the Sogdiana of the
       ancients, may in a great measure be ascribed; but the
       advantages of the soil and climate had been understood and
       cultivated since the reign of the Macedonian kings. Before the
       invasion of the Saracens, Carizme, Bochara, and Samarcand were
       rich and populous under the yoke of the shepherds of the
       North."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 51.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lecture 3.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 711-713.
       Conquest of Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

    ------------------------------------
    [Page 2073 and 2074 are placed here to avoid interrupting
    the next article, "The repulse from Gaul.".]

    SEVENTH CENTURY.

    CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

    A.D.
    602.
          Revolt in Constantinople;
          fall and death of Maurice;
          accession of Phocas.

    604.
          Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
          Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date.]

    608.
          Invasion of Asia Minor by Chosroes II., king of Persia.

    610.
          Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
          accession of Heraclius.
          Venetia ravaged by the Avars.

    614.
          Invasion of Syria by Chosroes II.;
          capture of Damascus.

    615.
          Capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes;
          removal of the supposed True Cross.

    616.
          First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
          Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

    622.
          The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
          Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

    626.
          Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars.

    627.
          Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
          Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

    628.
          Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
          from the Persians, by Heraclius.

    630.
          Submission of Mecca to the Prophet.

    632.
          Death of Mahomet;
          Abu Bekr chosen caliph.

    634.
          Death of Abu Bekr;
          Omar chosen caliph.
          Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
          Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date.]
          Defeat of Heraclius.
          Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date.]

    635.
          Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
          invasion of Persia;
          victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date.]
          Defeat of the Welsh by the English
          in the battle of the Heavenfield.

    636.
          Mahometan subjugation of Syria;
          retreat of the Romans.

    637.
          Siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Moslems;
          their victories in Persia.

    639.
          Publication of the Ecthesis of Heraclius.

    640.
          Capture of Cæsarea by the Moslems;
          invasion of Egypt by Amru.

    641.
          Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;
          three rival emperors;
          accession of Constans II.
          Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia
          by the Mahometans;
          end of the Sassanian kingdom;
          capture of Alexandria, [Uncertain date.]
          founding of Cairo.

    643.
          Publication of the Lombard Code of Laws.

    644.
          Assassination of Omar;
          Othman chosen caliph.

    646.
          Alexandria recovered by the Greeks and lost again.

    648.
          Publication by Constans II. of the edict called "The Type."

    649.
          Mahometan invasion of Cyprus.

    650.
          Conquest of Merv, Balkh, and Herat by the Moslems.
          [Uncertain date.]

    652.
          Conversion of the East Saxons in England.

    653.
          Seizure and banishment of Pope Martin I.
          by the Emperor Constans II.

    656.
          Murder of Caliph Othman;
          Ali chosen caliph;
          rebellion of Moawiyah;
          civil war;
          Battle of the Camel.

    657.
          Ali's transfer of the seat of government to Kufa.

    658.
          Syria abandoned to Moawiyah;
          Egypt in revolt.

    661.
          Assassination of Ali;
          Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
          Damascus his capital.

    663.
          Visit of the Emperor Constans to Rome.

    668.
          Assassination of Constans at Syracuse; [Uncertain date.]
          accession of Constantine IV. to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
          Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

    670.
          The founding of Kairwan, or Kayrawan. [Uncertain date.]

    673.
          First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
          Birth of the Venerable Bede [Uncertain date.] (died 735).

    677.
          The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
          treaty of peace. [Uncertain date.]

    680.
          Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
          condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
          Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

    685.
          Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
          and accession of Justinian II.
          The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
          defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

    687.
          Battle of Testri;
          victory of Pippin of Heristal over the Neustrians.

    695.
          Fall and banishment of Justinian II.

    696.
          Founding of the bishopric of Salzburg.

    697.
          Election of the first Doge of Venice.

    698.
          Conquest and destruction of Carthage by the Moslems.
          [Uncertain date]

    EIGHTH CENTURY.

    CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

    A.D.
    704.
          Recovery of the throne by the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

    705.
          Accession of the Caliph Welid.

    709.
          Accession of Roderick to the Gothic throne in Spain.

    711.
          Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
          Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
          Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

    712.
          Surrender of Toledo to the Moslem invaders of Spain.

    717.
          Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
          Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
          Great defeat of the Moslems at the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.

    718.
          Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;
          his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.

    719.
          Mahometan conquest and occupation of Narbonne.

    721.
          Siege of Toulouse;
          defeat of the Moslems.

    725.
          Mahometan conquests in Septimania.

    726.
          Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;
          tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.

    731.
          Death of Pope Gregory II.;
          election of Gregory III.;
          last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.

    732.
          Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks
          under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.
          Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;
          edict against the Iconoclasts.

    733.
          Practical termination of Byzantine imperial authority.

    735.
          Birth of Alcuin (died 804).

    740.
          Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;
          accession of Constantine V.

    741.
          Death of Charles Martel.
          Death of Pope Gregory III.;
          election of Zacharias.

    742.
          Birth of Charlemagne (died 814).

    744.
          Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;
          their forced baptism.
          Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.

    747.
          The Plague in Constantinople.
          Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.

    750.
          Fall of the Omeyyad dynasty of caliphs and rise of the Abbassides.

    751.
          Extinction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards.

    752.
          End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;
          assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.
          Death of Pope Zacharias;
          election of Stephen II.

    754.
          First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.
          Rome assailed by the Lombards.

    755.
          Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;
          his donation of temporalities to the Pope.
          Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.

    756.
          Founding of the caliphate of Cordova by Abderrahman.

    757.
          Death of Pope Stephen II.;
          election of Paul I.

    758.
          Accession of Offa, king of Mercia.

    759.
          Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the
          Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.

    763.
          Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.
          [Uncertain date.]

    767.
          Death of Pope Paul I.;
          usurpation of the anti-pope, Constantine.

    768.
          Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.
          Death of Pippin;
          accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.
          Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;
          election of Pope Stephen III.

    771.
          Death of Carloman, leaving Charlemagne sole king of the Franks.

    772.
          Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.
          Death of Pope Stephen III.;
          election of Hadrian I.

    774.
          Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;
          his enlargement of the donation of temporalities to the Pope.
          Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date.]

    775.
          Death of the Eastern Emperor Constantine V.;
          accession of Leo IV.

    778.
          Charlemagne's invasion of Spain;
          the "dolorous rout" of Roncesvalles.

    780.
          Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;
          accession of Constantine VI.;
          regency of Irene.

    781.
          Italy and Aquitaine formed into separate kingdoms by Charlemagne.

    785.
          Great struggle of the Saxons against Charlemagne;
          submission of Wittikind.

    786.
          Accession of Haroun al Raschid in the eastern caliphate.

    787.
          Seventh General Council of the Church (Second Council of Nicæa).
          First incursions of the Danes in England.

    788.
          Subjugation of the Bavarians by Charlemagne.
          Death of Abderrahman.

    790.
          Composition of the Caroline books. [Uncertain date.]

    791.
          Charlemagne's first campaign against the Avars.

    794.
          Accession of Cenwulf, king of Mercia.

    795.
          Death of Pope Hadrian I.;
          election of Leo III.

    797.
          Deposition and blinding of the Eastern Emperor
          Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.

    800.
          Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;
          revival of the Empire.
          Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,
          the first king of all the English.

    -------------------------------------

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
       The repulse from Gaul.

       "The deeds of Musa [in Africa and Spain] had been performed
       'in the evening of his life,' but, to borrow the words of
       Gibbon, 'his breast was still fired with the ardor of youth,
       and the possession of Spain was considered as only the first
       step to the monarchy of Europe. With a powerful armament by
       sea and land, he was preparing to pass the Pyrenees, to
       extinguish in Gaul the declining kingdoms of the Franks and
       Lombards, and to preach the unity of God on the altar of the
       Vatican. Thence, subduing the barbarians of Germany, he
       proposed to follow the course of the Danube from its source to
       the Euxine Sea, to overthrow the Greek or Roman empire of
       Constantinople, and, returning from Europe to Asia, to unite
       his new acquisitions with Antioch and the provinces of Syria.'
       This vast enterprise … was freely revolved by the successors
       of Musa. In pursuance of it, El Haur, the new lieutenant of
       the califs, assailed the fugitive Goths in their retreats in
       Septimania (715-718). El Zamah, who succeeded him, crossed the
       mountains, and, seizing Narbonne, expelled the inhabitants and
       settled there a colony of Saracens (719). The following year
       they passed the Rhone, in order to extend their dominion over
       Provence, but, repelled by the dukes and the militia of the
       country, turned their forces toward Toulouse (721). Eudo, Duke
       of Aquitain, bravely defending his capital, brought on a
       decisive combat. … El Zamah fell. The carnage among his
       retreating men then became so great that the Arabs named the
       passage from Toulouse to Carcassone the Road of Martyrs (Balat
       al Chouda). Supporting their terrible reverses with the
       characteristic resignation of their race and faith, the Arabs
       were still able to retain a hold of Narbonne and of other
       fortresses of the south, and, after a respite of four years,
       spent in recruiting their troops from Spain and Africa, to
       resume their projects of invasion and pillage in Gaul (725).
       Under the Wali Anbessa, they ascended the Rhone as far as the
       city of Lyons, devastating the towns and the fields. … When,
       … at the close of his expeditions, Anbessa perished by the
       hands of the Infidels, all the fanaticism of the Mussulman
       heart was aroused into an eager desire for revenge. His
       successor, Abd-el-Rahman, a tried and experienced general,
       energetic and heroic as he was just and prudent, … entered
       into elaborate preparations for the final conquest of Gaul.
       For two years the ports of Syria, Egypt, and Africa swarmed
       with departing soldiery, and Spain resounded with the calls
       and cries to arms (727-729)." The storm broke first on
       Aquitaine, and its valiant Duke Eudes, or Eudo, rashly meeting
       the enemy in the open field, in front of Bordeaux, suffered an
       irretrievable defeat (May, 731). Bordeaux was stormed and
       sacked, and all Aquitaine was given up to the ravages of the
       unsparing Moslem host. Eudes fled, a helpless fugitive, to his
       enemies the Franks, and besought the aid of the great
       palace-mayor, Karl Martel, practical sovereign of the Frankish
       kingdoms, and father of the Pippin who would soon become king
       in name as well as in fact. But, not for Aquitaine, only, but
       for all Gaul, all Germany,—all Christendom in Europe,—Karl
       and his Franks were called on to rally and do battle against
       the sons of the desert, whose fateful march of conquest seemed
       never to end. "'During all the rest of the summer, the Roman
       clarions and the German horns sounded and groaned through all
       the cities of Neustria and Austrasia, through the rustic
       palaces of the Frankish leudes, and in the woody gaus of
       western Germany.' … Meanwhile, Abel-el-Rahman, laden with
       plunder and satiated with blood, had bent his steps toward the
       southwest, where he concentrated his troops on the banks of
       the Charente. Enriched and victorious as he was, there was
       still an object in Gaul which provoked alike the cupidity and
       the zeal of his followers. This was the Basilica of St. Martin
       of Tours, the shrine of the Gallic Christians, where the
       richest treasures of the Church were collected, and in which
       the profoundest veneration of its members centred. He yearned
       for the pillage and the overthrow of this illustrious
       sanctuary, and, taking the road from Poitiers, he encountered
       the giants of the North in the same valley of the Vienne and
       Clain where, nearly three hundred years before, the Franks and
       the Wisigoths had disputed the supremacy of Gaul. There, on
       those autumn fields, the Koran and the Bible—Islamism and
       Christianity—Asia and Europe—stood face to face, ready to
       grapple in a deadly and decisive conflict. …
    {2075}
       Trivial skirmishes from time to time kept alive the ardor of
       both hosts, till at length, at dawn on Saturday, the 11th of
       October [A. D. 732], the signal for a general onset was given.
       With one loud shout of Allah-Akbar (God is great), the Arab
       horsemen charged like a tempest upon their foe, but the deep
       columns of the Franks did not bend before the blast. 'Like a
       wall of iron,' says the chronicler, 'like a rampart of ice,
       the men of the North stood unmoved by the frightful shock.'
       All day long the charges were renewed." Still the stout Franks
       held their ground, and still the indomitable warriors of Islam
       pressed upon them, until late in the afternoon, when the
       latter were thrown into confusion by an attack on their rear.
       Then Karl and his men charged on them and their lines were
       broken—their rout was bloody and complete. When night put an
       end to the slaughter, the Franks slept upon their arms,
       expecting that the dreaded Saracens would rally and resume the
       fight. But they vanished in the darkness. Their leader, the
       brave Abd-el-Rahman had fallen in the wild melée and no
       courage was left in their hearts. Abandoning everything but
       their horses and their arms, they fled to Narbonne. "Europe
       was rescued, Christianity triumphant, Karl the hero forever of
       Christian civilization."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 14.

       The booty found by the Franks in the Moslem camp "was
       enormous; hard-money, ingots of the precious metals, melted
       from jewels and shrines; precious vases, rich stuffs,
       subsistence stores, flocks and herds gathered and parked in
       the camp. Most of this booty had been taken by the Moslemah
       from the Aquitanians, who now had the sorrow of seeing it
       greedily divided among the Franks."

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the! Arab-Moors,
          book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          E. S. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
          chapter 7.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
       Omeyyads and Abbassides.
       The dividing of the Caliphate.

       The tragic death of Hosein and his companions at Kerbela
       kindled a passion which time would not extinguish in the
       hearts of one great party among the Moslems. The first
       ambitious leader to take advantage of the excitement of it, as
       a means of overthrowing the Omeyyads, was Abdallah ibn Zobeir,
       who, posing first as the "Protector of the Holy House" of Ali,
       soon proclaimed himself Caliph and maintained for thirteen
       years a rival court at Mecca. In the war which raged during a
       great part of those years, Medina was taken by storm and given
       over to pillage, while the holy city of Mecca withstood a
       siege of forty days, during which the sacred Caaba was
       destroyed. Zobeir fell, at last, in a final battle fought
       under the walls of Mecca. Meantime, several changes in the
       caliphate at Damascus had taken place and the throne was soon
       afterwards [A. D. 705] occupied by the Caliph Welid, whose
       reign proved more glorious than that of any other prince of
       his house. "Elements of disorder still remained, but under the
       wise and firm sceptre of Welid they were held in check. The
       arts of peace prevailed; schools were founded, learning
       cultivated, and poets royally rewarded; public works of every
       useful kind were promoted, and even hospitals established for
       the aged, lame, and blind. Such, indeed, at this era, was the
       glory of the court of Damascus that Weild, of all the Caliphs
       both before and after, gives the precedence to Welid. It is
       the fashion for the Arabian historians to abuse the Omeyyads
       as a dissolute, intemperate, and godless race; but we must not
       forget that these all wrote more or less under Abbasside
       inspiration. … After Welid, the Omeyyad dynasty lasted
       six-and-thirty years. But it began to rest on a precarious
       basis. For now the agents of the house of Hashim, descendants
       of the Prophet and of his uncle Abbas, commenced to ply
       secretly, but with vigour and persistency, their task of
       canvass and intrigue in distant cities, and especially in the
       provinces of the East. For a long time, the endeavour of these
       agitators was directed to the advocacy of the Shiya right;
       that is to say, it was based upon the Divine claim of Aly, and
       his descendants in the Prophet's line, to the Imamate or
       leadership over the empire of Islam. … The discomfiture of
       the Shiyas paved the way for the designing advocates of the
       other Hashimite branch, namely, that of the house of Abbas,
       the uncle of the Prophet. These had all along been plotting in
       the background, and watching their opportunity. They now
       vaunted the claims of this line, and were barefaced enough to
       urge that, being descended from the uncle of Mahomet through
       male representatives, they took precedence over the direct
       descendants of the Prophet himself, because these came through
       Fatima in the female line. About the year 130 of the Hegira,
       Abul Abbas, of Abasside descent, was put forward in Persia, as
       the candidate of this party, and his claim was supported by
       the famous general Abu Muslim. Successful in the East, Abu
       Muslim turned his arms to the West. A great battle, one of
       those which decide the fate of empires, was fought on the
       banks of the Zab [A. D. 750]; and, through the defection of
       certain Kharejite and Yemen levies, was lost by the Omeyyad
       army. Merwan II., the last of his dynasty, was driven to
       Egypt, and there killed in the church of Bussir, whither he
       had fled for refuge. At the close of the year 132 [August 5,
       A. D. 750], the black flag, emblem of the Abbassides, floated
       over the battlements of Damascus. The Omeyyad dynasty, after
       ruling the vast Moslem empire for a century, now disappeared
       in cruelty and bloodshed. … So perished the royal house of
       the Omeyyads. But one escaped. He fled to Spain, which had
       never favoured the overweening pretensions of the Prophet's
       family, whether in the line of Aly or Abbas. Accepted by the
       Arab tribes, whose influence in the West was paramount, Abd al
       Rahman now laid the foundation of a new Dynasty and
       perpetuated the Omeyyad name at the magnificent court of
       Cordova. … Thus, with the rise of the Abbassides, the unity
       of the Caliphate came to an end. Never after, either in theory
       or in fact, was there a successor to the Prophet, acknowledged
       as such over all Islam. Other provinces followed in the wake
       of Spain. The Aghlabite dynasty in the east of Africa, and,
       west of it, the Edrisites in Fez, both of Alyite descent;
       Egypt and Sicily under independent rulers; the Tahirite kings
       in Persia, their native soil; these and others, breaking away
       from the central government, established kingdoms of their
       own. The name of Caliph, however it might survive in the
       Abbasside lineage, or be assumed by less legitimate
       pretenders, had now altogether lost its virtue and
       significance."

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapter 50.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Lane-Poole,
          The Mohammadan Dynasties,
          pages 12-14.

          R. D. Osborn,
          Islam Under the Arabs,
          part 3.

    {2076}

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 717-718.
       Second repulse from Constantinople.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.
       Final expulsion from southern Gaul.

       During the year of his coronation (A. D. 752) Pippin, or Pepin
       the Short—the first of the Carolingians to assume the
       Frankish crown—having taken measures to reduce Aquitaine to
       obedience, was diverted, on his march towards that country,
       into Septimania. The discord prevailing among the Moslems, who
       had occupied this region of Gaul for more than thirty years,
       "opened the prospect of an easy conquest. With little
       fighting, and through the treachery of a Goth named Ansemond,
       who commanded at Beziers, Agde, Maguelonne, and Nismes, under
       an Arabian wali, he was enabled to seize those strong-holds,
       and to leave a part of his troops to besiege Narbonne, as the
       first step toward future success." Then Pippin was called away
       by war with the Saxons and in Brittany, and was occupied with
       other cares and conflicts, until A. D. 759, when he took up
       and finished the task of expelling the Saracens from Gaul.
       "His troops left in occupation of Septimania (752) had
       steadily prosecuted the siege of Narbonne. … Not till after
       a blockade of seven years was the city surrendered, and then
       through the treason of the Christians and Goths who were
       inside the walls, and made secret terms with the beleaguers.
       They rose upon the Arabs, cut them in pieces, and opened the
       gates to the Franks. A reduction of Elne, Caucoliberis, and
       Carcassone followed hard upon that of Narbonne. … In a
       little while the entire Arab population was driven out of
       Septimania, after an occupation of forty years; and a large
       and important province (equivalent nearly to the whole of
       Languedoc), held during the time of the Merovingians by the
       Wisigoths, was secured to the possession of the Franks. The
       Arabs, however, though expelled, left many traces of their
       long residence on the manners and customs of Southern Gaul."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 15.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 756-1031.
       The Omeyyad caliphs of Cordova.

       When the struggle of the house of Abbas with the house of
       Omeyya, for the throne of the caliphate at Damascus, was ended
       by the overthrow of the Omeyyads (A. D. 750), the wretched
       members of the fallen family were hunted down with unsparing
       ferocity. "A single youth of the doomed race escaped from
       destruction. After a long series of romantic adventures, he
       found his way into Spain [A. D. 756]; he there found
       partizans, by whose aid he was enabled to establish himself as
       sovereign of the country, and to resist all the attempts of
       the Abbassides to regain, or rather to obtain, possession of
       the distant province. From this Abderrahman [or Abdalrahman]
       the Ommiad proceeded the line of Emirs and Caliphs of Cordova,
       who reigned in splendour in the West for three centuries after
       their house had been exterminated in their original
       possessions. … When the Ommiad Abdalrahman escaped into
       Spain … the peninsula was in a very disordered state. The
       authority of the Caliphs of the East was nearly nominal, and
       governors rose and fell with very little reference to their
       distant sovereign. … The elevation of Abdalrahman may have
       been the result, not so much of any blind preference of
       Ommiads to Abbassides, as of a conviction that nature designed
       the Iberian peninsula to form an independent state. But at
       that early period of Mahometan history an independent
       Mahometan state could hardly be founded, except under the
       guise of a rival Caliphate. … And undoubtedly nothing is
       more certain than that the Ommiads of Cordova were in every
       sense a rival dynasty to the Abbassides of Bagdad. The race of
       Moawiyah seem to have decidedly improved by their migration
       westward. The Caliphs of Spain must be allowed one of the
       highest places among Mahometan dynasties. In the duration of
       their house and in the abundance of able princes which it
       produced, they yield only to the Ottoman Sultans, while they
       rise incomparably above them in every estimable quality. …
       The most splendid period of the Saracen empire in Spain was
       during the tenth century. The great Caliph Abdalrahman Annasir
       Ledinallah raised the magnificence of the Cordovan monarchy to
       its highest pitch. … The last thirty years of the Ommiad
       dynasty are a mere wearisome series of usurpations and civil
       wars. In 1031 the line became extinct, and the Ommiad empire
       was cut up into numerous petty states. From this moment the
       Christians advance, no more to retreat, and the cause of Islam
       is only sustained by repeated African immigrations."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lectures 4-5.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 6, chapter 5;
          book 7, chapters 1-4;
          book 8, chapter 1.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.
       The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.

       "The city of Damascus, full as it was of memorials of the
       pride and greatness of the Ommiade dynasty, was naturally
       distasteful to the Abbassides. The Caliph Mansur had commenced
       the building of a new capital in the neighbourhood of Kufa, to
       be called after the founder of his family, Hashimiyeh. The
       Kufans, however, were devoted partisans of the descendants of
       Ali. … The growing jealousy and distrust between the two
       houses made it inadvisable for the Beni Abbas to plant the
       seat of their empire in immediate propinquity to the
       head-quarters of the Ali faction, and Mansur therefore
       selected another site [about A. D. 763]. This was Bagdad, on
       the western bank of the Tigris [fifteen miles above Medain,
       which was the ancient Seleucia and Ctesiphon]. It was well
       suited by nature for a great capital. The Tigris brought
       commerce from Diyar Bekr on the north, and through the Persian
       Gulf from India and China on the east; while the Euphrates,
       which here approaches the Tigris at the nearest point, and is
       reached by a good road, communicated directly with Syria and
       the west. The name Bagdad is a very ancient one, signifying
       'given or founded by the deity,' and testifies to the
       importance of the site. The new city rapidly increased in
       extent and magnificence, the founder and his next two
       successors expending fabulous sums upon its embellishment, and
       the ancient palaces of the Sassanian kings, as well as the
       other principal cities of Asia, were robbed of their works of
       art for its adornment."

          E. H. Palmer,
          Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,
          chapter 2.

       "Baghdad, answering to its proud name of 'Dar al Salam,' 'The
       City of Peace,' became for a time the capital of the world,
       the centre of luxury, the emporium of commerce, and the scat
       of learning."

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapter 50.

    {2077}

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.
       Decline and temporal fall of the Caliphate at Bagdad.

       "It was not until nearly the close of the first century after
       the Hejira that the banners of Islam were carried into the
       regions beyond the Oxus, and only after a great deal of hard
       fighting that the oases of Bokhara and Samarkand were annexed
       to the dominions of the khalif. In these struggles, a large
       number of Turks—men, women, and children—fell into the power
       of the Moslems, and were scattered over Asia as slaves. …
       The khalif Mamoun [son of Haroun Alraschid—A. D. 815-834] was
       the first sovereign who conceived the idea of basing the royal
       power on a foundation of regularly drilled Turkish soldiers."

          R. D. Osborn,
          Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
          part 3, chapter 1.

       "The Caliphs from this time leaned for support on great bands
       of foreign mercenaries, chiefly Turks, and their captains
       became the real lords of the empire as soon as they realised
       their own strength. How thoroughly the Abbásid caliphate had
       been undermined was shown all at once in a shocking manner,
       when the Caliph Mutawakkil was murdered by his own servants at
       the command of his son, and the parricide Muntasir set upon
       the throne in his stead (December 861). The power of the
       Caliphs was now at an end; they became the mere playthings of
       their own savage warriors. The remoter, sometimes even the
       nearer, provinces were practically independent. The princes
       formally recognised the Caliph as their sovereign, stamped his
       name upon their coins, and gave it precedence in public
       prayer, but these were honours without any solid value. Some
       Caliphs, indeed, recovered a measure of real power, but only
       as rulers of a much diminished State. Theoretically the
       fiction of an undivided empire of Islam was maintained, but it
       had long ceased to be a reality. The names of Caliph,
       Commander of the Faithful, Imám, continued still to inspire
       some reverence; the theological doctors of law insisted that
       the Caliph, in spiritual things at least, must everywhere bear
       rule, and control all judicial posts; but even theoretically
       his position was far behind that of a pope, and in practice
       was not for a moment to be compared to it. The Caliph never
       was the head of a true hierarchy; Islam in fact knows no
       priesthood on which such a system could have rested. In the
       tenth century the Buids, three brothers who had left the
       hardly converted Gilán (the mountainous district at the
       southwest angle of the Caspian Sea) as poor adventurers,
       succeeded in conquering for themselves the sovereign command
       over wide domains, and over Bagdad itself [establishing what
       is known as the dynasty of the Buids or Bouides, or Bowides,
       or Dilemites]. They even proposed to themselves to displace
       the Abbásids and set descendants of Ali upon the throne, and
       abandoned the idea only because they feared that a Caliph of
       the house of Ali might exercise too great an authority over
       their Shíite soldiers, and so become independent; while, on
       the other hand, they could make use of these troops for any
       violence they chose against the Abbásid puppet who sat in
       Mansúr's seat."

          T. Nöldeke,
          Sketches from Eastern History,
          chapter 3.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 827-878.
       Conquest of Sicily.

          See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 840-890.
       The Saracens in southern Italy.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.
       The Fatimite caliphs.

       "Egypt, during the ninth and tenth centuries, was the theatre
       of several revolutions. Two dynasties of Turkish slaves, the
       Tolunides and the Ilkshidites, established themselves in that
       country, which was only reunited to the Caliphate of Bagdad
       for a brief period between their usurpations. But early in the
       ninth century a singular power had been growing up on its
       western border. … A schism arose among the followers of Ali
       [the shiahs, who recognized no succession to the Prophet, or
       Imamate—leadership in Islam—except in the line of descent
       from Ali, nephew of Mahomet and husband of Mahomet's daughter,
       Fatima], regarding the legitimate succession to the sixth Imam,
       Jaffer. His eldest son, Ismail or Ishmael, dying before him,
       Jaffer appointed another son, Moussa or Moses, his heir. But a
       large body of the sect denied that Jaffer had the right to
       make a new nomination; they affirmed the Imamate to be
       strictly hereditary, and formed a new party of Ishmaelians,
       who seem to have made something very like a deity of their
       hero. A chief of this sect, Mahomet, surnamed Al Mehdi, or the
       Leader, a title given by the Shiahs to their Imams, revolted
       in Africa in 908. He professed himself, though his claims were
       bitterly derided by his enemies, to be a descendant of
       Ishmael, and consequently to be the legitimate Imam. Armed
       with this claim, it was of course his business to acquire, if
       he could, the temporal power of a Caliph; and as he soon
       obtained the sovereignty of a considerable portion of Africa,
       a rival Caliphate was consequently established in that
       country. This dynasty assumed the name of Fatimites, in honour
       of their famous ancestress Fatima, the daughter of the
       Prophet. The fourth in succession, Muezzeddin by name,
       obtained possession of Egypt about 967. … The Ilkshidites
       and their nominal sovereigns, the Abbassides, lost Egypt with
       great rapidity. Al Muezzeddin transferred his residence
       thither, and founded [at Fostat—see above, A. D. 640-646] the
       city of Cairo, which he made his capital. Egypt thus, from a
       tributary province, became again, as in the days of its
       Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the scat of a powerful kingdom. The
       claims of the Egyptian Caliphs were diligently preached
       throughout all Islam, and their temporal power was rapidly
       extended into the adjoining provinces of Syria and Arabia.
       Palestine became again … the battle-field for the lords of
       Egypt and of the East. Jerusalem, the holy city of so many
       creeds, was conquered and reconquered. … The Egyptian
       Caliphate … played an important part in the history of the
       Crusades. At last, in 1171, it was abolished by the famous
       Saladin. He himself became the founder of a new dynasty; but
       the formal aspect of the change was that Egypt, so long
       schismatic, was again restored to the obedience of Bagdad.
       Saladin was lord of Egypt, but the titles of the Abbasside
       Caliph, the true Commander of the Faithful, appeared again on
       the coin and in the public prayers, instead of that of his
       Fatimite rival."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lecture 4.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Lane-Poole,
          The Mohammadan Dynasties,
          pages 70-73.

          W. C. Taylor,
          History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
          chapters 8 and 10.

          See, also,
          JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

    {2078}

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 962-1187.
       The Ghaznavide empire.

          See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290;
          and TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 964-976.
       Losses in Syria and Cilicia.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025;
          also, ANTIOCH, A. D. 969.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1004-1160.
       The Seljuk Conquests.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063 to 1092-1160.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1017.
       Expulsion from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.

          See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1031-1086.
       Fragmentary kingdoms in Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1060-1090.
       The loss of Sicily.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1086-1147.
       The empire of the Almoravides.

          See ALMORAVIDES.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1146-1232.
       The empire of the Almohades.

          See ALMOHADES;
          and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1240-1453.
       Conquests of the Ottoman Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
          1360-1389; 1389-1403; 1402-1451; and 1451-1481.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1258.
       Extinction of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols.

          See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1273-1492.
       Decay and fall of the last Moorish kingdom in Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460; and 1476-1492.

    MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1519-1605.
       The Mogul conquest of India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

       ----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: End----------

    MAHOMETAN ERA.

          See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

       ----------MAHRATTAS: Start--------

    MAHRATTAS: 17th Century.
       Origin and growth of power.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

    MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1759-1761.
       Disastrous conflict with the Afghans.
       Great defeat at Panniput.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

    MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1781-1819.
       Wars with the English.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

       ----------MAHRATTAS: End--------

    MAID OF NORWAY.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

    MAID OF ORLEANS, The Mission of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

    MAIDA, Battle of (1806).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

    MAILLOTINS, Insurrection of the,

          See PARIS: A. D. 1381.

       ----------MAINE: Start--------

    MAINE:
       The Name.

       "Sullivan in 'History of Maine,' and others, say that the
       territory was called the Province of Maine, in compliment to
       Queen Henrietta, who had that province in France for dowry.
       But Folsom, 'Discourse on Maine' (Maine Historical Collection,
       volume ii., page 38), says that that province in France did
       not belong to Henrietta. Maine, like all the rest of the
       coast, was known as the 'Maine,' the mainland, and it is not
       unlikely that the word so much used by the early fishers on
       the coast, may thus have been permanently given to this part
       of it."

          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          History of the United States,
          volume 1, page 337; foot-note.

    MAINE:
       Aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    MAINE:
       Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

          See NORUMBEGA;
          also, CANADA: THE NAMES.

    MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
       The Popham colony on the Kennebec.
       Fruitless undertaking of the Plymouth Company.

       The company chartered in England by King James, in 1606, for
       the colonization of the indefinite region called Virginia, was
       divided into two branches. To one, commonly spoken of as the
       London Company, but sometimes as the Virginia Company, was
       assigned a domain in the south, from 34° to 41° North
       Latitude. To the other, less familiarly known as the Plymouth
       Company, or the North Virginia Company, was granted a range of
       territory from 38° to 45° North Latitude.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

       The first named company founded a state; the Plymouth branch
       was less fortunate. "Of the Plymouth Company, George Popham,
       brother of the Chief Justice, and Raleigh Gilbert, son of the
       earlier navigator and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh, were
       original associates. A vessel despatched from Bristol by Sir
       John Popham made a further survey of the coast of New England,
       and returned with accounts which infused vigorous life into the
       undertaking; and it was now prosecuted with eagerness and
       liberality. But in little more than a year 'all its former
       hopes were frozen to death.' Three ships sailed from Plymouth
       with 100 settlers, amply furnished, and taking two of Gorges's
       Indians [kidnapped on the voyage of Captain Weymouth in 1605] as
       interpreters and guides. After a prosperous voyage they
       reached the mouth of the river called Sagadahoc, or Kennebec,
       in Maine, and on a projecting point proceeded to organize
       their community. After prayers and a sermon, they listened to
       a reading of the patent and of the ordinances under which it
       had been decreed by the authorities at home that they should
       live. George Popham had been constituted their President,
       Raleigh Gilbert was Admiral. … The adventurers dug wells,
       and built huts. More than half of the number became
       discouraged, and returned with the ships to England.
       Forty-five remained through the winter, which proved to be
       very long and severe. … When the President sickened and
       died, and, presently after, a vessel despatched to them with
       supplies brought intelligence of the death of Sir John Popham,
       and of Sir John Gilbert,—the latter event calling for the
       presence of the Admiral, Gilbert's brother and heir, in
       England,—they were ready to avail themselves of the excuses
       thus afforded for retreating from the distasteful enterprise.
       All yielded to their homesickness, and embarked on board of
       the returning ship, taking with them a small vessel which they
       had built, and some furs and other products of the country.
       Statesmen, merchants, and soldiers had not learned the
       conditions of a settlement in New England. 'The country was
       branded by the return of the plantation as being over cold,
       and in respect of that not habitable by Englishmen.' Still the
       son of the Chief Justice, 'Sir Francis Popham, could not so give
       it over, but continued to send thither several years after, in
       hope of better fortunes, but found it fruitless, and was
       necessitated at last to sit down with the loss he had already
       undergone.' Sir Francis Popham's enterprises were merely
       commercial. Gorges alone [Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been
       among the most active of the original promotors of the
       Company], 'not doubting but God would effect that which man
       despaired of,' persevered in cherishing the project of a
       colony."

          J. G. Palfrey,
         History of New England,
         volume 1, chapter 2.

         ALSO IN:
         W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
         Popular History of the United States,
         chapter 12, volume 1.

         R. K. Sewall,
         Ancient Dominions of Maine,
         chapter 3.

    {2079}

    MAINE: A. D. 1623-1631.
       Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
       First colonies planted.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.
       The Ligonia, or Plow Patent, and other grants.

       "The coast from the Piscataqua to the Kennebec was covered by
       six … patents, issued in the course of three years by the
       Council for New England, with the consent, doubtless, of
       Gorges, who was anxious to interest as many persons as
       possible in the projects of colonization to which he was
       himself so much devoted. Several of these grants were for
       small tracts; the most important embraced an extent of 40
       miles square, bordering on Casco Bay, and named Ligonia. The
       establishments hitherto attempted on the eastern coast had
       been principally for fishing and fur-trading; this was to be
       an agricultural colony, and became familiarly known as the
       'Plow patent.' A company was formed, and some settlers sent
       out; but they did not like the situation, and removed to
       Massachusetts. Another of these grants was the Pemaquid
       patent, a narrow tract on both sides of Pemaquid Point, where
       already were some settlers. Pemaquid remained an independent
       community for the next forty years."

          R. Hildreth,
         History of the United States,
         chapter 7 (volume 1).

       The Plow Patent "first came into notoriety in a territorial
       dispute in 1643. The main facts of the case are told shortly
       but clearly by Winthrop. According to him, in July, 1631, ten
       husbandmen came from England, in a ship named the Plough, with
       a patent for land at Sagadahock. But as the place did not
       please them they settled in Massachusetts, and were seemingly
       dispersed in the religious troubles of 1636. … At a later
       day the rights of the patentees were bought up, and were made
       a ground for ousting Gorges from a part of his territory."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Thornton,
          Pemaquid Papers; and Ancient Pemaquid,
          (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 5).

    MAINE: A. D. 1639.
       A Palatine principality.
       The royal charter to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.

       "In April 1639 a charter was granted by the King constituting
       Gorges Lord Proprietor of Maine. The territory was bounded by
       the Sagadahock or Kennebec on the north and the Piscataqua on
       the south, and was to extend 120 miles inland. The political
       privileges of the Proprietor were to be identical with those
       enjoyed by the Bishop of Durham as Count Palatine. He was to
       legislate in conjunction with the freeholders of the province,
       and with the usual reservation in favour of the laws of
       England. His political rights were to be subject to the
       control of the Commissioners for Plantations, but his
       territorial rights were to be independent and complete in
       themselves. He was also to enjoy a monopoly of the trade of
       the colony. The only other points specially worth notice were
       a declaration that the religion of the colony was to be that
       of the Church of England, a reservation on behalf of all
       English subjects of the right of fishing with its necessary
       incidents, and the grant to the Proprietor of authority to
       create manors and manorial courts. There is something painful
       in the spectacle of the once vigorous and enterprising soldier
       amusing his old age by playing at kingship. In no little
       German court of the last century could the forms of government
       and the realities of life have been more at variance. To
       conduct the business of two fishing villages Gorges called
       into existence a staff of officials which might have sufficed
       for the affairs of the Byzantine Empire. He even outdid the
       absurdities which the Proprietors of Carolina perpetrated
       thirty years later. They at least saw that their elaborate
       machinery of caciques and landgraves was unfit for practical
       purposes, and they waived it in favour of a simple system
       which had sprung up in obedience to natural wants. But Gorges
       tells complacently and with a deliberate care, which contrasts
       with his usually hurried and slovenly style, how he parcelled
       out his territory and nominated his officials. … The task of
       putting this cumbrous machinery into motion was entrusted by
       the Proprietor to his son, Thomas Gorges, as Deputy-Governor."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

       "The Province was divided into two counties, of one of which
       Agamenticus, or York, was the principal settlement; of the
       other, Saco. … The greatness of York made it arrogant; and
       it sent a deputation of aldermen and burgesses to the General
       Court at Saco, to save its metropolitan rights by a solemn
       protest. The Proprietary was its friend, and before long
       exalted it still more by a city charter, authorizing it and
       its suburbs, constituting a territory of 21 square miles, to
       be governed, under the name of 'Gorgeana,' by a Mayor, twelve
       Aldermen, a Common Council of 24 members, and a Recorder, all
       to be annually chosen by the citizens. Probably as many as two
       thirds of the adult males were in places of authority. The
       forms of proceeding in the Recorder's Court were to be copied
       from those of the British chancery. This grave foolery was
       acted more than ten years."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir F. Gorges,
          Brief Narration
          (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).

    MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
       Territorial jurisdiction in dispute.
       The claims of Massachusetts made good.

       "In 1643, the troubles in England between the King and Commons
       grew violent, and in that year Alexander Rigby bought the old
       grant called Lygonia or 'Plow Patent,' and appointed George
       Cleaves his deputy-president. Governor Thomas Gorges about
       that time returned to England, and left Vines in his place.
       Between Cleaves and Vines there was of course a conflict of
       jurisdiction, and Cleaves appealed for aid to Massachusetts;
       and both parties agreed to leave their claims (1645) to the
       decision of the Massachusetts Magistrates, who decided—that
       they could not decide the matter. But the next year the
       Commissioners for American plantations in England decided in
       favor of Rigby; and Vines left the country. In 1647, at last,
       at the age of 74, Sir Ferdinando Gorges died, and with him
       died all his plans for kingdoms and power in Maine. In 1651,
       Massachusetts, finding that her patent, which included lands
       lying three miles north of the head waters of the Merrimack,
       took in all the lower part of Maine, began to extend her
       jurisdiction, and as most of the settlers favored her
       authority, it was pretty well established till the time of the
       Restoration (1660).
    {2080}
       Upon the Restoration of Charles II., the heir of Gorges
       claimed his rights to Maine. His agent in the province was
       Edward Godfrey. Those claims were confirmed by the Committee
       of Parliament, and in 1664 he obtained an order from the King
       to the Governor of Massachusetts to restore him his province.
       In 1664 the King's Commissioners came over, and proceeded
       through the Colonies, and among the rest to Maine; where they
       appointed various officers without the concurrence of
       Massachusetts; so that for some years Maine was distracted
       with parties, and was in confusion. In 1668, Massachusetts
       sent four Commissioners to York, who resumed and
       re-established the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, with which
       the majority of the people were best pleased; and in 1669 the
       Deputies from Maine again took their seats in the
       Massachusetts Court. Her jurisdiction was, however, disputed
       by the heirs of Mason and Gorges, and it was not finally set
       at rest till the year 1677, by the purchase of their claims
       from them, by Massachusetts, for £1,250."

          C. W. Elliott,
          The New England History,
          volume 1, chapter 26.

          ALSO IN:
          R. K. Sewall,
          Ancient Dominions of Maine,
          chapters 3-4.

          W. D. Williamson,
          History of Maine,
          volume 1, chapters 6-21.

    MAINE: A. D. 1664.
       The Pemaquid patent purchased and granted
       to the Duke of York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

    MAINE: A. D. 1675.
       Outbreak of the Tarentines.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    MAINE: A. D. 1689-1697.
       King William's War.
       Indian cruelties.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

    MAINE: A. D. 1722-1725.
       Renewed Indian war.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

    MAINE: A. D. 1744-1748.
       King George's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

    MAINE: A. D. 1814.
       Occupied in large part and held by the English.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

    MAINE: A. D. 1820.
       Separation from Massachusetts.
       Recognition as a distinct commonwealth and
       admission into the Union.

       "Petitions for the separation of the District of Maine were
       first preferred to the legislature of Massachusetts in 1816,
       and a convention was appointed to be holden at Brunswick. This
       convention voted in favor of the step, but the separation was
       not effected until 1820, at which time Maine was erected into
       a distinct and independent commonwealth, and was admitted into
       the American Union."

          G. L. Austin,
          History of Massachusetts,
          page 408.

       "In the division of the property all the real estate in
       Massachusetts was to be forever hers; all that in Maine to be
       equally divided between the two, share and share alike. …
       The admission of Maine and Missouri into the Union were both
       under discussion in Congress at the same time. The advocates
       of the latter, wishing to carry it through the Legislature,
       without any restrictive clause against slavery, put both into
       a bill together,—determined each should share the same fate.
       … Several days the subject was debated, and sent from one
       branch to the other in Congress, till the 1st of March, when,
       to our joy, they were divorced; and on the 3d of the month
       [March, 1820] an act was passed by which Maine was declared to
       be, from and after the 15th of that month, one of the United
       States."

          W. D. Williamson,
          History of Maine,
          volume 2, chapter 27.

          See, also,
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

    MAINE: A. D. 1842.
       Settlement of the northern boundary disputes,
       by the Ashburton Treaty.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

       ----------MAINE: End----------

    MAIWAND, English disaster at (1880).

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

    MAJESTAS, The Law of.

       "The law of Majestas or Treason … under the [Roman] empire
       … was the legal protection thrown round the person of the
       chief of the state: any attempt against the dignity or safety
       of the community became an attack on its glorified
       representative. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the first
       legal enactment which received this title, half a century
       before the foundation of the empire, was actually devised for
       the protection, not of the state itself, but of a personage
       dear to the state, namely, the tribune of the people. Treason
       to the State indeed had long before been known, and defined as
       Perduellio, the levying of war against the commonwealth. …
       But the crime of majesty was first specified by the demagogue
       Apuleius, in an enactment of the year 654 [B. C. 100], for the
       purpose of guarding or exalting the dignity of the champion of
       the plebs. … The law of Apuleius was followed by that of
       another tribune, Varius, conceived in a similar spirit. …
       [After the constitution of Sulla] the distinction between
       Majestas and Perduellio henceforth vanishes: the crime of
       Treason is specifically extended from acts of violence to
       measures calculated to bring the State into contempt."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 44.

    MAJORCA:
       Conquest by King James of Aragon.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

    MAJORIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 457-461.

    MAJUBA HILL, Battle of (1881).

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

       ----------MALAGA: Start--------

    MALAGA: A. D. 1036-1055.
       The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

    MALAGA: A. D. 1487.
       Siege and capture from the Moors by the Christians.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

       ----------MALAGA: End--------

    MALAKHOFF, The storming of the (1855).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

    MALAMOCCO.
       The second capital of the Venetians.

          See VENICE: A. D. 697-810; and 452.

    MALATESTA FAMILY, The.

       "No one with any tincture of literary knowledge is ignorant of
       the fame at least of the great Malatesta family—the house of
       the Wrongheads, as they were rightly called by some prevision
       of their future part in Lombard history. … The story of
       Francesca da Polenta, who was wedded to the hunchback Giovanni
       Malatesta and murdered by him with her lover Paolo, is known
       not merely to students of Dante, but to readers of Byron and
       Leigh Hunt, to admirers of Flaxman, Ary Scheffer, Doré—to
       all, in fact, who have of art and letters any love. The
       history of these Malatesti, from their first establishment
       under Otho III. [A. D. 996-1002] as lieutenants for the Empire
       in the Marches of Ancona, down to their final subjugation by the
       Papacy in the age of the Renaissance, is made up of all the
       vicissitudes which could befall a mediæval Italian despotism.
    {2081}
       Acquiring an unlawful right over the towns of Rimini, Cesena,
       Sogliano, Ghiacciuolo, they ruled their petty principalities
       like tyrants by the help of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions,
       inclining to the one or the other as it suited their humour or
       their interest, wrangling among themselves, transmitting the
       succession of their dynasty through bastards and by deeds of
       force, quarrelling with their neighbours the Counts of Urbino,
       alternately defying and submitting to the Papal legates in
       Romagna, serving as condottieri in the wars of the Visconti
       and the state of Venice, and by their restlessness and genius
       for military intrigues contributing in no slight measure to
       the general disturbance of Italy. The Malatesti were a race
       of strongly marked character: more, perhaps, than any other
       house of Italian tyrants, they combined for generations those
       qualities of the fox and the lion, which Machiavelli thought
       indispensable to a successful despot. … So far as Rimini is
       concerned, the house of Malatesta culminated in Sigismondo
       Pandolfo, son of Gian Galeazzo Visconti's general, the
       perfidious Pandolfo. … Having begun by defying the Holy See,
       he was impeached at Rome for heresy, parricide, incest,
       adultery, rape, and sacrilege, burned in effigy by Pope Pius
       II., and finally restored to the bosom of the Church, after
       suffering the despoliation of almost all his territories, in
       1463. The occasion on which this fierce and turbulent despiser
       of laws human and divine was forced to kneel as a penitent
       before the Papal legate in the gorgeous temple dedicated to
       his own pride, in order that the ban of excommunication might
       be removed from Rimini, was one of those petty triumphs,
       interesting chiefly for their picturesqueness, by which the
       Popes confirmed their questionable rights over the cities of
       Romagna. Sigismondo, shorn of his sovereignty, took the
       command of the Venetian troops against the Turks in the Morea,
       and returned in 1465, crowned with laurels, to die at Rimini."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Sketches in Italy and Greece,
          pages 217-220.

          ALSO IN:
          A. M. F. Robinson,
          The End of the Middle Ages,
          pages 274-299.

    MALAYAN RACE, The.

       Many ethnologists set up as a distinct stock "the '.Malayan'
       or 'Brown' race, and claim for it an importance not less than
       any of the darker varieties of the species. It bears, however,
       the marks of an origin too recent, and presents Asian
       analogies too clearly, for it to be regarded otherwise than as
       a branch of the Asian race, descended like it from some
       ancestral tribe in that great continent. Its dispersion has
       been extraordinary. Its members are found almost continuously
       on the land areas from Madagascar to Easter Island, a distance
       nearly two-thirds of the circumference of the globe;
       everywhere they speak dialects with such affinities that we
       must assume for all one parent stem, and their separation must
       have taken place not so very long ago to have permitted such a
       monoglottic trait as this. The stock is divided at present
       into two groups, the western or Malayan peoples, and the
       eastern or Polynesian peoples. There has been some discussion
       about the original identity of these, but we may consider it
       now proved by both physical, linguistic and traditional
       evidence. The original home of the parent stem has also
       excited some controversy, but this too may be taken as
       settled. There is no reasonable doubt but that the Malays came
       from the southeastern regions of Asia, from the peninsula of
       Farther India, and thence spread south, east and west over the
       whole of the island world. Their first occupation of Sumatra
       and Java has been estimated to have occurred not later than
       1000 B. C., and probably was a thousand years earlier, or
       about the time that the Aryans entered Northern India. The
       relationship of the Malayic with the other Asian stocks has
       not yet been made out. Physically they stand near to the
       Sinitic peoples of small stature and roundish heads of
       southeastern Asia. The oldest form of their language, however,
       was not monosyllabic and tonic, but was disyllabic. … The
       purest type of the true Malays is seen in Malacca, Sumatra and
       Java. … It has changed slightly by foreign intermixture
       among the Battaks of Sumatra, the Dayaks of Borneo, the
       Alfures and the Bugis. But the supposition that these are so
       remote that they cannot properly be classed with the Malays is
       an exaggeration of some recent ethnographers, and is not
       approved by the best authorities. … In character the Malays
       are energetic, quick of perception, genial in demeanor, but
       unscrupulous, cruel and revengeful. Veracity is unknown, and
       the love of gain is far stronger than any other passion or
       affection. This thirst for gold made the Malay the daring
       navigator he early became. As merchant, pirate or explorer,
       and generally as all three in one, he pushed his crafts far
       and wide over the tropical seas through 12,000 miles of
       extent. On the extreme west he reached and colonized
       Madagascar. The Hovas there, undoubtedly of Malay blood,
       number about 800,000 in a population of five and a half
       millions, the remainder being Negroids of various degrees of
       fusion. In spite of this disproportion, the Hovas are the
       recognized masters of the island. … The Malays probably
       established various colonies in southern India. The natives at
       Travancore and the Sinhalese of Ceylon bear a strongly Malayan
       aspect. … Some ethnographers would make the Polynesians and
       Micronesians a different race from the Malays; but the
       farthest that one can go in this direction is to admit that
       they reveal some strain of another blood. This is evident in
       their physical appearance. … All the Polynesian languages
       have some affinities to the Malayan, and the Polynesian
       traditions unanimously refer to the west for the home of their
       ancestors. We are able, indeed, by carefully analyzing these
       traditions, to trace with considerable accuracy both the route
       they followed to the Oceanic isles, and the respective dates
       when they settled them. Thus, the first station of their
       ancestors ou leaving the western group, was the small island
       of Buru or Boru, between Celebes and New Guinea. Here they
       encountered the Papuas, some of whom still dwell in the
       interior, while the coast people are fair. Leaving Boru, they
       passed to the north of New Guinea, colonizing the Caroline and
       Solomon islands, but the vanguard pressing forward to take
       possession of Savai in the Samoan group and Tonga to its
       south. These two islands formed a second center of
       distribution over the western Pacific. The Maoris of New
       Zealand moved from Tonga—'holy Tonga' as they call it in
       their songs—about 600 years ago. The Society islanders
       migrated from Savai, and they in turn sent forth the
       population of the Marquesas, the Sandwich islands and Easter
       island. The separation of the Polynesians from the western
       Malays must have taken place about the beginning of our era."

          D. G. Brinton,
          Races and Peoples,
          lecture 8, section. 2.

          ALSO IN:
          A. R. Wallace,
          The Malay Archipelago,
          chapter 40.

          R. Brown,
          The Races of Mankind,
          volume 2, chapter 7.

    {2082}

    MALCOLM III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1057-1093.

       Malcolm IV., King of Scotland, 1153-1165.

    MALDON, Battle of.

       Fought, A. D. 991, by the English against an invading army of
       Norwegians, who proved the victors. The battle, with the
       heroic death of the English leader, Brihtnoth, became the
       subject of a famous early-English poem, which is translated in
       Freeman's "Old English History for Children." The field of
       battle was on the Blackwater in Essex.

    MALEK SHAH, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1073-1092.

    MALIANS, The.

       One of the early peoples of Greece, who dwelt on the Malian
       Gulf, in the lower valley of the Sperchæus. They were a
       warlike people, neighbors and close allies of the Dorians,
       before the migration of the latter to the Peloponnesus.

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          volume 1, book 1, chapter 2.

    MALIGNANTS.

       "About this time [A. D. 1643] the word 'malignant' was first
       born (as to the common use) in England; the deduction thereof
       being disputable, whether from 'malus ignis,' bad fire, or
       'malum lignum,' bad fuel; but this is sure, betwixt both, the
       name made a combustion all over England. It was fixed as a
       note of disgrace on those of the king's party."

          T. Fuller,
          Church History of Britain,
          book 11, section 4 (volume 3).

    MALINES: Taken by Marlborough and the Allies (1706).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

    MALLUM.
    MALL.
    MALLBERG.

       "The Franks … constituted one great army, the main body of
       which was encamped round the abode of their Kyning or
       commander, and the rest of which was broken up into various
       detachments. … Every such detachment became ere long a
       sedentary tribe, and the chief of each was accustomed, as
       occasion required, to convene the mallum (that is, an assembly
       of the free inhabitants) of his district, to deliberate with
       him on all the affairs of his immediate locality. The Kyning
       also occasionally convened an assembly of the whole of the
       Frankish chiefs, to deliberate with him at the Champs de Mars
       on the affairs of the whole confederacy. But neither the
       mallum nor the Champs de Mars was a legislative convention.
       Each of them was a council of war or an assembly of warriors."

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Lectures on the History of France,
          lecture 8.

       "The Court was mostly held in a field or on a hill, called
       'mallstatt,' or 'mallberg,' that is, the place or hill where
       the 'mall' or Court assembled, and the judge set up his shield
       of office, without which he might not hold Court."

          J. I. Mombert,
          History of Charles the Great,
          book 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 10.

          See, also.
          PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

    MALMÖ, Armistice of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    MALO-JOROSLAVETZ, Battle of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D.1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    MALPLAQUET, Battle of (1709).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

       ----------MALTA: Start--------

    MALTA: A. D. 1530-1565.
       Ceded by the emperor, Charles V., to the Knights of St. John.
       Their defense of the island against the Turks in the great siege.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

    MALTA: A. D. 1551.
       Unsuccessful attack by the Turks.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

    MALTA: A. D. 1798.
       Seizure and occupation by Bonaparte.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

    MALTA: A. D. 1800-1802.
       Surrender to an English fleet.
       Agreement of restoration to the Knights of St. John.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    MALTA: A. D. 1814.
       Ceded to England.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

       ----------MALTA: End--------

    MALTA, Knights of.

       During their occupation of the island, the Knights
       Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
       Knights of Malta, as they had previously been called Knights
       of Rhodes:

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

    MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

          See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

    MALVERN CHASE.

       An ancient royal forest in Worcestershire, England, between
       Malvern Hills and the River Severn. Few remains of it exist.

          J. C. Brown,
          Forests of England.

    MALVERN HILL, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    MAMACONAS.

          See YANACONAS.

    MAMELUKE, OR SLAVE, DYNASTY OF INDIA.

          See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

    MAMELUKES OF BRAZIL.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

    MAMELUKES OF EGYPT;
       their rise;
       their sovereignty;
       their destruction.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517; and 1803-1811.

    MAMELUKES OF GENEVA, The.

          See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

    MAMERTINE PRISON, The.

       "Near the Basilica Porcia, and at the foot of the Capitoline
       Hill [in ancient Rome], was the ancient carcer or prison. The
       original erection of it has been attributed to Ancus Martius,
       as we learn from Livy, who says 'he made a prison in the
       middle of the city, overlooking the Forum.' The name by which
       it is known—Mamertinus—may have been derived from its being
       built by Ancus Martius. Mamers was the Sabine name of the god
       Mars, and consequently from the name Mamertius, the Sabine way
       of spelling Martius, may have been derived Mamertinus. In this
       prison there are two chambers, one above the other, built of
       hewn stone. The upper is square, while the lower is
       semicircular. The style of masonry points to an early date,
       when the Etruscan style of masonry prevailed in Rome. … To
       these chambers there was no entrance except by a small
       aperture in the upper roof, and a similar hole in the upper
       floor led to the cell below. From a passage in Livy it would
       appear that Tullianum was the name given to the lower cell of
       the carcer. … Varro expressly tells us that the lower part
       of the prison which was underground was called Tullianum
       because it was added by Servius Tullius."

          H. M. Westropp,
          Early and Imperial Rome,
          page 93.

    {2083}

       "The oldest portion of the horror-striking Mamertine Prisons
       … is the most ancient among all Roman buildings still extant
       as originally constructed."

          C. I. Hemans,
          Historic and Monumental Rome,
          chapter 4.

       "Here, Jugurtha, king of Mauritania, was starved to death by
       Marius. Here Julius Cæsar, during his triumph for the conquest
       of Gaul, caused his gallant enemy Vercingetorix to be put to
       death. … The spot is more interesting to the Christian world
       as the prison of SS. Peter and Paul."

          A. J. C. Hare,
          Walks in Rome,
          chapter 3.

    MAMERTINES OF MESSENE, The.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    MAMUN, AL, Caliph, A. D. 813-833.

    MAN, Kingdom of.

          See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

    MANAOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

       ----------MANASSAS: Start--------

    MANASSAS: A. D. 1861 (July).
       First battle (Bull Run).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

    MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (March).
       Confederate evacuation.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

    MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (August).
       Stonewall Jackson's Raid.
       The Second Battle.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
          and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

       ----------MANASSAS: End--------

       ----------MANCHESTER: Start--------

    MANCHESTER:
       Origin.

          See MANCUNIUM.

    MANCHESTER: A. D. 1817-1819.
       The march of the Blanketeers,
       and the "Massacre of Peterloo."

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    MANCHESTER: A. D. 1838-1839.
       Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

    MANCHESTER: A. D. 1861-1865.
       The Cotton Famine.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

    MANCHESTER: A. D. 1894.
       Opening of the Ship Canal.

       A ship canal, connecting Manchester with Liverpool, and making
       the former practically a seaport, was opened on the 1st day of
       January, 1894. The building of the canal was begun in 1887.

       ----------MANCHESTER: End--------

    MANCHU TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

          See CHINA: A.D. 1294-1882.

    MANCUNIUM.

       A Roman town in Britain which occupied the site of the modern
       city of Manchester.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    MANDANS,
    MANDANES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    MANDATA, Roman Imperial.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    MANDUBII, The.

       A tribe in ancient Gaul, which occupied part of the modern
       French department of the Côte-d'Or and whose chief town was
       Alesia, the scene of Cæsar's famous siege.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).

    MANETHO, List of.

       "Of all the Greek writers who have treated of the history of
       the Pharaohs, there is only one whose testimony has, since the
       deciphering of the hieroglyphics, preserved any great value—a
       value which increases the more it is compared with the
       original monuments; we speak of Manetho. Once he was treated
       with contempt; his veracity was disputed, the long series of
       dynasties he unfolds to our view was regarded as fabulous.
       Now, all that remains of his work is the first of an
       authorities for the reconstruction of the ancient history of
       Egypt. Manetho, a priest of the town of Sebennytus, in the
       Delta, wrote in Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a
       history of Egypt, founded on the official archives preserved
       in the temples. Like many other books of antiquity, this
       history has been lost; we possess now a few fragments only,
       with the list of all the kings placed by Manetho at the end of
       his work—a list happily preserved in the writings of some
       chronologers of the Christian epoch. This list divides into
       dynasties, or royal families, all the kings who reigned
       successively in Egypt down to the time of Alexander."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History of the East,
          book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1).

          See, also,
          EGYPT: ITS HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY.

       ----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: Start--------

    MANHATTAN ISLAND:
       Its aboriginal People and name.

       "The earliest notice we have of the island which is now
       adorned by a beautiful and opulent city is to be found in
       Hudson's journal. 'Mana-hata' is therein mentioned, in
       reference to the hostile people whom he encountered on his
       return from his exploring of the river, and who resided on
       this island. De Laet … calls those wicked people Manatthans,
       and names the river Manhattes. … Hartger calls the Indians
       and the island Mahattan. … In some of the early transactions
       of the colony, it is spelled Monhattoes, Munhatos, and
       Manhattoes. Professor Ebeling says, that at the mouth of the
       river lived the Manhattans or Manathanes (or as the Englishmen
       commonly called it, Manhados), who kept up violent animosities
       with their neighbours, and were at first most hostile towards
       the Dutch, but suffered themselves to be persuaded afterwards
       to sell them the island, or at least that part of it where New
       York now stands. Manhattan is now the name, and it was, when
       correctly adopted, so given by the Dutch, and by them it not
       only distinguished the Indians, the island and the river, but
       it was a general name of their plantations. … Mr.
       Heckewelder observes that hitherto an his labours had been
       fruitless in inquiring about a nation or tribe of Indians
       called the 'Manhattos' or 'Manathones'; Indians both of the
       Mahicanni and Delaware nations assured him that they never had
       heard of any Indian tribe by that name. He says he is
       convinced that it was the Delawares or Munseys (which last was
       a branch of the Delawares) who inhabited that part of the
       country where New York now is. York Island is called by the
       Delawares to this day [1824] Manahattani or Manahachtanink.
       The Delaware word for 'Island' is 'Manátey'; the Monsey word
       for the same is 'Manáchtey' … Dr. Barton also has given as
       his belief that the Manhattæ were a branch of the Munsis."

          J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
          History of the State of New York,
          volume 1, pages 223-224.

          ALSO IN:
          Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          See, also,
          AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
          and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    MANHATTAN ISLAND: A. D. 1613.
       First settlements.
       Argall's visit.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

       ----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: End--------

    {2084}

    MANICHEANS, The.

       "A certain Mani (or Manes, as the ecclesiastical writers call
       him), born in Persia about A. D. 240, grew to manhood under
       Sapor, exposed to … various religious influences. … With a
       mind free from prejudice and open to conviction, he studied the
       various systems of belief which he found established in
       Western Asia—the Cabalism of the Babylonian Jews, the Dualism
       of the Magi, the mysterious doctrines of the Christians, and
       even the Buddhism of India. At first he inclined to
       Christianity, and is said to have been admitted to priest's
       orders and to have ministered to a congregation; but after a
       time he thought that he saw his way to the formation of a new
       creed, which should combine all that was best in the religious
       systems which he was acquainted with, and omit what was
       superfluous or objectionable. He adopted the Dualism of the
       Zoroastrians, the metempsychosis of India, the angelism and
       demonism of the Talmud and Trinitarianism of the Gospel of
       Christ. Christ himself he identified with Mithra, and gave Him
       his dwelling in the sun. He assumed to be the Paraclete
       promised by Christ, who should guide men into all truth, and
       claimed that his 'Ertang,' a sacred book illustrated by
       pictures of his own painting, should supersede the New
       Testament. Such pretensions were not likely to be tolerated by
       the Christian community; and Manes had not put them forward
       very long when he was expelled from the church and forced to
       carry his teaching elsewhere. Under these circumstances he is
       said to have addressed himself to Sapor [the Persian king],
       who was at first inclined to show him some favour; but when he
       found out what the doctrines of the new teacher actually were,
       his feelings underwent a change, and Manes, proscribed, or at
       any rate threatened with penalties, had to retire into a
       foreign country. … Though the morality of the Manichees was
       pure, and though their religion is regarded by some as a sort
       of Christianity, there were but few points in which it was an
       improvement on Zoroastrianism."

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 4.

       First in Persia and, afterwards, throughout Christendom, the
       Manicheans were subjected to a merciless persecution; but they
       spread their doctrines, notwithstanding, in the west and in
       the east, and it was not until several centuries had passed
       that the heresy became extinct.

          J. L. Mosheim,
          Christianity during the first 325 years, Third Century,
          lectures 39-55.

          See, also, PAULICIANS.

    MANIFESTATION, The Aragonese process of.

          See CORTES. THE EARLY SPANISH.

    MANILIAN LAW, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

    MANIMI, The.

          See LYGIANS.

    MANIN, Daniel, and the struggle for Venetian independence.

          See ITALY: A. D.1848-1849.

    MANIOTO,
    MAYNO, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    MANIPULI.

          See LEGION, ROMAN.

    MANITOBA.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

    MANNAHOACS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

       ----------MANNHEIM: Start--------

    MANNHEIM: A. D. 1622.
       Capture by Tilly.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

    MANNHEIM: A. D. 1689.
       Destroyed by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

    MANNHEIM: A. D. 1799.
       Capture by the Austrians.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

       ----------MANNHEIM: End--------

    MANOA, The fabled city of.

          See EL DORADO.

    MANORS.

       "The name manor is of Norman origin, but the estate to which
       it was given existed, in its essential character, long before
       the Conquest; it received a new name as the shire also did,
       but neither the one nor the other was created by this change.
       The local jurisdictions of the thegns who had grants of sac
       and soc, or who exercised judicial functions amongst their
       free neighbours, were identical with the manorial
       jurisdictions of the new owners. … The manor itself was, as
       Ordericus tells us, nothing more nor less than the ancient
       township, now held by a lord who possessed certain judicial
       rights varying according to the terms of the grant by which he
       was infeoffed. Every manor had a court baron, the ancient
       gemot of the township, in which by-laws were made and other
       local business transacted, and a court customary in which the
       business of the villenage was despatched. Those manors whose
       lords had under the Anglo-Saxon laws possessed sac and soc, or
       who since the Conquest had had grants in which those terms
       were used, had also a court-leet, or criminal jurisdiction,
       cut out as it were from the criminal jurisdiction of the
       hundred, and excusing the suitors who attended it from going
       to the court-leet of the hundred."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 9, section 98,
          and chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

       "From the Conquest to the 14th century we find the same
       agricultural conditions prevailing over the greater part of
       England. Small gatherings of houses and cots appear as oases
       in the moorland and forest, more or less frequent according to
       the early or late settlement of the district, and its freedom
       from, or exposure to, the ravages of war and the punishment of
       rebellion. These oases, townships or vills if of some extent,
       hamlets if of but a few houses, gather round one or more
       mansions of superior size and importance, the Manor houses, or
       abodes of the Lords of the respective Manors. Round each
       township stretch the great ploughed fields, usually three in
       number, open and uninclosed. Each field is divided into a
       series of parallel strips a furlong in length, a rod wide,
       four of which would make an acre, the strips being separated
       by ridges of turf called balks, while along the head of each
       series of strips runs a broad band of turf known as a
       headland, on which the plough is turned, when it does not by
       custom turn on some fellow-tenant's land, and which serves as
       a road to the various strips in the fields. These strips are
       allotted in rotation to a certain number of the dwellers in
       the township, a very common holding being that known as a
       virgate or yardland, consisting of about 30 acres. … Mr.
       Seebohm's exhaustive researches have conclusively connected
       this system of open fields and rotation of strips with the
       system of common ploughing, each holder of land providing so
       many oxen for the common plough, two being the contribution of
       the holder of a virgate, and eight the normal number drawing
       the plough, though this would vary with the character of the
       soil. … At the date of Domesday (1086), the holders of land
       in the common fields comprise the Lord; the free tenants,
       socmanni or liberi homines, when there are any; the villani or
       Saxon geburs, the holders of virgates or half virgates; and
       the bordarii or cotarii, holders of small plots of 5 acres or
       so, who have fewer rights and fewer duties. Besides ploughing
       the common-fields, the villani as part of their tenure have to
       supply the labour necessary to cultivate the arable land that
       the Lord of the Manor keeps in his own hands as his domain,
       dominicum, or demesne."

          T. E. Scrutton,
          Commons and Common Fields,
          chapter 1.

    {2085}

       Relative to the origin of the manor and the development of the
       community from which it rose there are divergent views much
       discussed at the present day. "The interpretation, current
       fifteen years ago, was the natural outcome of the Mark theory
       and was somewhat as follows: The community was a voluntary
       association, a simple unit within which there were households
       or families of various degrees of wealth, rank and authority,
       but in point of status each was the equal of the other. Each
       was subject only to the customs and usages of the community
       and to the court of the Mark. The Mark was therefore a
       judicial and political as well as an agricultural unit, though
       cultivation of the soil was the primary bond of union. All
       offices were filled by election, but the incumbent in due time
       sank back into the general body of 'markgenossen.' He who was
       afterwards to be the lord of the manor was originally only the
       first Marksman,' who attained to this preeminence in part by
       the prestige of election to a position of headship, in part by
       usurpation, and in part by the prerogatives which protection
       and assistance to weaker Marksmen brought. Thus the first
       Marksman became the lord and held the others in a kind of
       subjection to himself, and received from them, though free,
       dues and services which grew increasingly more severe. The
       main difficulty here seems to be in the premise, and it is the
       evident artificiality of the voluntary association of freemen
       which has led to such adverse criticism upon the whole theory.
       … While the free village community was under fire at home as
       well as abroad, Mr. Seebohm presented a new view of an exactly
       opposite character, with the formula of the community in
       villeinage under a lord. Although this view has for the moment
       divided thinkers on the subject, it has proved no more
       satisfactory than the other; for while it does explain the
       origin of the lord of the manor, it leaves wholly untouched
       the body of free Saxons whom Earle calls the rank and file of
       the invading army. Other theories have sought to supply the
       omissions in this vague non-documentary field, all erected
       with learning and skill, but unfortunately not in harmony with
       one another. Coote and Finlason have given to the manor an
       unqualified Roman origin. Lewis holds to a solid British
       foundation, the Teutonists would make it wholly Saxon, while
       Gomme is inclined to see an Aryo-British community under Saxon
       overlordship. Thus there is a wide range from which to select;
       all cannot be true; no one is an explanation of all
       conditions, yet most of them have considerable sound evidence
       to support them. It is this lack of harmony which drives the
       student to discover some theory which shall be in touch with
       known tribal conditions and a natural consequence of their
       development, and which at the same time shall be sufficiently
       elastic to conform to the facts which confront us in the early
       historical period. An attempt has been made [in the work here
       quoted from] to lay down two premises, the first of which is
       the composite character of the tribal and village community,
       and the second the diverse ethnological conditions of Britain
       after the Conquest, conditions which would allow for different
       results. … Kemble in his chapter on Personal Rank has a
       remark which is ill in keeping with his peaceful Mark theory.
       He says: 'There can be no doubt that some kind of military
       organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many
       respects determined its mode and character.' To this statement
       Earle has added another equally pregnant: 'Of all principles
       of military regiment there is none so necessary or so
       elementary as this, that all men must be under a captain, and
       such a captain as is able to command prompt and willing
       obedience. Upon this military principle I conceive the English
       settlements were originally founded, that each several
       settlement was under a military leader, and that this military
       leader was the ancestor of the lord of the manor.' Professor
       Earle then continues in the endeavor to apply the suggestion
       contained in the above quotation. He shows that the 'hundreds'
       represent the first permanent encampment of the invading host,
       and that the military occupation preceded the civil
       organization, the latter falling into the mould which the
       former had prepared. According to this the manorial
       organization was based upon a composite military foundation,
       the rank and file composing the one element, the village
       community; the captain or military leader composing the other,
       settled with suitable provision by the side of his company;
       the lord by the side of free owners. In this attempt to give
       the manor a composite origin, as the only rational means
       whereby the chief difficulty can be removed, and in the
       attempt to carry the seignorial element to the very beginning
       we believe him to be wholly right. But an objection must be
       raised to the way in which Professor Earle makes up his
       composite element. It is too artificial, too exclusively
       military; the occupiers of the village are the members of the
       'company,' the occupier of the adjacent seat is the
       'captain,' afterwards to become the lord. … We feel certain
       that the local community, the village, was simply the kindred,
       the sub-clan group, which had become a local habitation, yet
       when we attempt to test its presence in Anglo-Saxon Britain we
       meet with many difficulties."

          C. McL. Andrews,
          The Old English Manor,
          pages 7-51.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Seebohm,
          English Village Communities,
          chapter 2, section 12.

          Sir H. Maine,
          Village Communities,
          lecture 5.

    MANSFIELD, OR
    SABINE CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

    MANSOURAH, Battle of (1250).

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

    MANSUR, Al, Caliph, A. D. 754-775.

       ----------MANTINEA: Start--------

    MANTINEA.

       "Mantinea was the single city of Arcadia which had dared to
       pursue an independent line of policy [see SPARTA: B. C.
       743-510]. Not until the Persian Wars the community coalesced
       out of five villages into one fortified city; this being done
       at the instigation of Argos, which already at this early date
       entertained thoughts of forming for itself a confederation in
       its vicinity: Mantinea had endeavored to increase its city
       and territory by conquest, and after the Peace of Nicias had
       openly opposed Sparta."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 5, chapter 5 (volume 4).

    MANTINEA: B. C. 418.
       Battle.

          See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

    {2086}

    MANTINEA: B. C. 385.
       Destruction by the Spartans.

          See GREECE: B. C. 385.

    MANTINEA: B. C. 371-362.
       Restoration of the city.
       Arcadian union and disunion.
       The great battle.
       Victory and death of Epaminondas.

          See GREECE: B. C. 371; and 371-362.

    MANTINEA: B. C. 222.
       Change of name.

       In the war between Cleomenes of Sparta and the Achæan League,
       the city of Mantinea was, first, surprised by Aratus, the
       chief of the League, B. C. 226, and occupied by an Achæan
       garrison; then recaptured by Cleomenes, and his partisans, B.
       C. 224, and finally, B. C. 222, stormed by Antigonus, king of
       Macedonia, acting in the name of the League, and given up to
       pillage. Its citizens were sold into slavery. "The dispeopled
       city was placed by the conqueror at the disposal of Argos,
       which decreed that a colony should be sent to take possession
       of it under the auspices of Aratus. The occasion enabled him
       to pay another courtly compliment to the king of Macedonia. On
       his proposal, the name of the 'lovely Mantinea'—as it was
       described in the Homeric catalogue—was exchanged for that of
       Antigonea, a symbol of its ruin and of the humiliation of
       Greece."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 62 (volume 8).

    MANTINEA: B. C. 207.
       Defeat of the Lacedæmonians.

       In the wars of the Achæan League, the Lacedæmonians were
       defeated under the walls of Mantinea with great slaughter, by
       the forces of the League, ably marshalled by Philopœmen, and
       the Lacedaemonian king Machanidas was slain. "It was the third
       great battle fought on the same, or nearly the same, ground.
       Here, in the interval between the two parts of the
       Peloponnesian War, had Agis restored the glory of Sparta after
       her humiliation at Sphakteria; here Epameinôndas had fallen in
       the moment of victory; here now [B. C. 207] was to be fought
       the last great battle of independent Greece."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapter 8, section 2.

       ----------MANTINEA: End----------

    MANTUA: 11-12th Centuries.
       Rise and acquisition of republican independence.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

    MANTUA: A. D. 1077-1115.
       In the dominions of the Countess Matilda.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

    MANTUA: A. D. 1328-1708.
       The house of Gonzaga.

          See GONZAGA.

    MANTUA: A. D. 1627-1631.
       War of France, Spain and the Empire over the disputed
       succession to the duchy.
       Siege and capture of the city by the Imperialists.
       Rights of the Duke de Nevers established.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

    MANTUA: A. D. 1635.
       Alliance with France against Spain.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    MANTUA: A. D. 1796-1797.
       Siege and reduction by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
          and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    MANTUA: A. D. 1797.
       Ceded by Austria to the Cisalpine Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    MANTUA: A. D. 1799.
       Siege and capture by Suwarrow.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

    MANTUA: A. D. 1814.
       Restoration to Austria.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

    MANTUA: A. D. 1866.

       The Austrians retained Mantua until their final withdrawal
       from the peninsula, in 1866, when it was absorbed in the new
       kingdom of Italy.

    MANU, Laws of.

       "The Indians [of Hindostan] possess a series of books of law,
       which, like that called after Manu, bear the name of a saint
       or seer of antiquity, or of a god. One is named after Gautama,
       another after Vasishtha, a third after Apastamba, a fourth
       after Yajnavalkya; others after Bandhayana and Vishnu.
       According to the tradition of the Indians the law of Manu is
       the oldest and most honourable. … The conclusion is …
       inevitable that the decisive precepts which we find in the
       collection must have been put together and written down about
       the year 600 [B. C.]."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 5, chapter 6.

       "The name, 'Laws of Manu,' somewhat resembles a 'pious fraud';
       for the 'Laws' are merely the laws or customs of a school or
       association of Hindus, called the Manavas, who lived in the
       country rendered holy by the divine river Saraswati. In this
       district the Hindus first felt themselves a settled people,
       and in this neighbourhood they established colleges and
       hermitages, or 'asramas,' from some of which we may suppose
       Brahmanas, Upanishads, and other religious compositions may
       have issued; and under such influences we may imagine the Code
       of Manu to have been composed."

          Mrs. Manning,
          Ancient and Mediæval India,
          volume 1, page 276.

    MANUAL TRAINING.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &C.: A. D. 1865-1886.

    MANUEL I. (Comnenus),
       Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1143-1181.

       Manuel II. (Palæologus),
       Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1391-1425.

    MANX KINGDOM, The.

       The Isle of Man in the Irish Sea gets its English name, Man,
       by an abbreviation of the native name, Mannin, the origin of
       which is unknown. The language, called Manx (now little used),
       and the inhabitants, called Manxmen, are both of Gaelic, or
       Irish derivation. From the sixth to the tenth century the
       island was successively ruled by the Scots (Irish), the Welsh
       and the Norwegians, finally becoming a separate petty kingdom,
       with Norwegian claims upon it. In the thirteenth century the
       little kingdom was annexed to Scotland. Subsequently, after
       various vicissitudes, it passed under English control and was
       granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Stanley. The Stanleys, after
       some generations, found a dignity which they esteemed higher,
       in the earldom of Derby, and relinquished the title of King of
       Man. This was done by the second Earl of Derby, 1505. In 1765
       the sovereignty and revenues of the island were purchased by
       the British government; but its independent form of government
       has undergone little change. It enjoys "home rule" to
       perfection. It has its own legislature, called the Court of
       Tynwald, consisting of a council, or upper chamber, and a
       representative body called the House of Keys. Acts of the
       imperial parliament do not apply to the Isle of Man unless it
       is specifically named in them. It has its own courts, with
       judges called deemsters (who are the successors of the ancient
       Druidical priests), and its own governor, appointed by the
       crown. The divisions of the island, corresponding to English
       counties, are called sheadings.

          S. Walpole,
          The Land of Home Rule.

          ALSO IN:
          H. I. Jenkinson,
          Guide to Isle of Man.

          Hall Caine,
          The Little Manx Nation.
          Our Own Country,
          volume 5.

          See
          MONAPIA:
          and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

    {2087}

    MANZIKERT, Battle of (1071).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.

    MAONITES, The.

       "We must … regard them as a remnant of the Amorites, which,
       in later times, … spread to the west of Petra."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          introduction, section 4.

    MAORIS.
    MAORI WAR.

          See NEW ZEALAND: THE ABORIGINES: A. D. 1853-1883;
          also, MALAYAN RACE.

    MAPOCHINS, The.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

    MAQUAHUITL, The.

       This was a weapon in use among the Mexicans when the Spaniards
       found them. It "was a stout stick, three feet and a half long,
       and about four inches broad, armed on each side with a sort of
       razors of the stone itztli (obsidian), extraordinarily sharp,
       fixed and firmly fastened to the stick with gum lack. … The
       first stroke only was to be feared, for the razors became soon
       blunt."

          F. S. Clavigero,
          History of Mexico,
          book 7.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Helps,
          The Spanish Conquest of America,
          book 10 (volume 2).

    MARACANDA.

       The chief city of the ancient Sogdiani, in Central Asia—now
       Samarcand.

    MARAGHA.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

    MARAIS, OR PLAIN, The Party of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    MARANHA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

    MARANGA, Battle of.

       One of the battles fought by the Romans with the Persians
       during the retreat from Julian's fatal expedition beyond the
       Tigris, A. D. 363. The Persians were repulsed.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 10.

    MARAPHIANS, The.

       One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 8, chapter 3.

    MARAT AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1793 (MARCH-JUNE).

       Assassination by Charlotte Corday.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

    MARATA.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    MARATHAS.

          See MAHRATTAS.

    MARATHON, Battle of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 490.

    MARAVEDIS.

          See SPANISH COINS.

    MARBURG CONFERENCE, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

    MARCEL, Etienne, and the States General of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

    MARCELLUS II., Pope, A. D. 1555, April to May.

    MARCH.
    MARK.

       The frontier or boundary of a territory; a border. Hence came
       the title of Marquis, which was originally that of an officer
       charged with the guarding of some March or border district of
       a kingdom. In Great Britain this title ranks second in the
       five orders of nobility, only the title of Duke being superior
       to it. The old English kingdom of Mercia was formed by the
       Angles who were first called the "Men of the March," having
       settled on the Welsh border, and that was the origin of its
       name. The kingdom of Prussia grew out of the "Mark of
       Brandenburg," which was originally a military border district
       formed on the skirts of the German empire to resist the Wends.
       Various other European states had the same origin.

          See, also, MARGRAVE.

    MARCH CLUB.

          See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER AND THE MARCH.

    MARCHFELD OR MARSCHFELD, Battle of the (1278).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

       (1809) (also called the battle of Aspern-Esslingen,
       or of Aspern).

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

    MARCIAN, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 450-457.

    MARCIANAPOLIS.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

       ----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: Start--------

    MARCOMANNI AND QUADI, The.

       "The Marcomanni [an ancient German people who dwelt, first, on
       the Rhine, but afterwards occupied southern Bohemia] stand
       first in strength and renown, and their very territory, from
       which the Boii were driven in a former age, was won by valour.
       Nor are the Narisci [settled in the region of modern Ratisbon]
       and Quadi [who probably occupied Moravia] inferior to them.
       This I may call the frontier of Germany, so far as it is
       completed by the Danube. The Marcomanni and Quadi have, up to
       our time, been ruled by kings of their own nation, descended
       from the noble stock of Maroboduus and Tudrus. They now submit
       even to foreigners; but the strength and power of the monarch
       depend on Roman influence."

          Tacitus,
          Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
          chapter 42.

       "The Marcomanni cannot be demonstrated as a distinct people
       before Marbod. It is very possible that the word up to that
       point indicates nothing but what it etymologically
       signifies—the land or frontier guard."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 7, foot-note.

          See, also, AGRI DECUMATES.

    MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
       War with Tiberius.

          See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

    MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
       Wars with Marcus Aurelius.

          See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS
          OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

       ----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: End--------

    MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS,
       Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

    MARDIA, Battle of (A. D. 313).

          See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

    MARDIANS, The.

       One of the tribes of the ancient Persians;
       also called Amardians.

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 8, chapter 3.

          See, also, TAPURIANS.

       ----------MARDYCK: Start--------

    MARDYCK: A. D. 1645-1646.
       Thrice taken and retaken by French and Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

    MARDYCK: A. D. 1657.
       Siege and capture by the French.
       Delivery to the English.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

       ----------MARDYCK: End--------

    MARENGO, Battle of (1800).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    MARFEE, Battle of (1641).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

    MARGARET,
       Queen of the North: Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1387-1412;
       Sweden, 1388-1412.

       Margaret (called The Maid of Norway),
       Queen of Scotland, 1286-1290.

       Margaret of Anjou, and the Wars of the Roses.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

       Margaret of Navarre, or Marguerite d'Angouléme,
       and the Reformation in France.

          See PAPACY: A.D. 1521-1535;
          and NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563.

       Margaret of Parma and her Regency in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, and after.

    {2088}

    MARGHUSH.

          See MARGIANA.

    MARGIANA.

       The ancient name of the valley of the Murghab or Moorghab
       (called the Margos). It is represented at the present day by
       the oasis now called Merv; was the Bactrian Mourn and the
       Marghush of the old Persians. It was inhabited by the
       Margiani.

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 1.

    MARGRAVE.
    MARQUIS.

       "This of Markgrafs (Grafs of the Marches, 'marked' Places, or
       Boundaries) was a natural invention in that state of
       circumstances [the circumstances of the Germany of the 10th
       century, under Henry the Fowler]. It did not quite originate
       with Henry; but was much perfected by him, he first
       recognising how essential it was. On all frontiers he had his
       'Graf' (Count, 'Reeve,' 'G'reeve,' whom some think to be only
       'Grau,' Gray, or 'Senior,' the hardiest, wisest steel-gray man
       he could discover) stationed on the Marck, strenuously doing
       watch and ward there: the post of difficulty, of peril, and
       naturally of honour too, nothing of a sinecure by any means.
       Which post, like every other, always had a tendency to become
       hereditary, if the kindred did not fail in fit men. And hence
       have come the innumerable Margraves, Marquises, and such like,
       of modern times; titles now become chimerical, and more or
       less mendacious, as most of our titles are."

          T. Carlyle,
          Frederick the Great,
          book 2, chapter 1.

       "The title derived from the old imperial office of markgrave
       [margrave], 'comes marchensis,' or count of the marches, had
       belonged to several foreigners who were brought into relation
       with England in the twelfth century; the duke of Brabant was
       marquess of Antwerp, and the count of Maurienne marquess of
       Italy; but in France the title was not commonly used until the
       seventeenth century, and it is possible that it came to
       England direct from Germany. … The fact that, within a
       century of its introduction into England, it was used in so
       unmeaning a designation as the marquess of Montague, shows
       that it had lost all traces of its original application."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 20, section 751.

          See MARCH; also, GRAF.

    MARGUS, Treaty of.

       A treaty which Attila the Hun extorted from the Eastern Roman
       Emperor, Theodosius, A. D. 434,—called by Sismondi "the most
       shameful treaty that ever monarch signed." It gave up to the
       savage king every fugitive from his vengeance or his jealousy
       whom he demanded, and even the Roman captives who had escaped
       from his bonds. It promised, moreover, an annual tribute to
       him of 700 pounds of gold.

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    MARHATTAS.

          See MAHRATTAS.

    MARIA,
       Queen of Hungary, A. D. 1399-1437.

       Maria, Queen of Sicily, 1377-1402.

       Maria I., Queen of Portugal, 1777-1807.

       Maria II., Queen of Portugal, 1826-1853.

       Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and
       Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1745-1780.

    MARIA THERESA, The military order of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

    MARIANA.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    MARIANDYNIANS, The.

          See BITHYNIANS.

    MARIANS, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

    MARICOPAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    MARIE ANTOINETTE,
       Imprisonment, trial and execution of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST);
          and 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

       Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's marriage to.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

       Marie de Medicis, The regency and the intrigues of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1630-1632.

       Marie.

          See, also, MARY.

    MARIETTA, OHIO:
       The Settlement and Naming of the town.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

    MARIGNANO, OR MELIGNANO, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

    MARINUS, Pope.

          See MARTIN.

    MARIOLATRY, Rise of.

          See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

    MARION, Francis, and the partisan warfare in the Carolinas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and 1780-1781.

    MARIPOSAN F AMIL Y, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

    MARITIME PROVINCES.

       The British American provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
       Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, are commonly referred
       to as the Maritime Provinces.

    MARIUS AND SULLA, The civil war of.

          See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

    MARIZZA, Battle of the (1363).

          See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

    MARJ DABIK, Battle of (1516).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    MARK.

       A border.

          See MARCH, MARK.

    MARK, The.

       "The theory of the Mark, or as it is more generally called in
       its later form, the free village community, has been an
       accepted hypothesis for the historical and economic world for
       more than half a century. Elaborated and expanded by the
       writings of Kemble in England and v. Maurer in Germany, taken
       up by later English writers and given wide currency through
       the works of Sir Henry Maine, Green, and Freeman, it has been
       accepted and extended by scores of historical writers on this
       side of the Atlantic as well as the other until it has become
       a commonplace in literature. Firm as has been its hold and
       important as has been its work, it is almost universally
       conceded that further modification or entire rejection must be
       the next step to be taken in the presence of the more thorough
       and scholarly research which is becoming prominent, and before
       all questions can be answered which this study brings to
       light. A change has taken place in the thought upon this
       subject; a reaction against the idealism of the political
       thinkers of half a century ago. The history of the hypothesis
       forms an interesting chapter in the relation between modern
       thought and the interpretation of past history, and shows that
       in the formation of an opinion both writer and reader are
       unconsciously dependent upon the spirit of the age in which
       they live. The free village community, as it is commonly
       understood, standing at the dawn of English and German history
       is discoverable in no historical documents, and for that
       reason it has been accepted by prudent scholars with caution.
    {2089}
       But the causes which have made it a widely acceptable
       hypothesis and have served to entrench it firmly in the mind
       of scholar and reader alike, have easily supplied what was
       wanting in the way of exact material, and have led to
       conclusions which are now recognized as often too hazy,
       historically inaccurate, though agreeable to the thought
       tendencies of the age. … The Mark as defined by Kemble, who
       felt in this interpretation the influence of the German
       writers, … was a district large or small with a well-defined
       boundary, containing certain proportions of heath, forest, fen
       and pasture. Upon this tract of land were communities of
       families or households, originally bound by kindred or tribal
       ties, but who had early lost this blood relationship and were
       composed of freemen, voluntarily associated for mutual support
       and tillage of the soil, with commonable rights in the land
       within the Mark. The Marks were entirely independent, having
       nothing to do with each other, self-supporting and isolated,
       until by continual expansion they either federated or
       coalesced into larger communities. Such communities varying in
       size covered England, internally differing only in minor
       details, in all other respects similar. This view of the Mark
       had been taken already more or less independently by v. Maurer
       in Germany, and five years after the appearance of Kemble's
       work, there was published the first of the series of volumes
       which have rendered Maurer's name famous as the establisher of
       the theory. As his method was more exact, his results were
       built upon a more stable foundation than were those of Kemble,
       but in general the two writers did not greatly differ."

          C. McL. Andrews,
          The Old English Manor,
          pages 1-6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. M. Kemble,
          The Saxons in England,
          book 1, chapter 2.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest,
          chapter 3, section 2.

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 3, section 24 (volume 1).

          See, also, MANOR.

    MARKLAND.

          See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

    MARKS, Spanish.

          See SPANISH COINS.

    MARLBOROUGH, John Churchill, Duke of;
       and the fall of the English Whigs.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

       Campaigns.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 17101712;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

       ----------MAROCCO: Start--------

    MAROCCO:
       Ancient.

          See MAURETANIA.

    MAROCCO:
       The Arab conquest, and since.

       The tide of Mahometan conquest, sweeping across North Africa
       (see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709), burst upon Marocco in
       698. "Eleven years were required to overcome the stubborn
       resistance of the Berbers, who, however, when once conquered,
       submitted with a good grace and embraced the new creed with a
       facility entirely in accordance with the adaptive nature they
       still exhibit. Mingled bands of Moors and Arabs passed over
       into Spain, under Tarik and Moossa, and by the defeat of
       Roderic at the battle of Guadalete, in 711, the foundation of
       their Spanish empire was laid [see SPAIN: A. D. 711-713], on
       which was afterwards raised the magnificent fabric of the
       Western Khalifate. This is not the place to dwell on the
       glories of their dominion. … Suffice it to say, that a
       reflection of this glory extended to Marocco, where the
       libraries and universities of Fez and Marocco City told of the
       learning introduced by wise men, Moorish and Christian alike,
       who pursued their studies without fear of interruption on the
       score of religious belief. The Moors in the days of their
       greatness, be it observed, were far more liberal-minded than
       the Spanish Catholics afterwards showed themselves, and
       allowed Christians to practise their own religion in their own
       places of worship—in striking contrast to the fanaticism of
       their descendants in Marocco at the present day. … The
       intervals of repose under the rule of powerful and enlightened
       monarchs, during which the above-mentioned institutions
       flourished, were nevertheless comparatively rare, and the
       general history of Marocco during the Moorish dominion in
       Spain seems to have been one monotonous record of strife
       between contending tribes and dynasties. Early in the tenth
       century, the Berbers got the mastery of the Arabs, who never
       afterwards appear in the history of the country except under
       the general name of Moors. Various principalities were formed
       [11-13th centuries—see ALMORAVIDES and ALMOHADES], of which
       the chief were Fez, Marocco, and Tafilet, though now and
       again, and especially under the Marin dynasty, in the 13th
       century, the two former were consolidated into one kingdom. In
       the 15th century the successes of the Spaniards caused the
       centre of Moorish power to shift from Spain to Marocco. In the
       declining days of the Hispano-Moorish empire, and after its
       final extinction, the Spaniards and Portuguese revenged
       themselves on their conquerors by attacking the coast-towns of
       Marocco, many of which they captured. It is not improbable
       that they would eventually have possessed themselves of the
       entire country, but for the disastrous defeat of King
       Sebastian in 1578, at the battle of the Three Kings, on the
       banks of the Wad El Ma Hassen, near Alcazar [see PORTUGAL: A.
       D. 1579-1580]. This was the turning-point in Moorish history,
       and an African Creasy would have to rank the conflict at
       Alcazar among the decisive battles of the continent. With the
       rout and slaughter of the Portuguese fled the last chance of
       civilizing the country, which from that period gradually
       relapsed into a state of isolated barbarism. … For 250 years
       the throne has been in the hands of members of the Shereefian
       family of Fileli, who have remained practically undisputed
       masters of the whole of the empire. All this time, as in the
       earlier classical ages, Marocco has been practically shut out
       from the world. … The chief events of importance in Moorish
       affairs in the present century were the defeat of the Moors by
       the French at the battle of Isly [see BARBARY STATES: A. D.
       1830-1846], near the Algerian frontier, in 1844, and the
       subsequent bombardment of Mogador and the coast-towns, and the
       Spanish war which terminated in 1860 with the peace of Tetuan.
       These reverses taught the Moors the power of European states,
       and brought about a great improvement in the position of
       Christians in the country. The Government of Marocco is in
       effect a kind of' graduated despotism, where every official,
       while possessing complete authority over those beneath him,
       must render absolute submission to his superiors. The supreme
       power is vested in the Sultan, the head of the State in all
       things spiritual and temporal. … Of the ultimate dissolution
       of the Moorish dominion there can be little doubt. …
       European States have long had their eyes upon it, but the same
       mutual distrust and jealousy which preserves the decaying fabric
       of the Turkish Empire has hitherto done the like for Marocco,
       whose Sultan serves the same purpose on the Straits of
       Gibraltar as the Turkish Sultan does on the Bosphorus."

          H. E. M. Stutfield,
          El Maghreb,
          chapter 16.

          See, also, BARBARY STATES.

       ----------MAROCCO: End--------

    {2090}

    MARONITES, The.

          See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

    MAROONS.

          See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

    MARQUETTE'S EXPLORATIONS.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    MARQUIS.

       See MARGRAVE.

    MARRANA, The.

       An ancient ditch running from Alba to Rome,—being part of a
       channel by which the Vale of Grotta was drained.

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.,
          volume 2, page 50.

    MARRANOS.

          See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    MARRIAGE, Republican.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    MARRUCINIANS, The.

          See SABINES.

    MARS' HILL.

          See AREOPAGUS.

    MARSAGLIA, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

    MARSCHFELD.

          See MARCHFELD.

    MARSEILLAISE, The.
       Origin of the Song.
       Its introduction into Paris.

       In preparation for the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which
       overthrew the French monarchy, and made the Revolution begun
       in 1789 complete, the Jacobins had summoned armed bands of
       their supporters from an parts of France, ostensibly as
       volunteers to join the army on the frontier, but actually and
       immediately as a reinforcement for the attack which they had
       planned to make on the king at the Tuileries.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

       Among the "fédérés" who came was a battalion of 500 from
       Marseilles, which arrived at the capital on the 30th of July.
       "This battalion has been described by every historian as a
       collection of the vagabonds who are always to be found in a
       great seaport town, and particularly in one like Marseilles,
       where food was cheap and lodging unnecessary. But their
       character has lately been vindicated, and it has been shown
       that these Marseillais were picked men from the national
       guards of Marseilles, like the other fédérés, and contained
       the most hardy as well as the most revolutionary men of the
       city. …. They left Marseilles 513 strong, with two guns, on
       July 2, and had been marching slowly across France, singing
       the immortal war song to which they gave their name. … The
       'Marseillaise' had in itself no very radical history. On April
       24, 1792, just after the declaration of war, the mayor of
       Strasbourg, Dietrich, who was himself no advanced republican,
       but a constitutionalist, remarked at a great banquet that it
       was very sad that all the national war songs of France could
       not be sung by her present defenders, because they all treated
       of loyalty to the king and not to the nation as well. One of
       the guests was a young captain of engineers, Rouget de Lisle,
       who had in 1791 composed a successful 'Hymne à la Liberté,'
       and Dietrich appealed to him to compose something suitable.
       The young man was struck by the notion, and during the night
       he was suddenly inspired with both words and air, and on the
       following day he sang over to Dietrich's guests the famous
       song which was to be the war-song of the French Republic.
       Madame Dietrich arranged the air for the orchestra; Rouget de
       Lisle dedicated it to Marshal Lückner, as the 'Chant de guerre
       pour l'armée du Rhin,' and it at once became popular in
       Strasbourg. Neither Dietrich nor Rouget were advanced
       republicans. The watchword of the famous song was not 'Sauvons
       la République,' but' Sauvons la Patrie.' The air was a taking
       one. From Strasbourg it quickly spread over the south of
       France, and particularly attracted the patriots of Marseilles.
       … There are many legends on the origin of the
       'Marseillaise'; the account here followed is that given by
       Amedée Rouget de Lisle, the author's nephew, in his 'La verité
       sur la paternité de la Marseillaise,' Paris, 1865, which is
       confirmed by a letter of Madame Dietrich's, written at the
       time, and first published in 'Souvenirs d' Alsace—Rouget de
       Lisle à Strasbourg et a Huningue,' by Adolphe Morpain."

          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 2, page 114-115.

       A quite different but less trustworthy
       version of the story may be found in

          A. de Lamartine
          History of the Girondists,
          book 16, section 26-30 (volume 1).

       ----------MARSEILLES: Start--------

    MARSEILLES:
       The founding of.

          See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539,
          and PHOCÆANS.

    MARSEILLES: B. C. 49.
       Conquest by Cæsar.

          See ROME: B. C. 49.

    MARSEILLES: 10th Century.
       In the kingdom of Aries.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

    MARSEILLES: 11th Century.
       The Viscounts of.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

    MARSEILLES: 12th Century.
       Prosperity and freedom.

          See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

    MARSEILLES: A. D. 1524.
       Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and the Constable Bourbon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

    MARSEILLES: A. D. 1792.
       The Marseillais sent to Paris, and their war-song.

          See MARSEILLAISE.

    MARSEILLES: A. D. 1793.
       Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
       Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
          and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    MARSEILLES: A. D. 1795.
       Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
       The White Terror.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

       ----------MARSEILLES: End--------

    MARSHAL, The.

          See CONSTABLE.

    MARSHALL, John,
       and the Federal Constitution of the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789;
          and SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

    MARSI, The.

          See SAXONS; also, FRANKS.

    MARSIAN WAR, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

    MARSIANS, The.

          See SABINES;
          also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

    MARSIGNI, The.

       The Marsigni were an ancient German tribe who inhabited "what
       is now Galatz, Jagerndorf and part of Silesia."

          Tacitus,
          Germany;
          Oxford translation, foot-note.

    MARSTON MOOR, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

    MARTHA'S VINEYARD:
       Named by Gosnold.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

    MARTIN,
       King of Aragon, A. D. 1395-1410;

       King of Sicily, A. D. 1409-1410.

       Martin I., Pope, 649-655.

       Martin I., King of Sicily, 1402-1409.

       Martin II. (or Marinus I.), Pope, 882-884.

       Martin II., King of Sicily, 1409-1410.

       Martin III. (or Marinus II.), Pope, 942-946.

       Martin IV., Pope, 1281-1285.

       Martin V., Pope, 1417-1431 (elected by the Council of Constance).

    {2091}

    MARTLING MEN.

       In February, 1806, when DeWitt Clinton and his political
       followers were organizing opposition to Governor Lewis, and
       were forming an alliance to that end with the political
       friends of Aaron Burr, a meeting of Republicans (afterwards
       called Democrats) was held at "Martling's Long Room," in New
       York City. Hence Mr. Clinton's Democratic opponents, "for a
       long time afterwards, were known in other parts of the state
       by the name of Martling Men."

          J. D. Hammond,
          History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
          volume 1, page 230.

    MARY
       (called Mary Tudor), Queen of England, A. D. 1553-1558.

       Mary of Burgundy, The Austrian marriage of.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

       Mary II., Queen of England
       (with King William III., her consort), 1689-1694.

       Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1567.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548, to 1561-1568;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

       Mary.

          See, also, MARIE.

       ----------MARYLAND: Start--------

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
       The charter granted to Lord Baltimore.
       An American palatinate.

       "Among those who had become interested in the London or
       Virginia, Company, under its second charter, in 1609, was Sir
       George Calvert, afterwards the founder of Maryland. … Upon
       the dissolution of the Virginia Company … he was named by
       the king one of the royal commissioners to whom the government
       of that colony was confided. Hitherto he had been a
       Protestant, but in 1624, having become unsettled in his
       religious convictions, he renounced the church of England, in
       which he had been bred, and embraced the faith of the Catholic
       church. Moved by conscientious scruples, he determined no
       longer to hold the office of secretary of state [conferred on
       him in 1619], which would make him, in a manner, the
       instrument of persecution against those whose faith he had
       adopted, and tendered his resignation to the king. … The
       king, … while he accepted his resignation, continued him as
       a member of his privy council for life, and soon after created
       him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore, in Ireland. The spirit of
       intolerance at that time pervaded England. … The laws
       against the Catholics in England were particularly severe and
       cruel, and rendered it impossible for any man to practice his
       religion in quiet and safety. Sir George Calvert felt this;
       and although he was assured of protection from the gratitude
       and affection of the king, he determined to seek another land
       and to found a new state, where conscience should be free and
       every man might worship God according to his own heart, in
       peace and perfect security. … At first he fixed his eyes on
       New-found-land, in the settlement of which he had been
       interested before his conversion. … Having purchased a ship,
       he sailed with his family to that island, in which, a few
       years before, he had obtained a grant of a province under the
       name of Avalon. Here he only resided two years [see
       NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655], when he found the climate and
       soil unsuited for the establishment of a flourishing
       community, and determined to seek a more genial country in the
       south. Accordingly, in 1628, he sailed to Virginia, with the
       intention of settling in the limits of that colony, or more
       probably to explore the uninhabited country on its borders, in
       order to secure a grant of it from the king. Upon his arrival
       within the jurisdiction of the colony, the authorities
       tendered him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which,
       as then framed, no Catholic could subscribe. Lord Baltimore
       refused to take them, but prepared a form of an oath of
       allegiance which he and all his followers were willing to
       accept. His proposal was rejected, and being compelled to
       leave their waters, he explored the Chesapeake above the
       settlements. He was pleased with the beautiful and well wooded
       country, which surrounded the noble inlets and indentations of
       the great bay, and determined there to found his principality.
       … He returned to England to obtain a grant from Charles I,
       who had succeeded his father, James I, upon the throne.
       Remembering his services to his father, and perhaps moved by
       the intercessions of Henrietta Maria, his Catholic queen, who
       desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members
       of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be
       issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before
       it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died,
       and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who
       succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and
       estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and
       the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named
       'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."

          J. McSherry,
          History of Maryland,
          introduction.

       "The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other
       colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the
       north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west
       and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the
       farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or
       western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by
       a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;
       and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.
       It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a
       large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and
       another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter
       of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges
       ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland
       into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving
       only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was
       made absolute lord of the land and water within his
       boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or
       peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare
       martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of
       justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil
       officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could
       erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer
       titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of
       England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of
       the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not
       impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He
       could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated
       according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint
       the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,
       'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by
       the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of
       Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The
       colonists and their descendants were to remain English
       subjects. …
    {2092}
       The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay
       no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon
       the people of the province. … This charter, by which
       Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed
       community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own
       hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in
       abeyance, the charter was never revoked."

          W. H. Browne,
          Maryland,
          chapter 2.

       The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is
       distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter,
       which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as
       ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,
       royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any
       bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of
       Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had,
       held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have,
       held, use, or enjoy."

          J. L. Bozman,
          History of Maryland,
          volume 2, page. 11.

          ALSO IN:
          H. W. Preston,
          Documents Illustrative of American History,
          page 62.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1633-1637.
       The planting of the colony at St. Mary's.

       "Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for
       Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's
       plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists,
       and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the
       foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were
       induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom
       they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were
       not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have
       been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so
       absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George
       Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had
       taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill
       repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of
       reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to
       take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the
       Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took
       over any minister of religion, nor for several years after
       Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On
       behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to
       Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits
       in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome,
       to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who
       were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy
       no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission
       field where they were to look for no support from the
       proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It
       was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen
       adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands
       like others, from which they were to draw their support. …
       The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the
       lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20
       other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey
       these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace,
       the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark,
       a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being
       captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley
       and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After
       many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed
       from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in
       safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor
       in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they
       named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and
       celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her
       altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March
       25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were
       made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White
       at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the
       river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met
       Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over
       that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the
       savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then
       the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream,
       emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For
       the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who
       had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a
       mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian
       town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had
       already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict
       justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the
       werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The
       Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the
       colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had
       gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with
       Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither
       attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the
       other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home
       in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name
       of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon
       at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were
       planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel
       was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a
       fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by
       the fact that Clayborne [a trading adventurer and a member of
       the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore
       and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent
       Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of
       Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too
       limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be
       reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share
       their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next
       year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the
       Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is
       preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the
       missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his
       arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope,
       sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the
       original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's
       scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom,
       and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less
       than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little
       colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of
       January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to
       attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was
       disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion
       was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as
       impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."

          J. G. Shea,
          The Catholic Church in Colonial Days,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Bozman,
          History of Maryland,
          chapter 1

          W. H. Browne,
          George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
          chapters 3-4.

    {2093}

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1634.
       Embraced in the palatine grant of New Albion.

          See NEW ALBION.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.
       The troubles with Clayborne.

       William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the
       Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to
       trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The
       King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of
       English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild
       land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right
       there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real
       injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians
       generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so
       strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was
       soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend
       his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was
       unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter,
       captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a
       rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble
       should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who
       had been in difficulties himself on account of his
       lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne,
       however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once
       to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On
       his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the
       King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not
       only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a
       large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good
       deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse
       decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon
       all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to
       wait for better times."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies in America,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Bozman,
          History of Maryland,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.
       Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.
       Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.

       The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the
       monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in
       Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its
       substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of
       the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644
       the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert
       commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the
       Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had
       begun to be active, since only three months later we find the
       Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard
       Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of
       Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while
       Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent
       Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the
       Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance,
       but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party
       was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the
       most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and
       Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an
       effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers
       landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the
       government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the
       value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert
       returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle.
       The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its
       supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute
       between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at
       least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out
       somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was
       brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in
       less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9,
       1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing
       position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a
       fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland.
       As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic
       priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges
       beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed
       his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a
       successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was
       a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two
       Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord
       Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest
       any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they
       accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman
       Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this
       protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also
       intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only
       acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to
       make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by
       a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The
       internal condition of the colony had now been substantially
       changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan
       party there had received an important addition. … A number
       of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves
       on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which
       was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of
       Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of
       Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration
       cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their
       settlement was important enough to be made into a separate
       county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed
       two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon
       140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of
       fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even
       that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled
       and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed
       to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding
       political views openly at variance with those of the
       Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent
       were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful.
       But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that
       in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable
       body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the
       Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the
       proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          G. P. Fisher,
          The Colonial Era,
           chapter 5.

    {2094}

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
       The Act of Toleration.

       Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law
       of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration
       existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in
       the earliest administration of the affairs of the province.
       But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from
       the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or
       indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person
       whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus
       Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers
       supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am
       inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented
       edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the
       charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the
       earliest practice of the government presents the first, the
       official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649
       the third, and to advocates of a republican government the
       most important phasis, in the history of the general
       Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to
       take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age.
       Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act
       Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever
       since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative
       annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to
       guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God';
       to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to
       establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing
       between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense,
       freedom as well as protection to all believers in
       Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every
       sort of reproach or ignominy."

          G. L. Davis,
          The Daystar of American Freedom,
          chapters 4-7.

       "In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a
       compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly.
       … It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time,
       and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the
       age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had
       been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the
       foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's
       rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power
       was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked
       so soon as he was reinstated."

          W. H. Browne,
          Maryland,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Browne,
          George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
          chapter 8.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1650-1675.
       In Puritan times, and after.

       "To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in
       populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,
       composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by
       Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of
       fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.
       Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now
       predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan
       faction had control. They elected one of their leaders
       Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath
       requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they
       passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting
       their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea
       of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary
       laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to
       have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their
       proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty
       was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William
       Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet
       conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a
       protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary
       rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence
       refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution
       of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of
       their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the
       prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland
       was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for
       the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,
       Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary
       commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality
       of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.
       … Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence
       settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided
       attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the
       Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a
       time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time
       when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,
       however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as
       Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in
       Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the
       Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the
       inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A
       flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added
       fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and
       Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,
       from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in
       England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the
       ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and
       relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the
       Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the
       Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always
       ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions
       and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the
       Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not
       toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.
       Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans
       did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had
       expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The
       proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
       Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was
       recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right
       to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make
       laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the
       obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest
       in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The
       solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the
       expense of the lord proprietary.
    {2095}
       In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard
       Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in
       the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but
       the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator
       species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore
       removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had
       attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the
       Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but
       gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was
       at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government
       supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first
       proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then
       succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of
       Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It
       would have been difficult to find at that time better
       governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and
       just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and
       well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and
       foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly
       stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious
       toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Grahame,
          History of the United States (Colonial),
          book 3 (volume 1).

          D. R. Randall,
           A Puritan Colony in Maryland.
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6).

          W. H. Browne,
          George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
          chapters 8-9.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.
       Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.
       Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.
       The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.
       Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.
       Change of faith and restoration of his son.
       Intolerance revived.

       Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his
       government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly
       attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his
       charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a
       suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and
       jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and
       peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the
       error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its
       friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct
       to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost
       equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal
       authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to
       every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the
       honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to
       desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he
       had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than
       king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his
       jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province,
       which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his
       descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were
       restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the
       legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy
       them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that
       province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the
       liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old
       administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of
       all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen;
       they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of
       England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating
       new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to
       the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and
       good sense of the government in England did not set some
       bounds to their bigotry."

          E. Burke,
          Account of the European Settlements in America,
          part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2).

       "We may now place side by side the three tolerations of
       Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty
       years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before
       the law, and all support to churches or ministers was
       voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and
       included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held
       objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty
       years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment,
       connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."

          W. H. Browne,
           Maryland,
          chapter 11.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1690.
       The first Colonial Congress.
       King William's War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
       The founding of Baltimore.

       "Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen
       Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were
       founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at
       once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage.
       … St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other
       waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the
       first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was
       the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and
       more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew
       off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined
       away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein
       slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on
       the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At
       least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation,
       and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly
       existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In
       1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a
       convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act
       was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land,
       whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the
       river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were
       bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre.
       The streets and lots were laid off in the following January,
       and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken
       up."

          W. H. Browne,
           Maryland,
          chapter 12.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.
       The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
       The French and Indian War.

          See
          CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
          OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
          NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
          and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

    {2096}

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.
       Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.
       Mason and Dixon's line.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
       Opening events of the Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;
          and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.
       The end of proprietary and royal government.
       Formation and adoption of a state constitution.

       "In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered
       peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony
       enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The
       Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last
       was treated with forbearance. … The political power was
       vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and
       provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much
       under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs
       that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former
       instructions against independence. … The popular leaders
       determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll
       of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from
       Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of
       independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the
       counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province,
       except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the
       decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed,
       pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new
       government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously
       resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the
       Congress equally delegated by the people of the United
       Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes,
       support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read
       the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams,
       'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.'
       Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag
       of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis;
       the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the
       series of royal governors on Maryland soil."

          R. Frothingham,
           The Rise of the Republic,
          pp. 525-527.

       "Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of
       August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a
       constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August
       this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of
       rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the
       constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections
       ordered to carry it into effect."

          J. McSherry,
          History of Maryland,
          chapter 10.

          See, also,
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1776-1779.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
       The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.
       Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.
       Resistance to the western territorial claims of states
       chartered to the Pacific Ocean.
       Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.
       Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1813.
       The coast of Chesapeake Bay harried by the British.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
          PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Secession activity.
       Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.
       Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
       Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.
       General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).
       Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.
       The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1863.
       Lee's second invasion.
       Gettysburg.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1864.
       Early's invasion.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).

    MARYLAND: A. D. 1867.
       The founding of Johns Hopkins University.

         See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

       ----------MARYLAND: End----------

    MARZOCCO.

       "'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone
       figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name
       shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be
       derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or
       aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          volume 4, page 103, foot-note.

    MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

    MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    MASKOUTENS,
    MASCONTENS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SACS, &c.

    MASNADA,

          See CATTANI.

    MASON, John, and his grant in New Hampshire.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

    MASON AND SLIDELL, The seizure of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).

    MASORETES,
    MASSORETES
    MASORETIC.

       When the Hebrew language had ceased to be a living language
       "the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth
       century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols
       which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the
       Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the
       great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance
       with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now
       taught."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 3.

       "Massora denotes, in general, tradition … ; but more
       especially it denotes the tradition concerning the text of the
       Bible. Hence those who made this special tradition their
       object of study were called Massoretes. … As there was an
       eastern and western, or Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, so
       likewise there developed itself a twofold Massora,—a
       Babylonian, or eastern, and a Palestinian, or western: the
       more important is the former. At Tiberias the study of the
       Massora had been in a flourishing condition for a long time.
       Here lived the famous Massorete, Aaron ben-Moses ben-Asher,
       commonly called Ben-Asher, in the beginning of the tenth
       century, who finally fixed the so-called Massoretic text."

          Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

    {2097}

    MASPIANS, The.

       One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 8, chapter 3.

    MASSACHUSETTS, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

       ----------MASSACHUSETTS: Start--------

    MASSACHUSETTS:
       The Name.

       "The name Massachusetts, so far as I have observed, is first
       mentioned by Captain Smith in his 'Description of New
       England,' 1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears
       to use the term Massachuset and Massachewset to denote the
       country, while he adds a final's' when he is speaking of the
       inhabitants. He speaks of Massachusets Mount and Massachusets
       River, using the word also in its possessive form; while in
       another place he calls the former 'the high mountain of
       Massachusit.' To this mountain, on his map, he gives the
       English name of 'Chevyot Hills.' Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes
       the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small
       hill near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem,
       was called Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to
       his time. Cotton, in his Indian vocabulary, says the word
       means 'a hill in the form of an arrow's head.' See, also,
       Neal's 'New England,' ii. 215, 216. In the Massachusetts
       charter the name is spelled in three or four different ways,
       to make sure of a description of the territory."

          C. Deane,
          New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 3, page 342, footnote).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1602.
       The Bay visited by Gosnold.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1605.
       The Bay visited by Champlain.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
       The Pilgrim Fathers.
       Whence and why they came to New England.

          See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
       The voyage of the Mayflower.
       The landing of the Pilgrims.
       The founding of Plymouth colony.

       The congregation of John Robinson, at Leyden, having, after
       long efforts, procured from the London Company for Virginia a
       patent or grant of land which proved useless to them, and
       having closed a hard bargain with certain merchants of London
       who supplied to some limited extent the means necessary for
       their emigration and settlement (see INDEPENDENTS, OR
       SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620), were prepared, in the summer of
       1620, to send forth the first pilgrims from their community,
       across the ocean, seeking freedom in the worship of God. "The
       means at command provided only for sending a portion of the
       company; and 'those that stayed, being the greater number,
       required the pastor to stay with them,' while Elder Brewster
       accompanied, in the pastor's stead, the almost as numerous
       minority who were to constitute a church by themselves; and in
       every church, by Robinson's theories, the 'governing elder,'
       next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must be 'apt to
       teach.' A small ship,—the 'Speedwell,'—of some 60 tons
       burden, was bought and fitted out in Holland, and early in
       July those who were ready for the formidable voyage, being
       'the youngest and strongest part,' left Leyden for embarkation
       at Delft-Haven, nearly 20 miles to the southward,—sad at the
       parting, 'but,' says Bradford, 'they knew that they were
       pilgrims.' About the middle of the second week of the month
       the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival
       there they found the 'Mayflower,' a ship of about 180 tons
       burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with
       their fellow passengers,—partly laborers employed by the
       merchants, partly Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who
       were disposed to join the colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there,
       to represent the merchants; but, when discussion arose about
       the terms of the contract, he went off in anger, leaving the
       contract unsigned, and the arrangements so incomplete that the
       Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds' worth of
       their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely
       necessary charges. The ships, with perhaps 120 passengers, put
       to sea about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well
       settled before winter; but the 'Speedwell' was soon pronounced
       too leaky to proceed without being overhauled, and so both ships
       put in at Dartmouth, after eight days' sail. Repairs were
       made, and before the end of another week they started again;
       but when about a hundred leagues beyond Land's End, Reynolds,
       the master of the' Speedwell,' declared her in imminent danger
       of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching
       Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel,
       and thus to send back those of the company whom such a
       succession of mishaps had disheartened. … It was not known
       till later that the alarm over the 'Speedwell's' condition was
       owing to deception practised by the master and crew. … At
       length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the Mayflower left
       Plymouth, and nine weeks from the following day, on November
       9/19, sighted the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time
       well-wooded shores of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth 102
       passengers, besides the master and crew; on the voyage one
       man-servant died and one child was born, making 102 (73 males
       and 29 females) who reached their destination. Of these, the
       colony proper consisted of 34 adult males, 18 of them
       accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children (20 boys
       and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and 19
       men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only
       half-grown boys,—who were hired for temporary service. Of the
       34 men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than half are
       known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but 4 of the 34 are
       certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions. … And
       whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured
       in 1619 in Mr. Wincob's name; but 'God so disposed as he never
       went nor they ever made use of this patent,' says Bradford,—not
       however making it clear when the intention of colonizing under
       this instrument was abandoned.
    {2098}
       The 'merchant adventurers' while negotiating at Leyden seem to
       have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in
       February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his
       associates; and this was more probably the authority under
       which the Mayflower voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had
       known before leaving Holland of an intended grant of the
       northern parts of Virginia to a new company,—the Council for
       New England,—when they found themselves off Cape Cod, 'the
       patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England,
       which belonged to another Government, with which the Virginia
       Company had nothing to do,' they changed the ship's course,
       with intent, says Bradford, 'to find some place about Hudson's
       River for their habitation,' and so fulfil the conditions of
       their patent; but difficulties of navigation and opposition
       from the master and crew caused the exiles, after half a day's
       voyage, to retrace their course and seek a resting-place on
       the nearest shore. … Their radical change of destination
       exposed the colonists to a new danger. As soon as it was
       known, some of the hired laborers threatened to break loose
       (upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full
       license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in
       the Virginia Company's patent. The necessity of some mode of
       civil government had been enjoined on the Pilgrims in the
       farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed of to
       restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the
       well-affected. A compact, which has often been eulogized as
       the first written constitution in the world, was drawn up. …
       Of the 41 signers to this compact, 34 were the adults called
       above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or
       hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter
       sort were perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them
       soon died), or the list of signers may be imperfect. This
       needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November
       11/21, by which time the Mayflower had rounded the Cape and
       found shelter in the quiet harbor on which now lies the
       village of Provincetown; and probably on the same day they
       'chose, or rather confirmed,' as Bradford has it, … Mr. John
       Carver governor for the ensuing year. On the same day an armed
       delegation visited the neighboring shore, finding no
       inhabitants. There were no attractions, however, for a
       permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a
       comfortable encampment while such a place was being sought."
       Some days were spent in exploring Cape Cod Bay, and the harbor
       since known as Plymouth Bay was chosen for the settlement of
       the colony. The exploring party landed, as is believed, at the
       famous Rock, on Monday December 11/21. "Through an unfortunate
       mistake, originating in the last century, the 22d has been
       commonly adopted as the true date. … Tradition divides the
       honor of being the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John
       Alden and Mary Chilton, but the date of their landing must
       have been subsequent to December 11 [N. S. 21]." It was not
       till the end of the week, December 16/26, that the Mayflower
       was anchored in the chosen haven. "The selection of a site and
       the preparation of materials, in uncertain weather, delayed
       till Monday, the 25th [January 4, N. S.] the beginning of 'the
       first house for common use, to receive them and their goods.'
       Before the new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and
       by the middle of January most of the company had left the ship
       for a home on land."

          F. B. Dexter,
          The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 3, chapter 8, with foot-notes).

       "Before the Pilgrims landed, they by a solemn instrument
       founded the Puritan republic. The tone of this instrument and
       the success of its authors may afford a lesson to
       revolutionists who sever the present from the past with the
       guillotine, fling the illustrious dead out of their tombs, and
       begin history again with the year one. These men had been
       wronged as much as the Jacobins. 'In the name of God. Amen. We
       whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
       Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great
       Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., having
       undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the
       Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage
       to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,
       do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of
       God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves
       together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and
       preservation, and for the furtherance of the ends aforesaid;
       and by virtue hereof to exact, constitute, and frame such just
       and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and
       offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for
       the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due
       submission and obedience.' And then follows the roll of
       plebeian names, to which the Roll of Battle Abbey is a poor
       record of nobility. There are points in history at which the
       spirit which moves the whole shows itself more clearly through
       the outward frame. This is one of them. Here we are passing
       from the feudal age of privilege and force to the age of due
       submission and obedience, to just and equal offices and laws,
       for our better ordering and preservation. In this political
       covenant of the Pilgrim fathers lies the American Declaration
       of Independence. From the American Declaration of Independence
       was borrowed the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
       France, rushing ill-prepared, though with overweening
       confidence, on the great problems of the eighteenth century,
       shattered not her own hopes alone, but nearly at the same
       moment the Puritan Republic, breaking the last slight link
       that bound it to feudal Europe, and placing modern society
       firmly and tranquilly on its new foundation. To the free
       States of America we owe our best assurance that the oldest,
       the most famous, the most cherished of human institutions are
       not the life, nor would their fall be the death, of social
       man; that all which comes of Charlemagne, and all which comes
       of Constantine, might go to the tombs of Charlemagne and
       Constantine, and yet social duty and affection, religion and
       worship, free obedience to good government, free reverence for
       just laws, continue as before. They who have achieved this
       have little need to talk of Bunker's Hill."

          Goldwin Smith,
          On the Foundation of the American Colonies
          (Lectures on the Study of History).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Bradford,
          History of Plymouth Plantation
          (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
          4th series, volume 3), book 1.

          Mourt's Relation,
          or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth;
          edited by H. M. Dexter.

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

    {2099}

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621.
       The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings.
       The Pierce patent.
       The naming of Plymouth.

       "The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when
       sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food.
       Within four months it carried off nearly half their number.
       Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February,
       and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or
       seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the
       dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the
       daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the
       unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with
       snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of
       those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little
       variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and
       the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and
       affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were
       interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial
       being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how
       the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and
       fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through
       the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to
       wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took
       the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In
       March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few
       natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly
       Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern
       coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a
       treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of
       the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54
       years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her
       homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which
       had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims
       to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of
       the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they
       had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after
       the departure of the Mayflower, Carver, the Governor, died.
       "Bradford was chosen to the vacant office, with Isaac
       Allerton, at his request, for his Assistant. Forty-six of the
       colonists of the Mayflower were now dead,—28 out of the 48
       adult men. Before the arrival of the second party of emigrants
       in the autumn, the dead reached the number of 51, and only an
       equal number survived the first miseries of the enterprise.
       … Before the winter set in, tidings from England had come,
       to relieve the long year's lonesomeness; and a welcome
       addition was made to the sadly diminished number. The Fortune,
       a vessel of 55 tons' burden, reached Plymouth after a passage
       of four months, with Cushman and some 30 other emigrants. The
       men who now arrived outnumbered those of their predecessors
       who were still living. … Some were old friends of the
       colonists, at Leyden. Others were persons who added to the
       moral as well as to the numerical strength of the settlement.
       But there were not wanting such as became subjects for anxiety
       and coercion." The Fortune also brought to the colonists a
       patent from the Council for New England, as it was commonly
       known—the corporation into which the old Plymouth Company, or
       North Virginia branch of the Virginia Company, had been
       transformed (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623). "Upon lands of
       this corporation Bradford and his companions had sat down
       without leave, and were of course liable to be summarily
       expelled. Informed of their position by the return of the
       Mayflower to England in the spring, their friends obtained
       from the Council a patent which was brought by the Fortune. It
       was taken out in the name of 'John Pierce, citizen and
       cloth-worker of London, and his associates,' with the
       understanding that it should be held in trust for the
       Adventurers, of whom Pierce was one. It allowed 100 acres of
       land to every colonist gone and to go to New England, at a
       yearly rent of two shillings an acre after seven years. It
       granted 1,500 acres for public uses, and liberty to 'hawk,
       fish, and fowl'; to 'truck, trade, and traffic with the
       savages'; to 'establish such laws and ordinances as are for
       their better government, and the same, by such officer or
       officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose, to put
       in execution'; and 'to encounter, expulse, repel, and resist
       by force of arms' all intruders. … The instrument was signed
       for the Council by the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Lenox,
       the Earl of Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando
       Gorges. … The precise time of the adoption of the name which
       the settlement has borne since its first year is not known.
       Plymouth is the name recorded on Smith's map as having been
       given to the spot by Prince Charles. It seems very likely that
       the emigrants had with them this map, which had been much
       circulated. … Morton (Memorial, 56) assigns as a reason for
       adopting it that 'Plymouth in Old England was the last town
       they left in their native country, and they received many
       kindnesses from some Christians there.' In Mourt, 'Plymouth'
       and 'the now well-defended town of New Plymouth' are used as
       equivalent. Later, the name Plymouth came to be appropriated
       to the town, and New Plymouth to the Colony."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, chapter 5, and foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Goodwin,
          The Pilgrim Republic,
          chapters 9-16.

          F. Baylies,
          Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth,
          volume 1, chapters 5-6.

          A. Young,
          Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.
       Weston at Wessagusset, Morton at Merrymount,
       and other settlements.

       "During the years immediately following the voyage of the
       Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the
       shores of Massachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers,
       Thomas Weston, took it into his head in 1622 to separate from
       his partners and send out a colony of seventy men on his own
       account. These men made a settlement at Wessagusset, some
       twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were a disorderly,
       thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, and soon
       got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were glad to
       get back to England as best they could, and in this the
       Plymouth settlers willingly aided them. In June of that same
       year 1622 there arrived on the scene a picturesque but ill
       understood personage, Thomas Morton, 'of Clifford's Inn,
       Gent.,' as he tells on the title-page of his quaint and
       delightful book, the 'New English Canaan.' Bradford
       disparagingly says that he 'had been a kind of petiefogger of
       Furnifell's Inn'; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares
       that he was a 'gentleman of good qualitie.'
    {2100}
       He was an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and came with some
       thirty followers, to make the beginnings of a royalist and
       Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay, He was
       naturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as
       by the later Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will
       probably bear taking with a grain or two of salt. In 1625
       there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented
       white servants, and established himself on the site of the
       present town of Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill
       suited to northern agriculture, he carried most of his men off
       to Virginia, where he sold them. Morton took possession of the
       site of the settlement, which he called Merrymount. There,
       according to Bradford, he set up a 'schoole of athisme,' and
       his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves 'as if
       they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman
       Goddes Flora, or the beastly practices of ye madd
       Bachanalians.' Charges of atheism have been freely hurled
       about in all ages. In Morton's case the accusation seems to
       have been based upon the fact that he used the Book of Common
       Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs of merry
       England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which
       they frolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they
       taught them the use of firearms and sold them muskets and rum.
       This was positively dangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the
       settlers at Merrymount were dispersed by Miles Standish.
       Morton was sent to England, but returned the next year, and
       presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other
       settlements were dotted about the coast. There were a few
       scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of
       the Piscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on
       Noddle's Island, and William Blackstone already lived upon the
       Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen
       were no friends to the Puritans; they were churchmen and
       representatives of Sir Ferdinando Gorges."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. F. Adams, Jr.,
          Old Planters about Boston Harbor
          (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, June, 1878).

          C. F. Adams, Jr.,
          Introduction to Morton's New English Canaan
          (Prince Society, 1883).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623.
       Grant to Robert Gorges on the Bay.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
       Plymouth Colony.
       Land allotments.
       Buying freedom from the adventurers at London.
       The new patent.

       "In 1623 the Ann and Little James, the former of 140 tons, and
       the latter of 44 tons, arrived with 60 persons to be added to
       the colony, and a number of others who had come at their own
       charge and on their own account. … The passengers in the Ann
       and Little James completed the list of those who are usually
       called the first-comers. The Ann returned to England in
       September, carrying Mr. Winslow to negotiate with the
       merchants, for needful supplies, and the Little James remained
       at Plymouth in the service of the company. … Up to that time
       the company had worked together on the company lands, and,
       each sharing in the fruits of another's labors, felt little of
       that personal responsibility which was necessary to secure the
       largest returns. … 'At length, after much debate of things,
       the Governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them)
       gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne
       perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all
       other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so
       assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the
       proportion of their number for that end. … This had very
       good success; for it made all hands very industrious.' …
       Such is the language of Bradford concerning a measure which
       was adopted from motives of necessity, but which was, to a
       certain extent, an infringement of the provisions of the
       contract with the adventurers. Before the planting season of
       the next year a more emphatic violation of the contract was
       committed. 'They (the colony) begane now highly to prise corne
       as more pretious then silver, and those that had some to spare
       begane to trade one with another for smale things, by the
       quarte, potle, & peck &C.: for money they had none, and if any
       had, corne was prefered before it. That they might therfore
       encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to
       the Governor to have some portion of land given them for
       continuance, and not by yearly lotte. … Which being well
       considered, their request was granted. And to every person was
       given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as nere the
       towne as might be, and they had no more till the 7 years were
       expired.' This experience gradually led the colony in the
       right track, and the growing necessity for some other
       circulating medium than silver secured abundant harvests."
       Winslow returned from England in 1624, "bringing, besides a
       good supply, '3 heifers & a bull the first begining of any
       catle of that kind in the land.' At that time there were 180
       persons in the colony, 'some cattle and goats, but many swine
       and poultry and thirty-two dwelling houses.' In the latter
       part of the year Winslow sailed again for England in the
       Little James and returned in 1625. The news he brought was
       discouraging to the colonists. The debt due to the adventurers
       was £1,400, and the creditors had lost confidence in their
       enterprise." On this intelligence, Capt. Standish was sent to
       England, followed next year by Mr. Allerton, "to make a
       composition with the adventurers," and obtain, if possible, a
       release from the seven years contract under which the
       colonists were bound. Allerton returned in 1627, having
       concluded an agreement with the adventurers at London for the
       purchase of all their rights and interests in the plantation,
       for the sum of £1,800. The agreement was approved by the
       colony, and Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster,
       Howland, Alden, and others, assumed the debt of £1,800, the
       trading privileges of the colony being assigned to them for
       their security. "In accordance with this agreement these
       gentlemen at once entered vigorously into the enterprise, and
       by the use of wampum, as a circulating medium, carried on so
       extensive a trade with the natives, in the purchase of furs
       and other articles for export to England as within the
       prescribed period [six years] to pay off the entire debt and
       leave the colony in the undisputed possession of their lands.
       No legal-tender scheme, in these later days, has been bolder
       in its conception, or more successful in its career, than that
       of the Pilgrim Fathers, which, with the shells of the shore,
       relieved their community from debt, and established on a
       permanent basis the wealth and prosperity of New England. …
    {2101}
       After the negotiations with the adventurers had been
       completed, the colonists were anxious to obtain another patent
       from the New England Company conferring larger powers and
       defining their territorial limits. After three visits to
       England, Allerton was sent a fourth time, in 1629, and secured
       a patent dated January 13, 1629 (old style), and signed by the
       Earl of Warwick on behalf of the Council of New England,
       enlarging the original grant, and establishing the boundaries
       of what has been since known as the Old Colony. It granted to
       William Bradford and his associates 'all that part of New
       England in America, the tract and tracts of land that lie
       within or between a certain rivolet or rundlett, then commonly
       caned Coahasset alias Conahasset, towards the north, and the
       river commonly called Naraganset river towards the south, and
       the great Western ocean towards the east," and between two
       lines described as extending, severally, from the mouth of the
       Naraganset and the mouth of the Coahasset, "up into the
       mainland westward," "to the utmost limits and bounds of a
       country or place in New England called Pokernacutt, alias
       Puckenakick, alias Sawaamset."

          W. T. Davis,
          Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
          chapter 2.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
       The Dorchester Company and the royal Charter to the Governor
       and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

       "While the people of Plymouth were struggling to establish
       their colony, some of the English Puritans, restless under the
       growing despotism of Charles, began to turn their eyes to New
       England. Under the lead of the Rev. John White, the Dorchester
       Company was formed for trading and fishing, and a station was
       established at Cape Ann [A. D. 1623]; but the enterprise did
       not prosper, the colonists were disorderly, and the Company
       made an arrangement for Roger Conant and others, driven from
       Plymouth by the rigid principles of the Separatists, to come
       to Cape Ann. Still matters did not improve and the Company was
       dissolved; but White held to his purpose, and Conant and a few
       others moved to Naumkeag, and determined to settle there.
       Conant induced his companions to persevere, and matters in
       England led to a fresh attempt; for discontent grew rapidly as
       Charles proceeded in his policy. A second Dorchester Company,
       not this time a small affair for fishing and trading, but one
       backed by men of wealth and influence, was formed, and a large
       grant of lands [from three miles north of the Merrimac to
       three miles south of the Charles, and to extend from the
       Atlantic to the Western Ocean] was made by the Council for New
       England to Sir Henry Roswell and five others [March, 1628].
       One of the six patentees, John Endicott, went out during the
       following summer with a small company, assumed the government
       at Naumkeag, which was now called Salem, and sent out
       exploring parties. The company thus formed in England was
       merely a voluntary partnership, but it paved the way for
       another and much larger scheme. Disaffection had become
       wide-spread. The Puritans began to fear that religious and
       political liberty alike were not only in danger but were
       doomed to destruction, and a large portion of the party
       resolved to combine for the preservation of all that was
       dearest to them by removal to the New World. The Dorchester
       Company was enlarged, and a royal charter was obtained
       incorporating the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,"
       March 4, 1629.

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies in America,
          chapter 18.

       "This [the royal charter named above] is the instrument under
       which the Colony of Massachusetts continued to conduct its
       affairs for 55 years. The patentees named in it were Roswell
       and his five associates, with 20 other persons, of whom White
       was not one. It gave power forever to the freemen of the
       Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor,
       Deputy-Governor, and 18 Assistants, on the last Wednesday of
       Easter term, and to make laws and ordinances not repugnant to
       the laws of England, for their own benefit and the government
       of persons inhabiting their territory. Four meetings of the
       Company were to be held in a year, and others might be
       convened in a manner prescribed. Meetings of the Governor,
       Deputy-Governor, and Assistants, were to be held once a month
       or oftener. The Governor, Deputy-Governor, and any two
       Assistants, were authorized, but not required, to administer
       to freemen the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The Company
       might transport settlers not 'restrained by special name.'
       They had authority to admit new associates, and establish the
       terms of their admission, and elect and constitute such
       officers as they should see fit for the ordering and managing
       of their affairs. They were empowered to 'encounter, repulse,
       repel, and resist by force of arms … all such person and
       persons as should at any time thereafter attempt or enterprise
       the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance to the said
       plantation or inhabitants.' Nothing was said of religious
       liberty. The government may have relied upon its power to
       restrain it, and the emigrants on their distance and obscurity
       to protect it."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

       "In anticipation of a future want the grantees resisted the
       insertion of any condition which should fix the government of
       the Company in England. Winthrop explicitly states that the
       advisers of the Crown had originally imposed such a condition,
       but that the patentees succeeded, not without difficulty, in
       freeing themselves from it. That fact is a full answer to
       those who held that in transferring the government to America
       the patentees broke faith with the Crown."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          Records of the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay;
          edited by N. B. Shurtleff,
          volume 1 (containing the Charter).

          S. F. Haven,
          Origin of the Company
          (Archœologia Americana, volume 3).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
       The immigration of the Governor and Company of
       Massachusetts Bay, with their Royal Charter.

       "Several persons, of considerable importance in the English
       nation, were now enlisted among the adventurers, who, for the
       unmolested enjoyment of their religion, were resolved to
       remove into Massachusetts. Foreseeing, however, and dreading
       the inconvenience of being governed by laws made for them
       without their own consent, they judged it more reasonable that
       the colony should be ruled by men residing in the plantation,
       than by those dwelling at a distance of three thousand miles,
       and over whom they should have no control. At a meeting of the
       company on the 28th of July [1629], Matthew Cradock, the
       governor, proposed that the charter should be transferred to
       those of the freemen who should become inhabitants of the
       colony, and the powers conferred by it be executed for the
       future in New England.
    {2102}
       An agreement was accordingly made at Cambridge, in England, on
       the 26th of August, between Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas
       Dudley, Isaac Johnson, John Winthrop, and a few others, that,
       on those conditions, they would be ready the ensuing March,
       with their persons and families, to embark for New England,
       for the purpose of settling in the country. The governor and
       company, entirely disposed to promote the measure, called a
       general court [at which, after a serious debate, adjourned
       from one day to the next,] … it was decreed that the
       government and the patent of the plantation should be
       transferred from London to Massachusetts Bay. An order was
       drawn up for that purpose, in pursuance of which a court was
       holden on the 20th of October for a new election of officers,
       who would be willing to remove with their families; and 'the
       court having received extraordinary great commendation of Mr.
       John Winthrop, both for his integrity and sufficiency, as
       being one very well fitted for the place, with a full consent
       chose him governor for the year ensuing.' … Preparations
       were now made for the removal of a large number of colonists,
       and in the spring of 1630 a fleet of 14 sail was got ready.
       Mr. Winthrop having by the consent of all been chosen for
       their leader, immediately set about making preparations for
       his departure. He converted a fine estate of £600 or £700 per
       annum into money and in March embarked on board the Arbella,
       one of the principal ships. Before leaving Yarmouth, an
       address to their fathers and brethren remaining in England was
       drawn up, and subscribed on the 7th of April by Governor
       Winthrop and others, breathing an affectionate farewell to the
       Church of England and their native land. … In the same ship
       with Governor Winthrop came Thomas Dudley, who had been chosen
       deputy governor after the embarkation, and several other
       gentlemen of wealth and quality; the fleet containing about
       840 passengers, of various occupations, some of whom were from
       the west of England, but most from the neighborhood of London.
       The fleet sailed early in April; and the Arbella arrived off
       Cape Ann on Friday, the 11th of June, and on the following day
       entered the harbor of Salem. A few days after their arrival,
       the governor, and several of the principal persons of the
       colony, made an excursion some 20 miles along the bay, for the
       purpose of selecting a convenient site for a town. They
       finally pitched down on the north side of Charles river
       (Charlestown), and took lodgings in the great house built
       there the preceding year; the rest of the company erected
       cottages, booths, and tents, for present accommodation, about
       the town hill. Their place of assembling for divine service
       was under a spreading tree. On the 8th of July, a day of
       thanksgiving was kept for the safe arrival of the fleet. On
       the 30th of the same month, after a day of solemn prayer and
       fasting, the foundation of a church was laid at Charlestown,
       afterwards the first church of Boston, and Governor Winthrop,
       Deputy Governor Dudley, and the Rev. Mr. Wilson, entered into
       church covenant. The first court of assistants was held at
       Charlestown, on the 23d of August, and the first question
       proposed was a suitable provision for the support of the
       gospel. Towards the close of autumn, Governor Winthrop and
       most of the assistants removed to the peninsula of Shawmut
       (Boston), and lived there the first winter, intending in the
       spring to build a fortified town, but undetermined as to its
       situation. On the 6th of December they resolved to fortify the
       isthmus of that peninsula; but, changing their minds before
       the month expired, they agreed upon a place about three miles
       above Charlestown, which they called first Newtown, and
       afterwards Cambridge, where they engaged to build houses the
       ensuing spring. The rest of the winter they suffered much by
       the severity of the season, and were obliged to live upon
       acorns, groundnuts, and shell-fish. … They had appointed the
       6th of February for a fast, in consequence of their alarm for
       the safety of a ship which had been sent to Ireland for
       provisions; but fortunately the vessel arrived on the 5th, and
       they ordered a public thanksgiving instead thereof."

          J. B. Moore,
          Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth
          and Massachusetts Bay;
          part 2: Winthrop.

          ALSO IN:
          R. C. Winthrop,
          Life and Letters of John Winthrop,
          volume 1, chapters 15-19,
          and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

          A. Young,
          Chronicles of the first Planters of Massachusetts Bay,
          chapters 14-19.

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.
       The founding of Boston.

       "The English people who came with Governor Winthrop first
       located upon the peninsula of Mishawum, which they called
       Charlestown. … They found here a single white man named
       Thomas Walford, living very peaceably and contentedly among
       the Indians. They also discovered that the peninsula of
       Shawmut had one solitary white inhabitant whose name was
       William Blackstone. They could see every day the smoke curling
       above this man's lonely cabin. He, too, was a Puritan
       clergyman, like many of those who had now come to make a home
       in the New World, free from the tyranny of the English
       bishops. Still another Englishman, Samuel Maverick by name,
       had built a house, and with the help of David Thompson, a fort
       which mounted four small cannon, truly called 'murtherers,'
       and was living very comfortably on the island that is now East
       Boston. And again, by looking across the bay, to the south,
       the smoke of an English cottage, on Thompson's Island, was
       probably seen stealing upward to the sky. So that we certainly
       know these people were the first settlers of Boston. But
       scarcity of water, and sickness, which soon broke out among
       them, made the settlers at Charlestown very discontented. They
       began to scatter. Indeed this peninsula was too small properly
       to accommodate all of them with their cattle. Therefore good
       William Blackstone, with true hospitality, came in their
       distress to tell them there was a fine spring of pure water at
       Shawmut, and to invite them there. Probably his account
       induced quite a number to remove at once; while others,
       wishing to make farms, looked out homes along the shores of
       the mainland, at Medford, Newtown (Cambridge), Watertown and
       Roxbury. A separate company of colonists also settled at
       Mattapan, or Dorchester. The dissatisfaction with Charlestown
       was so general that at last only a few of the original
       settlers remained there. … While those in chief authority
       were still undecided, Isaac Johnson, one of the most
       influential and honored men among the colonists, began, with
       others, in earnest, the settlement of Boston. He chose for
       himself the square of land now enclosed by Tremont, Court,
       Washington and School Streets.
    {2103}
       Unfortunately this gentleman, who was much beloved, died
       before the removal to Boston became general. … Although the
       chief men of the colony continued for some time yet to favor
       the plan of a fortified town farther inland, Boston had now
       become too firmly rooted, and the people too unwilling, to
       make a second change of location practicable, or even
       desirable. So this project was abandoned, though not before
       high words passed between Winthrop and Dudley about it. The
       governor then removed the frame of his new house from
       Cambridge, or Newtown, to Boston, setting it up on the land
       between Milk Street, Spring Lane, and Washington Street. One
       of the finest springs being upon his lot, the name Spring Lane
       is easily traced. The people first located themselves within
       the space now comprised between Milk, Bromfield, Tremont, and
       Hanover Streets, and the water, or, in general terms, upon the
       southeasterly slope of Beacon Hill. Pemberton Hill soon became
       a favorite locality. The North End, including that portion of
       the town north of Union Street, was soon built up by the new
       emigrants coming in, or by removals from the South End, as all
       the town south of this district was called. In time a third
       district on the north side of Beacon Hill grew up, and was
       called the West End. And in the old city these general
       divisions continue to-day. Shawmut, we remember, was the first
       name Boston had. Now the settlers at Charlestown, seeing
       always before them a high hill topped with three little peaks,
       had already, and very aptly too, we think, named Shawmut
       Trimountain [the origin of the name Tremont in Boston]. But
       when they began to remove there they called it Boston, after a
       place of that name in England, and because they had determined
       beforehand to give to their chief town this name. So says the
       second highest person among them, Deputy Governor Thomas
       Dudley. The settlers built their first church on the ground
       now covered by Brazer's Building, in State Street. …
       Directly in front of the meeting-house was the town
       market-place. Where Quincy Market is was the principal
       landing-place. The Common was set apart as a pasture-ground
       and training-field. … A beacon was set up on the summit of
       Trimountain and a fort upon the southernmost hill of the town.
       From this time these hills took the names of Windmill, Beacon,
       and Fort Hills."

          S. A. Drake,
          Around the Hub,
          chapter 2.

       "The order of the Court of Assistants,—Governor Winthrop
       presiding,—'That Trimontaine shall be called Boston,' was
       passed on the 7th of September, old style, or, as we now count
       it, the 17th of September, 1630. The name of Boston was
       specially dear to the Massachusetts colonists, from its
       association with the old St. Botolphs' town, or Boston, of
       Lincolnshire, England, from which the Lady Arbella Johnson and
       her husband had come, and where John Cotton was still
       preaching in its noble parish church. But the precise date of
       the removal of the Governor and Company to the peninsula is
       nowhere given."

          R. C. Winthrop,
          Boston Founded
          (Memorial History of Boston;
          edited by J. Winsor,
          volume 1), pages 116-117.

          ALSO IN:
          C. F. Adams, Jr.,
          Earliest Exploration and Settlement of Boston Harbor
          (Mem. History, pages 63-86).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
       The Puritan Theocracy and its intolerance.

       "The charter of the Massachusetts Company had prescribed no
       condition of investment with its franchise,—or with what
       under the circumstances which had arisen was the same thing,
       the prerogatives of citizenship in the plantation,—except the
       will and vote of those who were already freemen. At the first
       Cisatlantic General Court for election, 'to the end the body
       of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,' it
       was 'ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come, no man
       shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but
       such as are members of some of the churches within the limits
       of the same." The men who laid this singular foundation for
       the commonwealth which they were instituting, had been
       accustomed to feel responsibility, and to act upon
       well-considered reasons. By charter from the English crown,
       the land was theirs as against all other civilized people, and
       they had a right to choose according to their own rules the
       associates who should help them to occupy and govern it.
       Exercising this right, they determined that magistracy and
       citizenship should belong only to Christian men, ascertained
       to be such by the best test which they knew how to apply. They
       established a kind of aristocracy hitherto unknown."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

       "The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to
       Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic state which
       should be to Christians, under the New Testament dispensation,
       all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been
       to the Jews in Old Testament days. They should be to all
       intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction of the Stuart
       king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scriptures
       should be their guide both in weighty matters of general
       legislation and in the shaping of the smallest details of
       daily life. In such a scheme there was no room for religious
       liberty as we understand it."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          chapter 4.

       "The projected religious commonwealth was to be founded and
       administered by the Bible, the whole Bible, not by the New
       Testament alone. … They revered and used and treated the
       Holy Book as one whole. A single sentence from any part of it
       was an oracle to them: it was as a slice or crumb from any
       part of a loaf of bread, all of the same consistency. God, as
       King, had been the Lawgiver of Israel: he should be their
       Lawgiver too. … The Church should fashion the State and be
       identical with it. Only experienced and covenanted Christian
       believers, pledged by their profession to accordance of
       opinion and purpose with the original proprietors and exiles,
       should be admitted as freemen, or full citizens of the
       commonwealth. They would restrain and limit their own liberty
       of conscience, as well as their own freedom of action, within
       Bible rules. In fact,—in spirit even more than in the
       letter,—they did adopt all of the Jewish code which was in
       any way practicable for them. The leading minister of the
       colony was formally appointed by the General Court to adapt
       the Jewish law to their case [1636]; and it was enacted that,
       till that work was really done, 'Moses, his Judicials,' should
       be in full force. Mr. Cotton in due time presented the results
       of his labor in a code of laws illustrated by Scripture texts.
       This code was not formally adopted by the Court; but the spirit
       of it, soon rewrought into another body, had full sway. …
    {2104}
       That frankly avowed and practically applied purpose of the
       Fathers, of establishing here a Bible Commonwealth, 'under a
       due form of government, both civil and ecclesiastical,'
       furnishes the key to, the explanation of, all dark things and
       all the bright things in their early history. The young people
       educated among us ought to read our history by that simple,
       plain interpretation. The consciences of our Fathers were not
       free in our sense of that word. They were held under rigid
       subjection to what they regarded as God's Holy Word, through
       and through in every sentence of it, just as the consciences
       of their Fathers were held, under the sway of the Pope and the
       Roman Church. The Bible was to them supreme. Their church was
       based on it, modelled by it, governed by it; and they intended
       their State should be also."

          G. E. Ellis,
          Lowell Institute Lectures
          on the Early History of Massachusetts,
          pages 50-55.

       "Though communicants were not necessarily voters, no one could
       be a voter who was not a communicant; therefore the
       town-meeting was nothing but the church meeting, possibly
       somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By this
       insidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which
       they held till the charter fell. The minister stood at the
       head of the congregation and moulded it to suit his purposes
       and to do his will. … Common men could not have kept this
       hold upon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were
       learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds
       burned with fanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs
       and under their temptations persecution seemed to them not
       only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to
       Christ—and that duty they unflinchingly performed."

          B. Adams,
          The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 10.

          P. Oliver,
          The Puritan Commonwealth,
          chapter 2, part 1.

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          chapter 22 (volume 2).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1633-1635.
       Hostilities between the Plymouth Colony and
       the French on the Maine coast.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
       Threatening movements in England.
       The Charter demanded.

       "That the government of Charles I. should view with a hostile
       eye the growth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all
       surprising. The only fit ground for wonder would seem to be
       that Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a
       charter to the able and influential Puritans who organized the
       Company of Massachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king
       thought at first it would relieve him at home if a few dozen
       of the Puritan leaders could be allowed to concentrate their
       minds upon a project of colonization in America. It might
       divert attention for a moment from his own despotic schemes.
       Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and the
       Massachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island;
       and at all events the wealth of the Puritans might better be
       sunk in a remote and perilous enterprise than employed at home
       in organizing resistance to the crown. Such, very likely, may
       have been the king's motive in granting the Massachusetts
       charter two days after turning his Parliament out of doors.
       But the events of the last half-dozen years had come to
       present the case in a new light. The young colony was not
       languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought
       mischief to the schemes of Gorges; and what was more, it had
       begun to take unheard-of liberties with things ecclesiastical
       and political. Its example was getting to be a dangerous one.
       It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb upon
       Massachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles
       regarded as a promise made under duress which he was quite
       justified in breaking whenever it suited his purpose to do so.
       Enemies of Massachusetts were busy in England. Schismatics
       from Salem and revellers from Merrymount were ready with their
       tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason were vigorously
       pressing their territorial claims."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          chapter 3.

       In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was …
       removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special
       commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury,
       and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of
       the highest officers of State, were invested with full power
       to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates
       and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, …
       to revoke all charters and patents which had been
       surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties
       prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been
       governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of
       the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver
       it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it
       home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return
       any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of
       the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was
       brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that
       the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new
       governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the
       laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the
       magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to
       other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which,
       poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635,
       all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously
       declared against the reception of a general governor, saying:
       'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if
       not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this
       declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates
       should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be
       men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon
       emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might
       remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his
       associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by
       religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A
       change had come over the character of the great Plymouth
       council for the colonization of New England," which now
       schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its
       general charter, on the condition that the vast territory
       which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and
       others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in
       severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At
       the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto
       was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At
       the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in
       England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced
       against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood
       outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them.
    {2105}
       The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New
       Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of
       these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to
       redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many
       different humours,' took the government of New England into
       his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as
       governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and
       ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard
       of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had
       thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they
       no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their
       thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making
       ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the
       Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hutchinson,
          History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
          volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636.
       The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635; and 1636.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1637.
       The migration to Connecticut.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.
       The banishment of Roger Williams.

       "The intolerance of England had established the New England
       colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in
       their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the
       unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at
       Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous,
       having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to
       have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in
       questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his
       sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of
       toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called,
       state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was
       impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to
       Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to
       the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the
       assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its
       choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where
       he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to
       Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his
       congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of
       land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives.
       His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his
       satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over.
       But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of
       the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete
       separation from the Church of England, and denounced
       compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment.
       Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest
       extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of
       the people, and had no right to protect the people against
       itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as
       disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635,
       Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions
       were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice
       was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain
       the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be
       dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the
       court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed
       to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to
       depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks.
       The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their
       pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of
       New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to
       oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much
       taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a
       large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered
       round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the
       Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to
       ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to
       arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he
       had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory
       of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."

          A. Doyle,
          The American Colonies,
          chapter 2.

       "His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the
       holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air
       to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common
       earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was
       because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among
       whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and
       seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their
       community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of
       truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was
       not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his
       friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of
       his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be
       revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his
       sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of
       Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of
       gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities,
       and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of
       having procured his sentence, there was no private feud
       between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious
       persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.'
       Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of
       his life and conduct, to have been one of the most
       disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and
       heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says,
       'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their
       judgment led them to afflict me.'"

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          J. D. Knowles,
          Memoir of Roger Williams,
          chapters 3-5.

          E. B. Underhill,
          introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution'
          (Hansard Knollys Society).

          G. E. Ellis,
          The Puritan Age and Rule,
          chapter 8.

          See, also, RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

    {2106}

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
       Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.

       "The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian
       controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously
       near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts
       colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a
       time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable
       and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the
       interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously
       enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634,
       in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission.
       Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold
       spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak
       husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no
       ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her
       brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself
       again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here
       for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable
       woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and
       sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman
       question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than
       it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who
       was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years
       she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did
       likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a
       weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of
       Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over
       one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by
       nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and
       in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of
       it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she
       had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to
       inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian
       means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation
       to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external
       duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal,
       spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned
       construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by
       faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was
       understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by
       a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for
       outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or
       censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard,
       according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her
       admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that
       Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr.
       Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the
       ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the
       rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These
       reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing
       brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching
       inflammable material. … As the contention extended it
       involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and
       all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these
       five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be
       sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and
       leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly
       opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending
       influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come
       over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at
       the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy.
       "Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then
       the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him
       in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage
       counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two
       other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a
       majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt
       emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome
       by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of
       the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November,
       1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later
       at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long
       Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New
       Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were
       disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined;
       8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had
       asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a
       limitation of time within which they must do it. The more
       estimable and considerable of them apologized and were
       received back."

          G. E. Ellis,
          Lowell Institute Lectures on the
          Early History of Massachusetts,
          pages 95-100.

          ALSO IN:
          B. Adams,
          The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
          chapter 2.

          Ecclesiastical History of New England
          (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
          series 1, volume 9).

          G. E. Ellis,
          Life of Anne Hutchinson
          (Library of American Biographies,
          new series, volume 6).

          J. Anderson,
          Memorable Women of Puritan Times,
          volume 1, pages 185-220.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
       The Pequot War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
       The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.

       The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony,
       in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon
       what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637].
       Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the
       first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting
       here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original
       meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn
       Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which
       it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the
       situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until
       it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such
       'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all
       unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged
       to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this
       feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters
       had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably
       in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The
       Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was
       bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question
       of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could
       decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning
       point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge
       Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on
       its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement,
       eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and
       all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole
       mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the
       language of one of the leading divines who figured in that
       Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.'
    {2107}
       The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then
       somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual
       activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found
       ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John
       Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of
       Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental
       soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It
       was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of
       promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely
       acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the
       conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body
       of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the
       magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so
       held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some
       of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and
       patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some
       gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses
       of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some
       chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts
       and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical
       faction,—one of those most active in the work of
       repression,—describe to the life an active-minded,
       intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate
       that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition.
       It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,—
       the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an
       approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a
       theological glacier then slowly settled down upon
       Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly
       one hundred and fifty years."

          C. F. Adams,
          Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History,
          pages 10-59.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1638-1641.
       Introduction of Slavery.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1639.
       The first printing press set up.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644.
       The end of the Puritan exodus.
       Numerical growth and political development.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1641.
       Jurisdiction extended over New Hampshire.

          See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1642.
       The first Public School law.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1642-1732.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643.
       The Confederation of the Colonies.
       The growth of Plymouth.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654.
       Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
       The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.

       "There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who
       disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to
       members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New
       England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented
       in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of
       this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick,
       and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first
       sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems
       conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was
       nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical
       moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents
       which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil
       war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the
       leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of
       Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they
       simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised
       citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering
       wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of
       Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and
       the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to
       start for England with his grievances, the magistrates
       overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the
       parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that
       Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that
       a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule
       there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a
       crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The
       signers of this petition were the same who had signed the
       petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more
       heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found
       their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists
       sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart
       their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of
       the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's
       Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his
       friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of
       churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization
       of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was
       embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the
       Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the
       powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of
       magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid
       this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was
       adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the
       theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in
       Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the
       deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John
       Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Mather,
          Magnalia Christi Americana,
          book 5, part 2.

          B. Adams,
          The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
          chapter 3.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.
       Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England.

       "Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with
       Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her
       fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed
       her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over
       useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were
       of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her
       loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of
       Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have
       ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly
       approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of
       approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they
       received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered
       are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia
       pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,
       refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of
       royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not
       wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.
    {2108}
       The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general
       terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to
       be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and
       by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed
       that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of
       Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,
       under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With
       this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too
       wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition
       was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great
       force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope
       that, under the new government, things might not go worse with
       them than under that of the king, and that their charter might
       not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance
       was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of
       Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the
       colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no
       disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence
       of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the
       'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing
       Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the
       people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they
       were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and
       to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the
       world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of
       the lord protector was respectfully declined."

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: Puritan Colonies,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660.
       The absorption of Maine.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
       The persecution of the Quakers.

       "In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from
       Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women,
       arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once
       known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were
       'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at
       once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as
       they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into
       the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned,
       and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts.
       They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently
       without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor
       Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and
       women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and
       contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their
       'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which
       they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year
       closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments,
       "laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the
       Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour;
       Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon
       first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other
       ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction,
       their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these
       things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate,
       swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast
       getting more business than they could attend to. It was then
       determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a
       law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies,
       urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been
       banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread
       penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson
       and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September,
       1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott
       pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of
       October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a
       drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and
       Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind
       was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy.
       She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and
       valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now
       was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott
       again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a
       felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most
       pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no
       end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were
       whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished
       in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to
       death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and
       promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my
       testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of
       this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the
       succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or
       Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The
       death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought
       confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will
       this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott
       found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence
       Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the
       sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the
       prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty,
       much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in
       England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately
       restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England
       (September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent
       from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott
       [the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'],
       commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned
       in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This
       ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the
       Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."

          C. W. Elliott,
          The New England History,
          volume 1, chapter 36.

       "Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have
       assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the
       deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition
       in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter …
       had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal
       demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The
       general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under
       the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was
       ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was
       dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of
       relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the
       stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of
       the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had
       opened the gates of mercy."

          G. E. Ellis,
          The Puritan Age and Rule,
          pp. 477-479.

    {2109}

       While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail,
       "the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth,
       recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these
       dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so
       far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they
       had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger
       Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full
       accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly.
       'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only
       declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning
       the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal
       condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are
       'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only
       opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all
       desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be
       punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be
       respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and
       Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing,
       threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which
       forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus
       protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed
       his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated
       colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. …
       Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          B. Adams,
          The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
          chapter 5.

          R. P. Hallowell,
          The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662.
       The Halfway Covenant.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
       Under the Restored Monarchy.
       The first collision with the crown.

       "In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his
       ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the
       accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General
       Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In
       the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice,
       together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley,
       the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received
       in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression
       of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions
       of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and
       something seemed to forebode an early collision with the
       crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a
       declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and
       published. In this document the people affirmed their right
       'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and
       representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at
       their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior
       and inferior, and point out their power and places; to
       exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies,
       all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial;
       to defend themselves by force of arms against every
       aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights,
       any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the
       country, and contrary to any just act of colonial
       legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of
       Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the
       drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was
       celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the
       colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights;
       and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by
       those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion
       was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining,
       with the charter, an independent government in undiminished
       force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In
       the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to
       moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to
       England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to
       convince the king of the loyalty of the people of
       Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their
       present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor
       the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,'
       the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February,
       1662. In England they were courteously received by king
       Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a
       confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past
       offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the
       irregularities which had been complained of in the government;
       directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority;
       the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of
       justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to
       all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of
       the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the
       allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the
       booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the
       manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king
       proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts.
       With them the question of obedience became a question of
       freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to
       divide the colony until the establishment of actual
       independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately
       with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to
       do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America
       "that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the
       affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken.
       The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a
       committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe
       keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to
       give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships.
       Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships,
       except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about
       five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by
       three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They
       were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch
       settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile
       to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to
       determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and
       matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to
       'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the
       peace and security of the country, according to their good and
       sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George
       Cartwright were the chief members of the commission.
    {2110}
       At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal
       warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the
       assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch.
       Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On
       the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of
       affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was
       agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve
       against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should
       be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects,
       being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by
       the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not
       vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not
       members of the church.' Before the session closed,
       Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of
       complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited
       address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the
       commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they
       were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could
       call in question "the privilege of government within
       themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to
       hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston
       merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor
       who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king,
       any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully
       departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy
       of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor
       Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We
       have already furnished our views in writing [said the General
       Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare
       our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was
       followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with
       the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with
       his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and
       thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good
       government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country,
       and their God, flourished in purity and peace."

          G. L. Austin,
          History of Massachusetts,
          chapter 4.

          Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
          volume 4, part 2.

          See, also,
          NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
       The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.

       "Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success,
       there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could
       England have been so safely defied. … The discord between
       the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the
       wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of
       Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal
       followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in
       1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the
       debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In
       March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De
       Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the
       Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during
       these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not
       molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during
       which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. …
       With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened,
       and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon
       Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for
       injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the
       heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of
       Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king,
       reserving one third of the product of the customs for
       themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under
       the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in
       the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of
       complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions
       relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these
       questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its
       share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to
       feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and
       manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the
       American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental
       ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to
       carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now
       appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to
       act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted;
       and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was
       chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to
       Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing
       that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering
       them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report
       upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it
       was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian
       war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The
       repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles
       was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and
       they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as
       to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings,
       their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett
       was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his
       contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but
       an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been
       difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from
       bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to
       make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever
       knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision
       had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy
       concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they
       be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their
       instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the
       General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and
       having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the
       territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. …
       The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the
       two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company;
       and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a
       doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And
       now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in
       all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to
       the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250
       pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of
       Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never
       paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it
       made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord
       Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight
       which was never forgiven.
    {2111}
       Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other
       matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the
       attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his
       opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the
       spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors
       alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her
       patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments
       and injuries which she had continually practised on her
       neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised
       that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter.
       Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now
       saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court
       ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but
       perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms
       were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the
       clergy were determined upon those matters touching their
       authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the
       emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population
       changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been
       the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of
       Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the
       opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had
       lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations
       were no longer united in support of the policy of their
       pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession,
       while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of
       this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to
       which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the
       Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable.
       The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course
       of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its
       destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He
       declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue
       laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he
       hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other
       colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect.
       There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of
       annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was
       hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made
       a series of reports to the government which seem to have
       produced the conviction that the moment for action had come.
       In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and
       auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. …
       Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by
       the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles
       might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution
       of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became
       impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen
       agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar
       tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were
       urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the
       stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to
       alterations in the qualifications required for the admission
       of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the
       king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt
       at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation
       would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and
       Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo
       warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration
       promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter
       should be restored with only such changes as the public
       welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political
       sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The
       magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship:
       they saw that a breach with England must destroy all
       safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to
       the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove
       against them: the privileges of their order were at stake;
       they felt that the loss of their importance would be
       'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's
       kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to
       resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the
       church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and
       guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected
       the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain
       Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays
       as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon
       the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that
       no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical
       reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of
       'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18,
       1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and
       plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time
       allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment
       was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan
       Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang
       from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great
       and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a
       priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the
       government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive.
       Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it
       must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from
       without."

          Brooks Adams,
          The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
          chapter 6.

       "December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in
       the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King
       James for the government of New England."

          T. Hutchinson,
          History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          G. E. Ellis,
          Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,
          chapter 13.

          C. Deane,
          The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.
          (Memorial History of Boston,
          volume 1, pages 329-382).

          Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay,
          volume 5.

          See, also,
          NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678.
       King Philip's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679.
       The severance of New Hampshire.

          See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

    {2112}

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
       The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.

       "With the charter were swept away representative government,
       and every right and every political institution reared during
       half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the
       model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh
       despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched
       misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this
       arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon
       a people of English race, who had been independent and
       self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own
       pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had
       promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the
       intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against
       taxation without representation, and he awakened a like
       resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed
       to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst
       of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the
       old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for
       renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who
       resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty
       and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by
       forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for
       the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in
       courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people
       and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from
       unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready
       to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange.
       Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a
       proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without
       apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the
       signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people
       poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at
       the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen,
       merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of
       Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission,
       and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley
       were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the
       captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the
       guns of the fort, and a provisional government was
       established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary
       were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon
       went back a prisoner to England."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies,
          chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3).

          The Andros Tracts;
          edited by w. H. Whitmore
          (Prince Society, 1868).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
       The procuring of the new Charter.
       The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.
       The absorption of Plymouth.

       A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship
       from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation
       of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body
       of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from
       their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified
       that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was
       published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the
       representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met
       at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be
       forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners
       but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions
       were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the
       unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they
       could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many
       opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was
       resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be
       continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious
       of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used
       prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase
       Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took
       place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with
       the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance
       that he would remove Andros from the government of New England
       and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious
       for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges,
       under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent
       applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the
       wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent
       judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first
       a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of
       Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional
       privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of
       Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the
       reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of
       New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies
       opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a
       grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But
       before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been
       acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was
       prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to
       be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the
       king, continuing the government of the colony under the old
       charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and
       his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the
       trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir
       Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed,
       and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of
       Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of
       chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of
       the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the
       agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to
       relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter,
       and "application was made for a new grant, which should
       confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in
       addition as the experience of the people had taught them would
       be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the
       affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the
       attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to
       be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to
       attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with
       Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that
       Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should
       be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former
       more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought
       about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence
       averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was
       objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the
       powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king.
       The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents
       were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as
       plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were
       unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty
       would settle the country without them, and they might take
       what would follow.'
    {2113}
       Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would
       submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the
       king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather
       opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter
       was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories
       of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther
       east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were
       to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary,
       appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the
       people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last
       Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw
       fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to
       represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was
       conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of
       forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least
       forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the
       oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of
       the province and their children were entitled to the liberties
       of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was
       secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a
       negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without
       his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his
       sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and
       if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no
       effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy
       taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial
       law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an
       requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a
       far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It
       effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of
       government, the powers of the people, and the entire
       foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a
       new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown
       was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692,
       that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor
       of the new province."

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Whitmore,
          The Inter-Charter Period
          (Memorial History of Boston, volume 2).

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Colonial Era,
          chapter 13.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1697.
       King William's War.
       Temporary conquest of Acadia.
       Disastrous expedition against Quebec.
       Threatened attack by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1690.
       The first Colonial Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
       The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its beginning.

       "The people of Massachusetts in the 17th century, like all
       other Christian people at that time,—at least, with extremely
       rare individual exceptions,—believed in the reality of a
       hideous crime called 'witchcraft.' … In a few instances
       witches were believed to have appeared in the earlier years of
       New England. But the cases had been sporadic. … With three
       or four exceptions … no person appears to have been punished
       for witchcraft in Massachusetts, nor convicted of it, for more
       than sixty years after the settlement, though there had been
       three or four trials of other persons suspected of the crime.
       At the time when the question respecting the colonial charter
       was rapidly approaching an issue, and the public mind was in
       feverish agitation, the ministers sent out a paper of
       proposals for collecting facts concerning witchcrafts and
       other 'strange apparitions.' This brought out a work from
       President [Increase] Mather entitled 'Illustrious
       Providences,' in which that influential person related
       numerous stories of the performances of persons leagued with
       the Devil. The imagination of his restless young son [Cotton
       Mather] was stimulated, and circumstances fed the flame." A
       poor Irish washerwoman, in Boston, accused by some malicious
       children named Goodwin, who played antics which were supposed
       to signify that they had been bewitched, was tried, convicted
       and sent to the gallows (1688) as a witch. "Cotton Mather took
       the oldest 'afflicted' girl to his house, where she
       dexterously played upon his self-conceit to stimulate his
       credulity. She satisfied him that Satan regarded him as his
       most terrible enemy, and avoided him with especial awe. …
       Mather's account of these transactions ['Late Memorable
       Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions'], with a
       collection of other appropriate matter, was circulated not
       only in Massachusetts, but widely also in England, where it
       obtained the warm commendation of Richard Baxter; and it may
       be supposed to have had an important effect in producing the
       more disastrous delusion which followed three years after. …
       Mr. Samuel Parris was minister of a church in a part of Salem
       which was then called 'Salem Village,' and which now as a
       separate town bears the name of Danvers. He was a man of
       talents, and of repute for professional endowments, but
       avaricious, wrong-headed, and ill-tempered. Among his
       parishioners, at the time of his installation and afterwards,
       there had been angry disputes about the election of a
       minister, which had never been composed. Neighbors and
       relations were embittered against each other. Elizabeth
       Parris, the minister's daughter, was now nine years old. A
       niece of his, eleven years old, lived in his family. His
       neighbor, Thomas Putnam, the parish clerk, had a daughter
       named Ann, twelve years of age. These children, with a few
       other young women, of whom two were as old as twenty years or
       thereabouts, had become possessed with a wild curiosity about
       the sorceries of which they had been hearing and reading, and
       used to hold meetings for study, if it may be so called, and
       practice. They learned to go through motions similar to those
       which had lately made the Goodwin children so famous. They
       forced their limbs into grotesque postures, uttered unnatural
       outcries, were seized with cramps and spasms, became incapable
       of speech and of motion. By and by [March, 1692], they
       interrupted public worship. … The families were distressed.
       The neighbors were alarmed. The physicians were perplexed and
       baffled, and at length declared that nothing short of witchery
       was the trouble. The kinsfolk of the 'afflicted children'
       assembled for fasting and prayer. Then the neighboring
       ministers were sent for, and held at Mr. Parris's house a
       prayer-meeting which lasted through the day. The children
       performed in their presence, and the result was a confirmation
       by the ministers of the opinion of the doctors. Of course, the
       next inquiry was by whom the manifest witchcraft was
       exercised.
    {2114}
       It was presumed that the unhappy girls could give the answer.
       For a time they refused to do so. But at length, yielding to
       an importunity which it had become difficult to escape unless
       by an avowal of their fraud, they pronounced the names of
       Good, Osborn, and Tituba. Tituba—half Indian, half
       negro—was a servant of Mr. Parris, brought by him from
       Barbadoes, where he had formerly been a merchant. Sarah Good
       was an old woman, miserably poor. Sarah Osborn had been
       prosperous in early life. She had been married twice, and her
       second husband was still living, but separated from her. Her
       reputation was not good, and for some time she had been
       bedridden, and in a disturbed nervous state. … Tituba,
       whether in collusion with her young mistress, or, as was
       afterwards said, in consequence of having been scourged by Mr.
       Parris, confessed herself to be a witch, and charged Good and
       Osborn with being her accomplices. The evidence was then
       thought sufficient, and the three were committed to gaol for
       trial. Martha Corey and Rebecca Nourse were next cried out
       against. Both were church-members of excellent character, the
       latter, seventy years of age. They were examined by the same
       Magistrates, and sent to prison, and with them a child of
       Sarah Good, only four or five years old, also charged with
       diabolical practices."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          book 4, chapter 4 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          C. W. Upham,
          Salem Witchcraft,
          part 3 (volume 2).

          S. G. Drake,
          Annals of Witchcraft in New England.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
       The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its culmination.

       "Now a new feature of this thing showed itself. The wife of
       Thomas Putnam joined the children, and 'makes most terrible
       shrieks' against Goody Nurse—that she was bewitching her,
       too. On the 3d of April, Minister Parris preached long and
       strong from the Text, 'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one
       of you is a devil?' in which he bore down so hard upon the
       Witches accused that Sarah Cloyse, the sister of Nurse, would
       not sit still, but 'went out of meeting'; always a wicked
       thing to do, as they thought, but now a heinous one. At once
       the children cried out against her, and she was clapt into
       prison with the rest. Through the months of April and May,
       Justices Hawthorne and Curwin (or Corwin), with Marshal George
       Herrick, were busy getting the Witches into jail, and the good
       people were startled, astounded, and terror-struck, at the
       numbers who were seized. … Bridget Bishop, only, was then
       brought to trial, for the new Charter and new Governor
       (Phips), were expected daily. She was old, and had been
       accused of witchcraft twenty years before. … So, as there
       was no doubt about her, she was quickly condemned, and hung on
       the 10th day of this pleasant June, in the presence of a crowd
       of sad and frightened people. … The new Governor, Phips, one
       of Mather's Church, fell in with the prevailing fear, and a
       new bench of special Judges, composed of Lieutenant-Governor
       Stoughton, Major Saltonstall, Major Richards, Major Gidney,
       Mr. Wait Winthrop, Captain Sewall, and Mr. Sargent, were sworn
       in, and went to work. On the 30th of June, Sarah Good, Rebeka
       Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilder, were
       brought to trial; all were found guilty, and sentenced to
       death, except Nurse, who, being a Church member, was acquitted
       by the jury. At this, the 'afflicted' children fell into fits,
       and others made great outcries; and the popular
       dissatisfaction was so great, that the Court sent them back to
       the jury room, and they returned shortly, with a verdict of
       Guilty! The Rev. Mr. Noyes, of Salem, then excommunicated
       Nurse, delivered her to Satan, and they all were led out to
       die. Minister Noyes told Susannah Martin that she was a witch,
       and knew it, and she had better confess it; but she refused,
       and told him that 'he lied,' and that he knew it; and, 'that
       if he took away her life, God would give him blood to drink;'
       which curse is now traditionally believed, and that he was
       choked with blood. They were hanged, protesting their
       innocence; and there was none to pity them. On the 5th of
       August, a new batch was haled before the Court. Reverend
       George Burroughs, John Proctor and his wife, John Willard,
       George Jacobs, and Martha Carrier. Burroughs was disliked by
       some of the Clergy, for he was tinctured with Roger Williams's
       Heresies of Religious Freedom; and he was particularly
       obnoxious to Mather, for he had spoken slightingly of
       witchcraft, and had even said there was no such thing as a
       witch. Willard had been a constable employed in seizing
       witches, but, becoming sick of the business, had refused to do
       it any more. The children at once cried out, that he, too, was
       a witch; he fled for his life, but was caught at Nashua, and
       brought back. Old Jacobs was accused by his own
       grand-daughter; and Carrier was convicted upon the testimony
       of her own children. They were all quickly convicted and
       sentenced. … All but Mrs. Proctor saw the last of earth on
       the 19th of August. They were hanged on Gallows Hill. Minister
       Burroughs made so moving a prayer, closing with the Lord's
       Prayer, which it was thought no witch could say, that there
       was fear lest the crowd should hinder the hanging. As soon as
       he was turned off, Mr. Mather, sitting on his horse, addressed
       the people, to prove to them that Burroughs was really no
       Minister, and to show how he must be guilty, notwithstanding
       his prayer, for the devil could change himself into an angel
       of light. … Giles Cory, an old man of 80, saw that the
       accused were prejudged, and refused to plead to the charge
       against him. What could be done with him? It was found that
       for this, by some sort of old law, he might be pressed to
       death. So on the 16th of September, just as the autumn tints
       were beginning to glorify the earth, he was laid on the
       ground, bound hand and foot, and stones were piled upon him,
       till the tongue was pressed out of his mouth; 'the Sheriff
       with his cane forced it in again when he was dying.' Such
       cruel things did fear—fear of the Devil—lead these people
       to do. He was the first and last who died in New England in
       this way. On the 22d of September, eight of the sentenced were
       carted up Gallows Hill and done to death. Amid a great
       concourse of men, women, and children, from the neighboring
       villages, and from Boston, the victims went crying and
       singing, dragged through the lines of terror-stricken or
       pitying people. Some would have rescued them, but they had no
       leaders, and knew not how to act; so that tragedy was
       consummated; and the Reverend Mr. Noyes, pointing at them,
       said, 'What a sad thing it is to see eight fire-brands of hell
       hanging there!' Sad indeed!
    {2115}
       Nineteen had now been hung. One pressed to death. Eight were
       condemned. A hundred and fifty were in prison; and two hundred
       more were accused by the 'afflicted.' Some fifty had
       acknowledged themselves witches, of whom not one was executed.
       … It was now October, and this mischief seemed to be
       spreading like fire among the dry grass of the Prairies; and a
       better quality of persons was beginning to be accused by the
       bewitched. … But these accusations made people consider, and
       many began to think that they had been going on too fast. 'The
       juries changed sooner than the judges, and they sooner than
       the Clergy.' 'At last,' says one of them, 'it was evidently
       seen that there must be a stop put, or the generation of the
       church of God would fall under that condemnation.' In other
       words, the better class of church members were in danger! At
       the January session, only three were convicted, and they were
       reprieved; whereat Chief Justice Stoughton rose in anger, and
       said, 'The Lord be merciful to this country!' In the spring,
       Governor Phips, being about to leave the country, pardoned all
       who were condemned, and the jails were delivered. The
       excitement subsided as rapidly as it had arisen, but the evil
       work was done."

          C. W. Elliott,
          The New England History,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          S. P. Fowler, editor,
          Salem Witchcraft (including Calef's
          "More Wonders of the Invisible World," etc.).

          C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder,
          Historical Sketch of Salem,
          chapter 2.

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692-1693.
       The Salem Witchcraft madness: its ending, and the reaction.

       "On the second Wednesday in October, 1692, about a fortnight
       after the last hanging of eight at Salem, the representatives
       of the colony assembled; and the people of Andover, their
       minister joining with them, appeared with their remonstrance
       against the doings of the witch tribunals. Of the discussions
       that ensued no record is preserved; we know only the issue.
       The general court ordered by bill a convocation of ministers,
       that the people might be led in the right way as to the
       witchcraft. … They abrogated the special court, established
       a tribunal by statute, and delayed its opening till January of
       the following year. This interval gave the public mind
       security and freedom; and though Phips still conferred the
       place of chief judge on Stoughton, yet jurors acted
       independently. When, in January, 1693, the court met at Salem,
       six women of Andover, renouncing their confessions, treated
       the witchcraft but as something so called, the bewildered but
       as 'seemingly afflicted.' A memorial of like tenor came from
       the inhabitants of Andover. Of the presentments, the grand
       jury dismissed more than half; and of the twenty-six against
       whom bills were found through the testimony on which others
       had been condemned, verdicts of acquittal followed. … The
       people of Salem village drove Parris from the place; Noyes
       regained favor only by a full confession and consecrating the
       remainder of his life to deeds of mercy. Sewall, one of the
       judges, by rising in his pew in the Old South meeting-house on
       a fast-day and reading to the whole congregation a paper in
       which he bewailed his great offence, recovered public esteem.
       Stoughton never repented. The diary of Cotton Mather proves
       that he, who had sought the foundation of faith in tales of
       wonders, himself 'had temptations to atheism, and to the
       abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion.'"

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

       "It was long before the public mind recovered from its
       paralysis. No one knew what ought to be said or done, the
       tragedy had been so awful. The parties who had acted in it
       were so numerous, and of such standing, including almost all
       the most eminent and honored leaders of the community from the
       bench, the bar, the magistracy, the pulpit, the medical
       faculty, and in fact all classes and descriptions of persons;
       the mysteries connected with the accusers and confessors; the
       universal prevalence of the legal, theological, and
       philosophical theories that had led to the proceedings; the
       utter impossibility of realizing or measuring the extent of
       the calamity; and the general shame and horror associated with
       the subject in all minds; prevented any open movement. … Dr.
       Bentley describes the condition of the community in some brief
       and pregnant sentences … : 'As soon as the judges ceased to
       condemn, the people ceased to accuse. … Terror at the
       violence and guilt of the proceedings succeeded instantly to
       the conviction of blind zeal; and what every man had
       encouraged all professed to abhor. Few dared to blame other
       men, because few were innocent. The guilt and the shame became
       the portion of the country, while Salem had the infamy of
       being the place of the transactions.'"

          C. W. Upham,
          Salem Witchcraft,
          volume 2, supplement.

       "The probability seems to be that those who began in harmless
       deceit found themselves at length involved so deeply, that
       dread of shame and punishment drove them to an extremity where
       their only choice was between sacrificing themselves, or
       others to save themselves. It is not unlikely that some of the
       younger girls were so far carried along by imitation or
       imaginative sympathy as in some degree to 'credit their own
       lie.' … Parish and boundary feuds had set enmity between
       neighbors, and the girls, called on to say who troubled them,
       cried out upon those whom they had been wont to hear called by
       hard names at home. They probably had no notion what a
       frightful ending their comedy was to have; but at any rate
       they were powerless, for the reins had passed out of their
       hands into the sterner grasp of minister and magistrate. …
       In one respect, to which Mr. Upham first gives the importance
       it deserves, the Salem trials were distinguished from all
       others. Though some of the accused had been terrified into
       confession, yet not one persevered in it, but all died
       protesting their innocence, and with unshaken constancy,
       though an acknowledgment of guilt would have saved the lives
       of all. This martyr proof of the efficacy of Puritanism in the
       character and conscience may be allowed to outweigh a great
       many sneers at Puritan fanaticism."

          J. R. Lowell,
          Witchcraft
          (Among My Books, series 1).

          ALSO IN:
          G. M. Beard,
          Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1703-1711.
       Queen Anne's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1704.
       The first Newspaper.

          See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1722-1725.
       Renewed War with the northeastern Indians.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

    {2116}

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1744-1748.
       King George's War.
       The taking of Louisbourg and its restoration to France.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1754.
       The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's plan of Union.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755.
       Expedition against Fort Beau Séjour in Nova Scotia.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755-1760.
       The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
          NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
          OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
          CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
       Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
       The Writs of Assistance and Otis's speech.

       "It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French
       in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws
       more strictly than heretofore; and trouble was at once
       threatened. Charles Paxton, the principal officer of the
       custom-house in Boston, applied to the Superior Court to grant
       him the authority to use 'writs of assistance' in searching
       for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a general
       search-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter,
       by force if necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where
       contraband goods were supposed to be stored or hidden. A
       special search-warrant was one in which the name of the
       suspected person, and the house which it was proposed to
       search, were accurately specified, and the goods which it was
       intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the
       use of such special warrants there was not much danger of
       gross injustice or oppression. … But the general
       search-warrant, or 'writ of assistance,' as it was called
       because men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by
       giving them innocent names, was quite a different affair. It
       was a blank form upon which the custom-house officer might
       fill in the names of persons and descriptions of houses and
       goods to suit himself. … The writ of assistance was
       therefore an abominable instrument of tyranny. Such writs had
       been allowed by a statute of the evil reign of Charles II.; a
       statute of William III. had clothed custom-house officers in
       the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed in
       England; and neither of these statutes had been repealed.
       There can therefore be little doubt that the issue of such
       search-warrants was strictly legal, unless the authority of
       Parliament to make laws for the colonies was to be denied.
       James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general,
       with an ample salary and prospects of high favour from
       government. When the revenue officers called upon him, in view
       of his position, to defend their cause, he resigned his office
       and at once undertook to act as counsel for the merchants of
       Boston in their protest against the issue of the writs. A
       large fee was offered him, but he refused it. 'In such a
       cause,' said he, 'I despise all fees.' The case was tried in
       the council-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or
       what is now known as the 'Old State-House,' in Boston.
       Chief-justice Hutchinson presided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one
       of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the
       writs in a very powerful speech. The reply of Otis, which took
       five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatest speeches
       of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal question
       at issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional
       relations between the colonies and the mother-country. At the
       bottom of this, as of all the disputes that led to the
       Revolution, lay the ultimate question whether Americans were
       bound to yield obedience to laws which they had no share in
       making. This question, and the spirit that answered it flatly
       and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertone
       pervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it
       was because of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was
       present, afterward declared that on that day 'the child
       Independence was born.' Chief-justice Hutchinson … reserved
       his decision until advice could be had from the law-officers
       of the crown in London; and when next term he was instructed
       by them to grant the writs, this result added fresh impetus to
       the spirit that Otis's eloquence had aroused. The custom-house
       officers, armed with their writs, began breaking into
       warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have been
       smuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property
       to the value of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the
       owners of warehouses armed themselves and barricaded their
       doors and windows, and thus the officers were often
       successfully defied, for the sheriff was far from prompt in
       coming to aid them."

          J. Fiske,
          The War of Independence,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Tudor,
          Life of James Otis,
          chapters 5-7.

          F. Bowen,
          Life of James Otis
          (Library of American Biographies,
          series 2, volume 2), chapter 2-3.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Sugar Act.
       The Stamp Act and its repeal.
       The Declaratory Act.
       The Stamp Act Congress.
       Non-importation agreements.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768.
       The Circular Letter to other colonies.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768-1770.
       The quartering of troops in Boston.
       The "Massacre."
       Removal of the troops.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1769.
       The Boston patriots threatened.
       Virginia roused to their support.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1770-1773.
       Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
       Committees of Correspondence instituted.
       The coming of the Tea Ships.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770; and 1772-1773.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1773.
       Destruction of Tea at Boston.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
       The Boston Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
       Free government destroyed and commerce interdicted.
       The First Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
          and BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

    {2117}

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
       Organization of an independent Provisional Government.
       The Committee of Safety.
       Minute-men.

       "Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
       General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
       by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members elected
       to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved themselves
       into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th of October,
       adopted a plan for organizing the militia, maintaining it, and
       calling it out when circumstances should render it necessary.
       It provided that one quarter of the number enrolled should be
       held in readiness to muster at the shortest notice, who were
       called by the popular name of minute-men. An executive
       authority—the Committee of Safety—was created, clothed with
       large discretionary powers; and another called the Committee
       of Supplies."

          R. Frothingham,
          History of the Siege of Boston,
          page 41.

       Under the Provincial Congress and the energetic Committee of
       Safety (which consisted at the beginning of Hancock, Warren
       and Church, of Boston, Richard Devens of Charlestown, Benj.
       White of Brookline, Joseph Palmer of Braintree, Abraham Watson
       of Cambridge, Azor Orne of Marblehead, and Norton Quincy, who
       declined) a complete and effective administration of
       government, entirely independent of royal authority, was
       brought into operation. Subsequently, John Pigeon of Newton,
       William Heath of Roxbury, and Jabez Fisher of Wrentham, were
       added to the committee.

          R. Frothingham,
          Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
          page 389.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775.
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       The country in arms and Boston under siege.
       Ticonderoga.
       Bunker Hill
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775-1776.
       Washington in command at Cambridge.
       British evacuation of Boston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (April-May).
       Independence assumed and urged upon the General Congress.

       "Massachusetts had for nearly a year acted independently of
       the officers of the crown. … The General Court, at their
       session in April [1776], passed a resolve to alter the style
       of writs and other legal processes—substituting 'the people
       and government of Massachusetts' for George III.; and, in
       dating official papers, the particular year of the king was
       omitted, and only the year of our Lord was mentioned. Early in
       May, likewise, an order was passed and published, by which the
       people of the several towns in the province were advised to
       give instructions to their respective representatives, to be
       chosen for the following political year, on the subject of
       independence. It is not contended that this was the first
       instance in which such a proposition was publicly made; for
       North Carolina had, two weeks before, authorized her delegates
       to join with the other colonies in declaring independence; and
       Rhode Island and Connecticut had indicated their inclination
       by dispensing with the oath of allegiance to the king, though
       a month elapsed before the Connecticut Assembly instructed
       their delegates to vote for independence. The returns from the
       towns of Massachusetts were highly encouraging, and in nearly
       every instance the instructions to their representatives were
       favorable to an explicit declaration of independence."

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 3, chapter 3.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (July).
       The Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776-1777.
       The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
       The campaigns in New Jersey and on the Delaware.
       Burgoyne's invasion and surrender.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST),
          to 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1777-1783.
       The Articles of Confederation.
       Alliance with France.
       Treason of Arnold.
       The war in the south.
       Surrender of Cornwallis.
       Peace.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1783.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1779.
       Framing and adoption of a State Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1781.
       Emancipation of Slaves.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1785.
       Western territorial claims
       and their cession to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786.
       Settlement of land claims with New York.
       The cession of western New York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.
       The Shays Rebellion.

       "The Shays Rebellion, which takes its name from the leader of
       the insurgents, Daniel Shays, lately a captain in the
       Continental army, had its taproot in the growing spirit of
       lawlessness. But special causes of discontent were traceable
       to an unequal distribution of wealth and excessive land
       taxation in Massachusetts, the sole seat of the outbreak.
       Governor Bowdoin and his party strove vigorously to reduce the
       State debt and keep up the public credit at a period of great
       public depression. But this strained severely the farmers and
       citizens of moderate means in the inland towns. Private
       creditors pressed their debtors, while the State pressed all.
       Attachments were put upon the poor man's cattle and teams, and
       his little homestead was sacrificed under the sheriff's
       hammer. It was no sign of prosperity that the dockets of the
       county courts were crowded, and that lawyers and court
       officers put in the sickle. There was common complaint of the
       high salaries of public officials and the wasteful cost
       attending litigation. One might suppose that a legislature
       annually chosen would soon remedy this state of things. But
       the inhabitants of the western counties took the short cut of
       resisting civil process and openly defying the laws. And
       herein their error lay. Shays rallied so large a force of
       malcontents about Worcester in the fall of 1786 that the
       sheriff and his deputies were powerless against them, and no
       court could be held. … This first success of the
       Massachusetts insurgents alarmed the friends of order
       throughout the Union. … Congress, by this time an adept in
       stealthy and diplomatic methods, offered secret aid to the
       authorities of Massachusetts upon the pretext of dispatching
       troops against the Indians. But the tender was not accepted;
       for in James Bowdoin the State had an executive equal to the
       emergency. Availing himself of a temporary loan from patriotic
       citizens, he raised and equipped a militia force, large enough
       to overawe the rebels, which, under General Lincoln's command,
       was promptly marched against them. Shays appears to have had
       more of the demagogue than warrior about him, and his
       followers fled as the troops advanced [being finally surprised
       and routed at Petersham, February 4, 1787]. By midwinter civil
       order was restored; but the legislature made some concessions
       not less just than prudent. The vanquished rebels were treated
       with marked clemency. But Governor Bowdoin's energy lost him a
       re-election the following spring, and one of the manliest
       pioneers of Continental reform was remitted to private life
       for the rest of his days. To him succeeded the veteran
       Hancock, whose light shone through a horn-lantern of vanity
       and love of popular applause."

          J. Schouler,
          History of the United States,
          volume 1, chapter 1, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. McMaster,
          History of the People of the United States,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          J. G. Holland,
          History of West Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapters 16-18.

          M. A. Green,
          Springfield, 1636-1886,
          chapter 14.

          J. E. A. Smith,
          History of Pittsfield, 1734-1800,
          chapters 21-22.

    {2118}

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1788.
       Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1812-1814.
       Opposition of Federalists to the war with England.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1814.
       The Hartford Convention.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1818-1821.
       The founding of Amherst College.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1820.
       The district of Maine erected into a distinct State.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1820.

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Prompt response to President Lincoln's call for troops.
       Attack on the Sixth Regiment in Baltimore.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
       The Eighth Regiment making its way to Washington.
       Butler and Baltimore.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

    MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1889.
       The founding of Clark University.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1889.

       ----------MASSACHUSETTS: End----------

    MASSACRES.
       Of Glenco.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.

    MASSACRES:
       Of the Mamelukes (1811).

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

    MASSACRES:
       Of the Mountain Meadows (1857).

          See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

    MASSACRES:
       Of St. Bartholomew's Day.

    MASSACRES:
          See FRANCE: A. D. 1572.

    MASSACRES:
       Of St. Brice's Day (1002).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

    MASSACRES:
       Of September, 1792, in the Paris prisons.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    MASSACRES:
       Of the Shiites.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    MASSACRES:
       The Sicilian Vespers (1282).

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

    MASSAGETÆ, The.

          See SCYTHIANS.

    MASSALIANS, The.

          See MYSTICISM.

    MASSALIOTS.

       The people of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

    MASSENA, Marshal, Campaigns of.

       See FRANCE:
       A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
       1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
       1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER) and (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
       1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
       1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER);
       1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
       and SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

    MASSILIA.

       The ancient name of Marseilles.

          See PHOCÆANS.

    MASSIMILIANO, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1512-1515.

    MASSORETES.

       See MASORETES.

    MASULIPATAM, English capture of (1759).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

    MATAGUAYAS, The.

       See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    MATELOTAGE.

       See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

    MATHER, Cotton, and the Witchcraft excitement.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

    MATHER, Increase, and the new Massachusetts Charter.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

    MATILDA, Donation of the Countess.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

    MATRONA, The.

       The ancient name of the river Marne.

    MATRONALIA, The.

       An ancient Roman festival, celebrated on the Calends of March,
       in memory of the intervention of the Sabine matrons, to make
       peace between their Sabine kinsmen and their Roman husbands.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          See ROME: THE RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN.

    MATTHIAS,
       Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1612-1619.

       Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 1457-1490.

    MATTIACI, The.

       The Mattiaci were an ancient German tribe friendly to Rome.
       They inhabited a region in Nassau, about Wiesbaden.

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

          See, also, MOGONTIACUM.

    MAUREGATO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 783-788.

       ----------MAURETANIA: Start--------

    MAURETANIA.
    MAURETANIANS.
    MOORS.

          See NUMIDIANS.

    MAURETANIA:
       Under the Romans.

          See AFRICA: THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

    MAURETANIA: A. D. 374-398.-Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

          See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

    MAURETANIA:
       Conquest by the Vandals. See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

    MAURETANIA:
       Mahometan Conquest.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

    MAURETANIA:
       Mediæval and Modern History.

          See MAROCCO;
          also, BARBARY STATES.

       ----------MAURETANIA: End--------

    MAURICE,
       Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 582-602.

       Maurice, Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau,
       Stadtholder of the United Provinces (Netherlands), 1587-1625.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585, to 1621-1633.

       Maurice of Saxony, The dishonorable exploits of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

    MAURIENNE, Counts of.

       The earliest title of the princes of the House of Savoy.

          See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

    MAURITANIANS.

       See MAURETANIA.

    MAURITIUS, or the Isle of France, English acquisition of the (1810).

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
       also, INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    MAURITIUS RIVER.

       The name given by the Dutch to the Hudson River.

    MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.

       See CARIANS.

    MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN.

          See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

    MAVROVALLACHIA.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 12TH CENTURY.

    MAXEN, Capitulation of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    MAXIMA CÆSARIENSIS.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

    MAXIMIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 286-305.

    {2119}

    MAXIMILIAN, Emperor of Mexico.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

       Maximilian I., Archduke of Austria, King of the Romans,
       A. D. 1486-1493;
       Germanic Emperor, 1493-1519.

       Maximilian II., Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary
       and Bohemia, and Germanic Emperor, 1564-1576.

    MAXIMIN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 235-238.

    MAXIMUS, Revolt of.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

    MAXYANS, The.

          See LIBYANS.

    MAY, Cape
    MEY, Cape:
       The Name.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

    MAY LAWS, The German.

           See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

    MAY LAWS, The Russian, of 1882.

          See JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

    MAYAS, The, and their early civilization.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

    MAYENCE.

          See MENTZ.

    MAYFLOWER, The Voyage of the.

       See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

    MAYNOOTH, Siege of.

       The castle of Maynooth, held by the Irish in the rebellion of
       1535, was besieged by the English, stormed and taken, March 23
       of that year, and twenty-six of its defenders hanged. The
       rebellion soon collapsed.

          J. A. Fronde,
          History of England,
          chapter 8.

    MAYNOOTH GRANT, The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1844.

    MAYO, Lord, The Indian administration and the assassination of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

    MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

       "The Mayor of the Palace is met with in all the Frankish
       kingdoms. … The mayors were at first merely the first
       superintendents, the first administrators of the interior of
       the palace of the king; the chiefs whom he put at the head of
       his companions, of his leudes, still united around him. It was
       their duty to maintain order among the king's men, to
       administer justice, to look to all the affairs, to all the
       wants, of that great domestic society. They were the men of
       the king with the leudes; this was their first character,
       their first state. Now for the second. After having exercised
       the power of the king over his leudes, his mayors of the
       palace usurped it to their own profit. The leudes, by grants
       of public charges and fiefs, were not long before they became
       great proprietors. This new situation was superior to that of
       companions of the king; they detached themselves from him, and
       united in order to defend their common interests. According as
       their fortune dictated, the mayors of the palace sometimes
       resisted them, more often united with them, and, at first
       servants of the king, they at last became the chiefs of an
       aristocracy, against whom royalty could do nothing. These are
       the two principal phases of this institution: it gained more
       extension and fixedness in Austrasia, in the family of the
       Pepins, who possessed it almost a century and a half, than
       anywhere else."

          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 19.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 5.

          See, also,
          FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    MAYORUNA,
    BARBUDO, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    MAYPO, Battle of (1818).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

    MAZACA.

       "Mazaca [the capital city of ancient Cappadocia] was situated
       at the base of the great volcanic mountain Argaeus (Argish),
       about 13,000 feet high. … The Roman emperor Tiberius changed
       the name of Mazaca to Caesareia, and it is now Kaisariyeh on
       the Kara Su, a small stream which flows into the Halys (Kizil
       Ermak)."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapter 22.

    MAZARIN, Ministry of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1659-1661.

    MAZARINE BIBLE, The.

       See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

    MAZARQUIVER, Siege of (1563).

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

    MAZES.

          See LABYRINTHS.

    MAZOR.

          See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

    MAZZINI, Joseph, and the revolutionary movements in Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

    MEADE, General George G.:
       Command of the Army of the Potomac.
       Battle of Gettysburg, and after.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
          and (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    MEAL-TUB PLOT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).

    MEANEE, Battle of (1843).

       See SCINDE.

    MEAUX, Siege of.

       The city of Meaux, on the Marne, in France, was vigorously
       besieged for seven months by Henry V. of England, but
       surrendered on the 10th of May, 1422.

          Monstrelet,
          Chronicles,
          book 1, chapters 249-259.

       ----------MECCA: Start--------

    MECCA:
       Rise of Mahometanism.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: 609-632.

    MECCA: A. D. 692.
       Siege by the Omeyyads.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

    MECCA: A. D. 929.
       Stormed and Pillaged by the Carmathians.

          See CARMATHIANS.

       ----------MECCA: End--------

    MECHANICSVILLE, Engagements at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) THE PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN;
          and (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

       ----------MECHLIN: Start--------

    MECHLIN: A. D. 1572.
       Pillage and massacre by Alva's troops.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

    MECHLIN: A. D. 1585.
       Surrender to the Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

       ----------MECHLIN: End--------

    MECKLENBURG: The Duchy bestowed on Wallenstein (1628).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

    MECKLENBURG DECLARATION, The.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

    MEDAIN.

       Medain, "the twin city," combined in one, under this Arabic
       name, the two contiguous Persian capitals, Seleucia and
       Ctesiphon. The name Medain signifies "cities," and "it is said
       to have comprised a cluster of seven towns, but it is
       ordinarily taken to designate the twin cities of Seleucia and
       Ctesiphon."

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapters 10 and 17.

    {2120}

       ----------MEDIA: Start--------

    MEDIA AND THE MEDES.

       The country of the Medes, in its original extent, coincided
       very nearly with the northwestern part of modern Persia,
       between Farsistan and the Elburz mountains. "The boundaries of
       Media are given somewhat differently by different writers, and
       no doubt they actually varied at different periods; but the
       variations were not great, and the natural limits, on three
       sides at any rate, may be laid down with tolerable precision.
       Towards the north the boundary was at first the mountain chain
       closing in on that side the Urumiyeh basin, after which it seems
       to have been held that the true limit was the Araxes, to its
       entrance on the low country, and then the mountain chain west
       and south of the Caspian. Westward, the line of demarcation
       may be best regarded as, towards the south, running along the
       centre of the Zagros region; and, above this, as formed by
       that continuation of the Zagros chain which separates the
       Urumiyeh from the Van basin. Eastward, the boundary was marked
       by the spur from the Elburz, across which lay the pass known
       as the Pylæ Caspiæ, and below this by the great salt desert,
       whose western limit is nearly in the same longitude. Towards
       the south there was no marked line or natural boundary. … We
       may place the southern limit with much probability about the
       line of the thirty-second parallel, which is nearly the
       present boundary between Irak and Fars."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five great Monarchies: Media,
          chapter 1.

       "The nation of the Medes belongs to the group of the Arian
       tribes, which occupied the table-land of Iran. This has been
       already proved by the statement of Herodotus that in ancient
       times the Medians were called Areans by all men, by the
       religion of the Medes, and by all the Median words and names
       that have come down to us. According to Herodotus the nation
       consisted of six tribes: the Arizanti, Busae, Struchates,
       Budii, Paraetaceni, and Magi. … The Magians we have already
       found to be a hereditary order of Priests."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 8, chapter 1.

       The Medes, who seem to have been long without any centralizing
       authority among them, became, at last, united under a monarchy
       which grew in power, until, in the later part of the seventh
       century B. C., it combined with Babylonia against the decaying
       Assyrian kingdom. Nineveh was destroyed by the confederates,
       and the dominions of Assyria were divided between them. The
       Median empire which then rose, by the side of the Babylonian,
       endured little more than half a century. It was the first of
       the conquests of Cyrus (see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521), or Kyros,
       the founder of the Persian empire (B. C. 549).

          A. H. Sayce,
          Ancient Empires of the East,
          appendix 5.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
          Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
          book 5, chapters 1-4.

    MEDIA:
       The ancient religion.

          See ZOROASTRIANS.

       ----------MEDIA: End----------

    MEDIA ATROPATENE.

          See ATROPATENE.

    MEDIÆVAL, Belonging to the.

          See MIDDLE AGES.

       ----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: Start--------

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       Chronology of Development.

       Renouard, in his "History of Medicine," arranges the
       chronology of the development of medical knowledge in three
       grand divisions or Ages, subdivided into eight periods. "The
       First Age commences with the infancy of society, as far back
       as historic tradition carries us, and terminates toward the
       end of the second century of the Christian era, at the death
       of Galen, during the reign of Septimus Severus. This lapse of
       time constitutes, in Medicine, the Foundation Age. The germ of
       the Healing Art, concealed, at first, in the instincts of men,
       is gradually developed; the basis of the science is laid, and
       great principles are discussed. … The Second Age, which may
       be called the Age of Transition, offers very little material
       to the history of Medicine. We see no longer the conflicts and
       discussions between partisans of different doctrines; the
       medical sects are confounded. The art remains stationary, or
       imperceptibly retrogrades. I can not better depict this epoch
       than by comparing it to the life of an insect in the nympha
       state; though no exterior change appears, an admirable
       metamorphosis is going on, imperceptibly, within. The eye of
       man only perceives the wonder after it has been finished. Thus
       from the 15th century, which is the beginning of the third and
       last Age of Medicine, or the Age of Renovation, Europe offers
       us a spectacle of which the most glorious eras of the
       republics of Greece and Rome only can give us an idea. It
       would seem as if a new life was infused into the veins of the
       inhabitants of this part of the world; the sciences, fine
       arts, industry, religion, social institutions, all are
       changed. A multitude of schools are open for teaching
       Medicine. Establishments which had no models among the
       ancients, are created for the purpose of extending to the
       poorer classes the benefits of the Healing Art. The ingenious
       activity of modern Christians explores and is sufficient for
       everything. These three grand chronological divisions do not
       suffice to classify, in our minds, the principal phases of the
       history of Medicine; consequently, I have subdivided each age
       into a smaller number of sections, easy to be retained, and
       which I have named Periods. The first Age embraces four
       periods, the second and third ages, each, two. … The first
       period, which we name Primitive Period, or that of instinct,
       ends with the ruin of Troy, about twelve centuries before the
       Christian era. The second, called the Mystic or Sacred Period,
       extends from the dissolution of the 'Pythagorean Society' to
       about the year 500 A. C. The third period, which ends at the
       foundation of the Alexandrian Library, A. C., 320, we name the
       Philosophic Period. The fourth, which we designate the
       Anatomic, extends to the end of the first age, i. e., to the
       year 200 of the Christian era. The fifth is called the Greek
       Period; it ends at the destruction of the Alexandrian Library,
       A. D. 640. The sixth receives the surname of Arabic, and
       closes with the 14th century. The seventh period, which begins
       the third age, comprises the 15th and 16th centuries; it is
       distinguished as the Erudite. Finally, the eighth, or last
       period, embraces the 17th and 18th centuries [beyond which the
       writer did not carry his history]. I call it the Reform
       Period."

          P. V. Renouard,
          History of Medicine,
          introduction.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       Egyptian.

       "Medicine is practised among them [the Egyptians] on a plan of
       separation; each physician treats a single disorder, and no
       more: thus the country swarms with medical practitioners, some
       undertaking to cure diseases of the eye, others of the head,
       others again of the teeth, others of the intestines, and some
       those which are not local."

          Herodotus,
          History,
          translated by Rawlinson,
          book 2, chapter 84.

    {2121}

       "Not only was the study of medicine of very early date in
       Egypt, but medical men there were in such repute that they
       were sent for at various times from other countries. Their
       knowledge of medicine is celebrated by Homer (Od. iv. 229),
       who describes Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, as giving
       medicinal plants 'to Helen, in Egypt, a country producing an
       infinite number of drugs … where each physician possesses
       knowledge above all other men.' 'O virgin daughter of Egypt,'
       says Jeremiah (lxvi. 11), 'in vain shalt thou use many
       medicines.' Cyrus and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical
       men (Her. iii. 1, 132): and Pliny (xix. 5) says post mortem
       examinations were made in order to discover the nature of
       maladies. Doctors received their salaries from the treasury;
       but they were obliged to conform in the treatment of a patient
       to the rules laid down in their books, his death being a
       capital crime, if he was found to have been treated in any
       other way. But deviations from, and approved additions to, the
       sacred prescriptions were occasionally made; and the
       prohibition was only to prevent the experiments of young
       practitioners, whom Pliny considers the only persons
       privileged to kill a man with impunity. Aristotle indeed says
       'the Egyptian physicians were allowed after the third day to
       alter the treatment prescribed by authority, and even before,
       taking upon themselves the responsibility' (Polit. iii. 11).
       Experience gradually taught them many new remedies; and that
       they had adopted a method (of no very old standing in modern
       practice) of stopping teeth with gold is proved by some
       mummies found at Thebes. Besides the protection of society
       from the pretensions of quacks, the Egyptians provided that
       doctors should not demand fees on a foreign journey or on
       military service, when patients were treated free of expense
       (Diod. i. 82); and we may conclude that they were obliged to
       treat the poor gratis, on consideration of the allowance paid
       them as a body by government. … Poor and superstitious
       people sometimes had recourse to dreams, to wizards, to
       donations to sacred animals, and to exvotos to the gods. …
       Charms were also written for the credulous, some of which have
       been found on small pieces of papyrus, which were rolled up
       and worn as by the modern Egyptians. Accoucheurs were women;
       which we learn from Exodus i. 15, and from the sculptures, as
       in modern Egypt. … The Egyptian doctors were of the
       sacerdotal order, like the embalmers, who are called (in
       Genesis l. 2) 'Physicians,' and were' commanded by Joseph to
       embalm his father.' They were of the class called Pastophori,
       who, according to Clemens (Strom. lib. 6), being physicians,
       were expected to know about all things relating to the body,
       and diseases, and remedies, contained in the six last sacred
       books of Hermes. Manetho tells us that Athothes, the second
       king of Egypt, who was a physician, wrote the anatomical
       books; and his name, translated Hermogenes, may have been the
       origin of the tradition that ascribed them to Hermes, the
       Egyptian Thoth. Or the fable may mean that they were the
       result of intellect personified by Thoth, or Hermes."

          Herodotus,
          History,
          translated by Rawlinson,
          Note.

       "The ancient Egyptians, though medical science was zealously
       studied by them, also thought that the efficacy of the
       treatment was enhanced by magic formulæ. In the Ebers Papyrus,
       an important and very ancient manual of Egyptian medicine, the
       prescriptions for various medicaments are accompanied by the
       forms of exorcism to be used at the same time, and yet many
       portions of this work give evidence of the advanced knowledge
       of its authors."

          G. Ebers,
          Egypt,
          volume 2, pages 61-62.

       "Works on medicine abounded in Egypt from the remotest times,
       and the great medical library of Memphis, which was of
       immemorial antiquity, was yet in existence in the second
       century before our era, when Galen visited the Valley of the
       Nile. … Ateta, third king of the First Dynasty, is the
       reputed author of a treatise on anatomy. He also covered
       himself with glory by the invention of an infallible
       hair-wash, which, like a dutiful son, he is said to have
       prepared especially for the benefit of his mother. No less
       than five medical papyri have come down to our time, the
       finest being the celebrated Ebers papyrus, bought at Thebes by
       Dr. Ebers in 1874. This papyrus contains one hundred and ten
       pages, each page consisting of about twenty-two lines of bold
       hieratic writing. It may be described as an Encyclopædia of
       Medicine as known and practised by the Egyptians of the
       Eighteenth Dynasty; and it contains prescriptions for all
       kinds of diseases—some borrowed from Syrian medical lore, and
       some of such great antiquity that they are ascribed to the
       mythologic ages, when the gods yet reigned personally upon
       earth. Among others, we are given the recipe for an
       application whereby Osiris cured Ra of the headache. The
       Egyptians attached great importance to these ancient medical
       works, which were regarded as final. The physician who
       faithfully followed their rules of treatment might kill or
       cure with impunity; but if he ventured to treat the patient
       according to his own notions, and if that patient died, he
       paid for the experiment with his life. Seeing, however, what
       the canonical remedies were, the marvel is that anybody ever
       recovered from anything. Raw meat; horrible mixtures of nitre,
       beer, milk, and blood, boiled up and swallowed hot; the bile
       of certain fishes; and the bones, fat, and skins of all kinds
       of unsavory creatures, such as vultures, bats, lizards and
       crocodiles, were among their choicest remedies."

          A. B. Edwards,
          Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers,
          chapter 6.

       "In Egypt … man does not die, but some one or something
       assassinates him. The murderer often belongs to our world, and
       can be easily pointed out. … Often, though, it belongs to
       the invisible world, and only reveals itself by the malignity
       of its attacks: it is a god, a spirit, the soul of a dead man,
       that has cunningly entered a living person, or that throws
       itself upon him with irresistible violence. … Whoever treats
       a sick person has therefore two equally important duties to
       perform. He must first discover the nature of the spirit in
       possession, and, if necessary, its name, and then attack it,
       drive it out, or even destroy it. He can only succeed by
       powerful magic, so he must be an expert in reciting
       incantations, and skilful in making amulets. He must then use
       medicine to contend with the disorders which the presence of
       the strange being has produced in the body; this is done by a
       finely graduated régime and various remedies. The cure-workers
       are therefore divided into several categories.
    {2122}
       Some incline towards sorcery, and have faith in formulas and
       talismen only; they think they have done enough if they have
       driven out the spirit. Others extol the use of drugs; they
       study the qualities of plants and minerals, describe the
       diseases to which each of the substances provided by nature is
       suitable, and settle the exact time when they must be procured
       and applied: certain herbs have no power unless they are
       gathered during the night at the full moon, others are
       efficacious in summer only, another acts equally well in
       winter or summer. The best doctors carefully avoid binding
       themselves exclusively to either method."

          G. Maspéro,
          Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
          chapter 7.

       "The employment of numerous drugs in Egypt has been mentioned
       by sacred and profane writers; and the medicinal properties of
       many herbs which grow in the deserts, particularly between the
       Nile and Red Sea, are still known to the Arabs, though their
       application has been but imperfectly recorded and preserved.
       … Homer, in the Odyssey, describes the many valuable
       medicines given by Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, to Helen,
       while in Egypt, 'a country whose fertile soil produces an
       infinity of drugs, some salutary and some pernicious, where
       each physician possesses knowledge above all other men'; and
       Pliny makes frequent mention of the productions of that
       country, and their use in medicine. He also notices the
       physicians of Egypt; and as if their number was indicative of
       the many maladies to which the inhabitants were subject, he
       observes that it was a country productive of numerous
       diseases. In this, however, he does not agree with Herodotus,
       who affirms that, 'after the Libyans, there are no people so
       healthy as the Egyptians, which may be attributed to the
       invariable nature of the seasons in their country.' In Pliny's
       time the introduction of luxurious habits and excess had
       probably wrought a change in the people; and to the same cause
       may be attributed the numerous complaints among the Romans,
       'unknown to their fathers and ancestors.' The same author
       tells us that the Egyptians examined the bodies after death,
       to ascertain the nature of the diseases of which they had
       died; and we can readily believe that a people so far advanced
       in civilization and the principles of medicine as to assign
       each physician his peculiar branch, would have resorted to
       this effectual method of acquiring knowledge and experience
       for the benefit of the community. It is evident that the
       medical skill of the Egyptians was well known even in foreign
       and distant countries; and we learn from Herodotus, that Cyrus
       and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical men. … The
       Egyptians, according to Pliny, claimed the honour of having
       invented the art of curing diseases."

          Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
          Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

       "The Ptolemies, down to the very termination of their dominion
       over Egypt, appear to have encouraged the curative art, and
       for the purpose of restoring declining health, surrounded
       themselves with the most illustrious physicians of the age.
       … The science of medicine of the period was fully
       represented at the Museum by distinguished professors, who,
       according to Athenæus, restored the knowledge of this art to
       the towns and islands of the Grecian Archipelago. … About
       the period of the absorption of the Egyptian kingdom into the
       expanding dominion of the Romans, the schools of Alexandria
       still continued to be the centre of medical studies; and
       notwithstanding the apparent dissidence between the demands of
       a strict science and public affairs, its professors exhibited,
       equally with their brother philosophers, a taste for
       diplomacy. Dioscorides and Serapion, two physicians of
       Alexandria, were the envoys of the elder Ptolemy to Rome, and
       at a later date were bearers of dispatches from Cæsar to one
       of his officers in Egypt."

          G. F. Fort,
          Medical Economy During the Middle Ages,
          chapter 3.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       Babylonian.

       The Babylonians "have no physicians, but when a man is ill,
       they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up
       to him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or
       have known anyone who has suffered from it, they give him
       advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in
       their own case, or in the case known to them. And no one is
       allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him
       what his ailment is."

          Herodotus,
          History,
          translated by G. Rawlinson,
          book 1, chapter 197 (volume 1).

       "The incantations against diseases describe a great variety of
       cases. … But the most numerous are those which aim at the
       cure of the plague, fever, and 'disease of the head;' this
       latter, judging from the indications which are given of its
       symptoms and its effects, appears to have been a sort of
       erysipelas, or cutaneous disease. … These are the principal
       passages of a long incantation against 'the disease of the
       head:' the tablet on which we find it bears six other long
       formulæ against the same evil. 'The disease of the head exists
       on man. The disease of the head, the ulceration of the
       forehead exists on man. The disease of the head marks like a
       tiara, the disease of the head from sunrise to sunset. In the
       sea and the vast earth a very small tiara is become the tiara,
       the very large tiara, his tiara. The diseases of the head
       pierce like a bull, the diseases of the head shoot like the
       palpitation of the heart. … The diseases of the head, like
       doves to their dove-cotes, like grasshoppers into the sky,
       like birds into space may they fly away. May the invalid be
       replaced in the protecting hands of his god!' This specimen
       will give the reader an idea of the uniform composition of
       these incantations against diseases, which filled the second
       book of the work under consideration. They all follow the same
       plan throughout, beginning with the definition of the disease
       and its symptoms, which occupies the greater part of the
       formula; and ending with a desire for deliverance from it, and
       the order for it to depart. Sometimes, however, the
       incantation of the magician assumes a dramatic form at the
       end. … We must add … the use of certain enchanted drinks,
       which, doubtless, really contained medicinal drugs, as a cure
       for diseases, and also of magic knots, the efficacy of which
       was so firmly believed in, even up to the middle ages. Here is
       a remedy which one of the formulæ supposes to have been
       prescribed by Hea against a disease of the head: 'Knot on the
       right and arrange flat in regular bands, on the left a woman's
       diadem; divide it twice in seven little bands; … gird the
       head of the invalid with it; gird the forehead of the invalid
       with it; gird the seat of life with it; gird his hands and his
       feet: seat him on his bed; pour on him enchanted waters. Let
       the disease of his head be carried away into the heavens like
       a violent wind; … may the earth swallow it up like passing
       waters!' Still more powerful than the incantations were
       conjurations wrought by the power of numbers."

          F. Lenormant,
          Chaldean Magic,
          chapters 1 and 3.

    {2123}

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       Finnish.

       "The Finnish incantations for exorcising the demons of
       diseases were composed in exactly the same spirit, and founded
       upon the same data, as the Accadian incantations destined for
       the like purpose. They were formulæ belonging to the same
       family, and they often showed a remarkable similarity of
       language; the Egyptian incantations, on the contrary, having
       been composed by people with very different ideas about the
       supernatural world, assumed quite another form. This is an
       incantation from one of the songs of the Kalevala: 'O malady,
       disappear into the heavens; pain, rise up to the clouds;
       inflamed vapour, fly into the air, in order that the wind may
       take thee away, that the tempest may chase thee to distant
       regions, where neither sun nor moon give their light, where
       the warm wind does not inflame the flesh. O pain, mount upon
       the winged steed of stone, and fly to the mountains covered
       with iron. For he is too robust to be devoured by disease, to
       be consumed by pains. Go, O diseases, to where the virgin of
       pains has her hearth, where the daughter of Wäinämöinen cooks
       pains, go to the hill of pains. There are the white dogs, who
       formerly howled in torments, who groaned in their
       sufferings.'"

          F. Lenormant,
          Chaldean Magic,
          chapter 17.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       Hindu.

       "There is reason to … conclude, from the imperfect
       opportunities of investigation we possess, that in medicine,
       as in astronomy and metaphysics, the Hindus once kept pace
       with the most enlightened nations of the world; and that they
       attained as thorough a proficiency in medicine and surgery as
       any people whose acquisitions are recorded, and as indeed was
       practicable, before anatomy was made known to us by the
       discoveries of modern enquirers. It might easily be supposed
       that their patient attention and natural shrewdness would
       render the Hindus excellent observers; whilst the extent and
       fertility of their native country would furnish them with many
       valuable drugs and medicaments. Their Nidana or Diagnosis,
       accordingly, appears to define and distinguish symptoms with
       great accuracy, and their Dravyabhidhana, or Materia Medica,
       is sufficiently voluminous. They have also paid great
       attention to regimen and diet, and have a number of works on
       the food and general treatment, suited to the complaint, or
       favourable to the operation of the medicine administered. This
       branch they entitle Pathyapathya. To these subjects are to be
       added the Chikitsa, or medical treatment of diseases—on which
       subject they have a variety of compositions, containing much
       absurdity, with much that is of value; and the Rasavidya, or
       Pharmacy, in which they are most deficient. All these works,
       however, are of little avail to the present generation, as
       they are very rarely studied, and still more rarely
       understood, by any of the practising empirics. The divisions
       of the science thus noticed, as existing in books, exclude two
       important branches, without which the whole system must be
       defective—Anatomy and Surgery. We can easily imagine, that
       these were not likely to have been much cultivated in
       Hindustan. … The Ayur Veda, as the medical writings of
       highest antiquity and authority are collectively called, is
       considered to be a portion of the fourth or Atharva Veda, and
       is consequently the work of Brahma—by him it was communicated
       to Daksha, the Prajapati, and by him the two Aswins, or sons
       of Surya, the Sun, were instructed in it, and they then became
       the medical attendants of the gods—a genealogy that cannot
       fail recalling to us the two sons of Esculapius, and their
       descent from Apollo. Now what were the duties of the Aswins,
       according to Hindu authorities?—the gods, enjoying eternal
       youth and health, stood in no need of physicians, and
       consequently they held no such sinecure station. The wars
       between the gods and demons, however, and the conflicts
       amongst the gods themselves, in which wounds might be
       suffered, although death might not be inflicted, required
       chirurgical aid—and it was this, accordingly, which the two
       Aswins rendered. … The meaning of these legendary
       absurdities is clear enough, and is conformable to the tenor
       of all history. Man, in the semi-barbarous state, if not more
       subject to external injuries than internal disease, was at
       least more likely to seek remedies for the former, which were
       obvious to his senses, than to imagine the means of relieving
       the latter, whose nature he could so little comprehend.
       Surgical, therefore, preceded medicinal skill; as Celsus has
       asserted, when commenting on Homer's account of Podalirius and
       Machaon, who were not consulted, he says, during the plague in
       the Grecian camp, although regularly employed to extract darts
       and heal wounds. … We may be satisfied that Surgery was once
       extensively cultivated, and highly esteemed by the Hindus. Its
       rational principles and scientific practice are, however, now,
       it may be admitted, wholly unknown to them. … It would be an
       enquiry of some interest to trace the period and causes of the
       disappearance of Surgery from amongst the Hindus: it is
       evidently of comparatively modern occurrence, as operative and
       instrumental practice forms so principal a part of those
       writings, which are undeniably most ancient; and which, being
       regarded as the composition of inspired writers, are held of
       the highest authority."

          H. H. Wilson,
          Essays on Sanskrit Literature,
          pages 269-276, and 391.

       "The number of medical works and authors is extraordinarily
       large. The former are either systems embracing the whole
       domain of the science, or highly special investigations of
       single topics, or, lastly, vast compilations prepared in modern
       times under the patronage of kings and princes. The sum of
       knowledge embodied in their contents appears really to be most
       respectable. Many of the statements on dietetics and on the
       origin and diagnosis of diseases bespeak a very keen
       observation. In surgery, too, the Indians seem to have
       attained a special proficiency, and in this department
       European surgeons might perhaps even at the present day still
       learn something from them, as indeed they have already
       borrowed from them the operation of rhinoplasty. The
       information, again, regarding the medicinal properties of
       minerals (especially precious stones and metals), of plants,
       and animal substances, and the chemical analysis and
       decomposition of these, covers certainly much that is
       valuable. Indeed, the branch of Materia Medica generally
       appears to be handled with great predilection, and this makes
       up to us in some measure at least for the absence of
       investigations in the field of natural science. On the
       diseases, &c., of horses and elephants also there exist very
       special monographs.
    {2124}
       For the rest, during the last few centuries medical science
       has suffered great detriment from the increasing prevalence of
       the notion, in itself a very ancient one, that diseases are
       but the result of transgressions and sins committed, and from
       the consequent very general substitution of fastings, alms,
       and gifts to the Brahmans, for real remedies. … The
       influence … of Hindu medicine upon the Arabs in the first
       centuries of the Hijra was one of the very highest
       significance; and the Khalifs of Bagdad caused a considerable
       number of works upon the subject to be translated. Now, as
       Arabian medicine constituted the chief authority and guiding
       principle of European physicians down to the seventeenth
       century, it directly follows—just as in the case of
       astronomy—that the Indians must have been held in high esteem
       by these latter; and indeed Charaka is repeatedly mentioned in
       the Latin translations of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Rhazes (Al
       Rasi), and Serapion (Ibn Serabi)."

          A. Weber,
          History of Indian Literature,
          pages 269-271.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       Jewish.

       "If we are to judge from the frequent mention of physicians
       (Exodus xv. 26; Isaiah iii. 7; Jeremiah viii. 22; Sirach x.
       11, xxxviii. 1 ff.; Matthew ix. 12; Mark v. 26; Luke iv. 23,
       etc.), the Israelites must have given much attention to
       medicine from ancient times. The physicians must have
       understood how to heal wounds and external injuries with
       bandaging, mollifying with oil (Isaiah i. 6; Luke x. 34),
       balsam (Jeremiah xlvi. 11, li. 8), plasters (2 Kings xx. 7),
       and salves prepared from herbs (Sirach xxxviii. 8; Exodus xxi.
       19; 2 Kings viii. 29; Ezekiel xxx. 21). The ordinances
       respecting leprosy also show that the lawgiver was well
       acquainted with the various kinds of skin eruptions (comp.
       section 114). And not only Moses, but other Israelites also
       may have acquired much practical knowledge of medicine in
       Egypt, where the healing art was cultivated from high
       antiquity. But as to how far the Israelitish physicians
       advanced in this art, we have not more exact information. From
       the few scattered hints in the Old and New Testaments, so much
       only is clear, that internal diseases were also treated (2
       Chronicles xvi. 12; Luke viii. 43), and that the medicinal
       springs which Palestine possesses were much used by invalids.
       It by no means follows from the fact that the superintendence
       of lepers and the pronouncing of them clean are assigned by
       the law to the priests, that these occupied themselves chiefly
       with medicine. The task which the law laid on them has nothing
       to do with the healing of leprosy. Of the application of
       charms, there is not a single instance in Scripture."

          C. F. Keil,
          Manual of Biblical Archæology,
          volume 2, pages 276-277.

       The surgery of the Talmud includes a knowledge of dislocations
       of the thigh, contusions of the head, perforation of the lungs
       and other organs, injuries of the spinal cord and trachea, and
       fractures of the ribs. Polypus of the nose was considered to
       be a punishment for past sins. In sciatica the patient is
       advised to rub the hip sixty times with meat-broth. Bleeding
       was performed by mechanics or barbers. The pathology of the
       Talmud ascribes diseases to a constitutional vice, to evil
       influences acting on the body from without, or to the effect
       of magic. Jaundice is recognized as arising from retention of
       the bile, dropsy from suppression of the urine. The Talmudists
       divided dropsy into anasarca, ascites, and tympanites. Rupture
       and atrophy of the kidneys were held to be always fatal.
       Hydatids of the liver were more favourably considered.
       Suppuration of the spinal cord, induration of the lungs, etc.,
       are incurable. Dr. Baas says that these are 'views which may
       have been based on the dissection of (dead) animals, and may
       be considered the germs of pathological anatomy.' Some
       critical symptoms are sweating, sneezing, defecation, and
       dreams, which promise a favourable termination of the disease.
       Natural remedies, both external and internal, were employed.
       Magic was also Talmudic. Dispensations were given by the
       Rabbis to permit sick persons to eat prohibited food. Onions
       were prescribed for worms; wine and pepper for stomach
       disorders; goat's milk for difficulty of breathing; emetics in
       nausea; a mixture of gum and alum for menorrhagia (not a bad
       prescription); a dog's liver was ordered for the bite of a mad
       dog. Many drugs, such a assafœtida, are evidently adopted from
       Greek medicine. The dissection of the bodies of animals
       provided the Talmudists with their anatomy. It is, however,
       recorded that Rabbi Ishmael, at the close of the first
       century, made a skeleton by boiling the body of a prostitute.
       We find that dissection in the interests of science was
       permitted by the Talmud. The Rabbis counted 252 bones in the
       human skeleton."

          E. Berdoe,
          The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
          book 2, chapter 2.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       Greek.

       "It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess
       relative to the practice of Medicine, are the various
       treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of
       Hippocrates. Their great excellence has been acknowledged in
       all ages, and it has always been a question which has
       naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps the art
       had attained to such perfection at so early a period. … It
       is clearly established that, long before the birth of
       philosophy, medicine had been zealously and successfully
       cultivated by the Asclepiadæ, an order of priest-physicians
       that traced its origin to a mythical personage bearing the
       distinguished name of Æsculapius. Two of his sons, Podalirius
       and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems, not however as
       priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill in the
       treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by
       the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if
       one may venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much
       of the legendary character) that Æsculapius was deified, and
       that Temples of Health, called 'Asclepia,' presided over by
       the Asclepiadæ, were erected in various parts of Greece, as
       receptacles for the sick, to which invalids resorted in those
       days for the cure of diseases, under the same circumstances as
       they go to hospitals and spas at the present time. What
       remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no
       means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the
       following facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be
       pretty confidently relied upon for their accuracy. In the
       first place, then, it is well ascertained that a large
       proportion of these temples were built in the vicinity of
       thermæ, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which would no
       doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick. At his
       entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to
       purifications, and made to go through a regular course of
       bathing, accompanied with methodical frictions, resembling the
       oriental system now well known by the name of shampooing.
    {2125}
       Fomentations with decoctions of odoriferous herbs were also
       not forgotten. A total abstinence from food was at first
       prescribed, but afterwards the patient would no doubt be
       permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were
       brought to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could
       be thought of was used for working upon the imagination of the
       sick, such as religious ceremonies of an imposing nature,
       accompanied by music, and whatever else could arouse their
       senses, conciliate their confidence, and, in certain cases,
       contribute to their amusement. … It is also well known that
       the Asclepiadæ noted down with great care the symptoms and
       issue of every case, and that, from such observations, they
       became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. … The
       office of priesthood was hereditary in certain families, so
       that information thus acquired would be transmitted from
       father to son, and go on accumulating from one generation to
       another. Whether the Asclepiadæ availed themselves of the
       great opportunities which they must undoubtedly have had of
       cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much
       disputed in modern times. … It is worthy of remark, that
       Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful
       cultivator of anatomy. … Of the 'Asclepia' we have mentioned
       above, it will naturally be supposed that some were in much
       higher repute than others, either from being possessed of
       peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of fashion. In the
       beginning of the fifth century before the Christian era the
       temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial
       favour, and on the extinction of the first of these, another
       rose up in Italy in its stead. But the temple of Cos was
       destined to throw the reputation of all the others into the
       background, by producing among the priests of Æsculapius the
       individual who, in all after ages, has been distinguished by
       the name of the Great Hippocrates. … That Hippocrates was
       lineally descended from Æsculapius was generally admitted by
       his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to give a
       list of the names of his forefathers, up to Æsculapius, has
       been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. … Of the
       circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little is
       known for certain. … Aulus Gellius, … in an elaborate
       disquisition on Greek and Roman chronology, states decidedly
       that Socrates was contemporary with Hippocrates, but younger
       than he. Now it is well ascertained that the death of Socrates
       took place about the year 400 A. C., and as he was then nearly
       seventy years old, his birth must be dated as happening about
       the year 470 A. C. … It will readily occur to the reader,
       then, that our author flourished at one of the most memorable
       epochs in the intellectual development of the human race. …
       From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished situation in
       one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health, then
       in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all
       the treasures of observations collected during many
       generations, and at the same time would have an opportunity of
       assisting his own father in the management of the sick. Thus
       from his youth he must have been familiar with the principles
       of medicine, both in the abstract and in the concrete. …
       Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as
       now described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of
       his art in the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done
       before him. Why he afterwards left the place of his nativity,
       and visited distant regions of the earth, whither the duties
       of his profession and the calls of humanity invited him,
       cannot now be satisfactorily determined. … According to all
       the accounts which have come down to us of his life, he spent
       the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when
       far advanced in years. … As a medical author the name of
       Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. … Looking upon
       the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires
       and sympathises with all the other parts, he would appear to
       have regarded disease also as one, and to have referred all
       its modifications to peculiarities of situation. Whatever may
       now be thought of his general views on Pathology, all must
       admit that his mode of prosecuting the cultivation of medicine
       is in the true spirit of the Inductive Philosophy; all his
       descriptions of disease are evidently derived from patient
       observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice
       are clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of
       experience by itself he was well aware, however. … Above all
       others Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience
       and common sense. In short, the basis of his system was a
       rational experience, and not a blind empiricism, so that the
       Empirics in after ages had no good grounds for claiming him as
       belonging to their sect. What he appears to have studied with
       particular attention is the natural history of diseases, that
       is to say, their tendencies to a favorable or fatal issue. …
       One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the
       Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in
       it to prognosis, under which was comprehended a complete
       acquaintance with the previous and present condition of the
       patient and the tendency of the disease. … In the practice
       of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly, and as we
       would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated the
       skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the
       head. He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His
       extensive practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with
       the accidents occurring at the public games of his country,
       must have furnished him with ample opportunities of becoming
       acquainted with dislocations and fractures of all kinds; and
       how well he had profited by the opportunities which he thus
       enjoyed, every page of his treatises 'On Fractures,' and 'On
       the Articulations,' abundantly testifies."

          F. Adams,
          Preliminary Discourse (Genuine Works of Hippocrates),
          section 1.

       "The school of the Asclepiadæ has been responsible for certain
       theories which have been more or less prominent during the
       earlier historical days. One of these which prevailed
       throughout the Hippocratic works is that of Coction and
       Crisis. By the former term is meant thickening or elaboration
       of humors in the body, which was supposed to be necessary for
       their elimination in some tangible form. Disease was regarded
       as an association of phenomena resulting from efforts made by
       the conservative principles of life to effect a coction, i.
       e., a combination, of the morbific matter in the economy, it
       being held that the latter could not be properly expelled until
       thus united and prepared so as to form excrementious material.
    {2126}
       This elaboration was supposed to be brought about by the vital
       principles which some called nature (Phusis), some spirit
       (Psyche), some breath (Pneuma), and some heat (Thermon). The
       gradual climax of morbid phenomena has, since the days of
       Hippocrates, been commonly known as Crisis. All this was
       regarded as the announcement of the completion of this union
       by coction. The day on which it was accomplished was termed
       'critical,' as were also the signs which preceded or
       accompanied it, and for the crisis the physician anxiously
       watched. Coction having been effected and crisis occurring, it
       only remained to evacuate the morbific material, which nature
       sometimes spontaneously accomplished by the critical sweat,
       urination, or stools; or sometimes the physician had to come
       to her relief by the administration of diuretics, purgatives,
       et cetera. The term 'critical period' was given to the number
       of days necessary for coction, which in its perfection was
       supposed to be four, the so-called quaternary, while the
       septenary was also held in high consideration. … This
       doctrine of crisis in disease left an impress upon the medical
       mind not yet fully eliminated."

          Roswell Park,
          Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

       "Making no pretension … to describe the regular medical
       practice among the Greeks, I shall here, nevertheless,
       introduce some few particulars more or less connected with it,
       which may be regarded as characteristic of the age and people.
       Great were the virtues which they ascribed to the herb
       alysson, (biscutella didyma,) which, being pounded and eaten
       with meat cured hydrophobia. Nay, more, being suspended in the
       house, it promoted the health of its inhabitants; it protected
       likewise both man and cattle from enchantment; and, bound in a
       piece of scarlet flannel round the necks of the latter, it
       preserved them from all diseases. Coriander-seed, eaten in too
       great quantity, produced, they thought, a derangement of the
       intellect. Ointment of saffron had an opposite effect, for the
       nostrils and heads of lunatics being rubbed therewith they
       were supposed to receive considerable relief. Melampos the
       goatherd was reported to have cured the daughters of Prætos of
       their madness by large doses of black hellebore, which
       thereafter received from him the name of Melampodion.
       Sea-onions suspended over the doors preserved from
       enchantment, as did likewise a branch of rhamnus over doors or
       windows. A decoction of rosemary and of the leaves and stems
       of the anemone was administered to nurses to promote the
       secretion of milk, and a like potion prepared from the leaves
       of the Cretan dittany was given to women in labour. This herb,
       in order to preserve its virtues unimpaired, and that it might
       be the more easily transported to all parts of the country,
       was preserved in a joint of a ferula or reed. A plaster of
       incense, Cimolian earth, and oil of roses, was applied to
       reduce the swelling of the breasts. A medicine prepared from
       mule's fern, was believed to produce sterility, as were
       likewise the waters of a certain fountain near Pyrrha, while
       to those about Thespiæ a contrary effect was attributed, as
       well as to the wine of Heraclea in Arcadia. The inhabitants of
       this primitive region drank milk as an aperient in the Spring,
       because of the medicinal herbs on which the cattle were then
       supposed to feed. Medicines of laxative properties were
       prepared from the juice of the wild cucumber, which were said
       to retain their virtues for two hundred years, though simples
       in general were thought to lose their medicinal qualities in
       less than four. The oriental gum called kankamon was
       administered in water or honeyed vinegar to fat persons to
       diminish their obesity, and also as a remedy for the
       toothache. For this latter purpose the gum of the Ethiopian
       olive was put into the hollow tooth, though more efficacy
       perhaps was attributed to the root of dittander which they
       suspended as a charm about the neck. A plaster of the root of
       the white thorn or iris roots prepared with flour of copper,
       honey, and great centaury, drew out thorns and arrow heads
       without pain. An unguent procured from fern was sold to
       rustics for curing the necks of their cattle galled by the
       yoke. A decoction of marsh-mallow leaves and wine or honeyed
       vinegar was administered to persons who had been stung by bees
       or wasps or other insects; bites and burns were healed by an
       external application of the leaf smeared with oil, and the
       powdered roots cast into water caused it to freeze if placed
       out during the night in the open air; an unguent was prepared
       with oil from reeds, green or dry, which protected those who
       anointed themselves with it from the stings of venomous
       reptiles. Cinnamon unguent, or terebinth and myrtle-berries,
       boiled in wine, were supposed to be a preservative against the
       bite of the tarantula or scorpion, as was the pistachio nut
       against that of serpents. Some persons ate a roasted scorpion
       to cure its own bite; a powder, moreover, was prepared from
       sea-crabs supposed to be fatal to this reptile. Vipers were
       made to contribute their part to the materia medica; for,
       being caught alive, they were enclosed with salt and dried
       figs in a vase which was then put into a furnace till its
       contents were reduced to charcoal, which they esteemed a
       valuable medicine. A. considerable quantity of viper's flesh
       was in the last century imported from Egypt into Venice, to be
       used in the composition of medicinal treacle. From the flowers
       of the sneezewort, a sort of snuff appears to have been
       manufactured, though probably used only in medicines. The
       ashes of old leather cured burns, galls, and blistered feet.
       The common remedy when persons had eaten poisonous mushrooms
       was a dose of nitre exhibited in vinegar and water; with water
       it was esteemed a cure for the sting of a burncow, and with
       benzoin it operated as an antidote against the poison of
       bulls' blood."

          J. A. St. John,
          The Hellenes,
          book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3).

    {2127}

    MEDICAL SCIENCE:
       The Hippocratic Oath.

       "Medical societies or schools seem to have been as ancient as
       Hippocrates. The Hippocratic oath, as it is called, has been
       preserved, and is one of the greatest curiosities we have
       received from antiquity:

       'I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, by Hygeia, by
       Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, that I will fulfil
       religiously, according to the best of my power and judgment,
       the solemn vow which I now make.

       I will honour as my father the master who taught me the art of
       medicine; his children I will consider as my brothers, and
       teach them my profession without fee or reward.

       I will admit to my lectures and discourses my own sons, my
       master's sons, and those pupils who have taken the medical
       oath; but no one else.

       I will prescribe such medicines as may be best suited to the
       cases of my patients, according to the best of my judgment;
       and no temptation shall ever induce me to administer poison.

       I will religiously maintain the purity of my character and the
       honour of my art.

       I will not perform the operation of lithotomy, but leave it to
       those to whose calling it belongs.

       Into whatever house I enter, I will enter it with the sole
       view of relieving the sick, and conduct myself with propriety
       towards the women of the family.

       If during my attendance I happen to hear of anything that
       should not be revealed, I will keep it a profound secret.

       If I observe this oath, may I have success in this life, and
       may I obtain general esteem after it; if I break it, may the
       contrary be my lot.'"

          Ancient Physic and Physicians
          (Dublin University Magazine, April, 1856).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1st Century.
       Greek physicians in Rome.
       Pliny's Picture.

       Pliny's account of the Greek physicians in Rome in his time
       (first century) is not flattering to the profession. He says:
       "For the cure of King Antiochus—to give our first
       illustration of the profits realized by the medical
       art—Erasistratus received from his son, King Ptolemæus, the
       sum of one hundred talents. … I pass over in silence many
       physicians of the very highest celebrity, the Cassii, for
       instance, the Calpetani, the Arruntii, and the Rubrii, men who
       received fees yearly from the great, amounting to no less than
       250,000 sesterces. As for Q. Stertinius, he thought that he
       conferred an obligation upon the emperors in being content
       with 500,000 sesterces per annum; and indeed he proved, by an
       enumeration of the several houses, that a city practice would
       bring him in a yearly income of not less than 600,000
       sesterces. Fully equal to this was the sum lavished upon his
       brother by Claudius Cæsar; and the two brothers, although they
       had drawn largely upon their fortunes in beautifying the
       public buildings at Neapolis, left to their heirs no less than
       30,000,000 of sesterces! such an estate as no physician but
       Arruntius had till then possessed. Next in succession arose
       Vettius Valens, rendered so notorious by his adulterous
       connection with Messalina, the wife of Claudius Cæsar, and
       equally celebrated as a professor of eloquence. When
       established in public favour, he became the founder of a new
       sect. It was in the same age, too, during the reign of the
       Emperor Nero, that the destinies of the medical art passed
       into the hands of Thessalus, a man who swept away all the
       precepts of his predecessors, and declaimed with a sort of
       frenzy against the physicians of every age; but with what
       discretion and in what spirit, we may abundantly conclude from
       a single trait presented by his character—upon his tomb,
       which is still to be seen on the Appian Way, he had his name
       inscribed as the 'Iatronices'—the 'Conqueror of the
       Physicians.' No stage-player, no driver of a three-horse
       chariot, had a greater throng attending him when he appeared
       in public: but he was at last eclipsed in credit by Crinas, a
       native of Massilia, who, to wear an appearance of greater
       discreetness and more devoutness, united in himself the
       pursuit of two sciences, and prescribed diets to his patients
       in accordance with the movements of the heavenly bodies, as
       indicated by the almanacks of the mathematicians, taking
       observations himself of the various times and seasons. It was
       but recently that he died, leaving 10,000,000 of sesterces,
       after having expended hardly a less sum upon building the
       walls of his native place and of other towns. It was while
       these men were ruling our destinies, that all at once,
       Charmis, a native also of Massilia, took the City by surprise.
       Not content with condemning the practice of preceding
       physicians, he proscribed the use of warm baths as well, and
       persuaded people, in the very depth of winter even, to immerse
       themselves in cold water. His patients he used to plunge into
       large vessels filled with cold water, and it was a common
       thing to see aged men of consular rank make it a matter of
       parade to freeze themselves; a method of treatment, in favour
       of which Annæus Seneca gives his personal testimony, in
       writings still extant. There can be no doubt whatever, that
       all these men, in the pursuit of celebrity by the introduction
       of some novelty or other, made purchase of it at the downright
       expense of human life. Hence those woeful discussions, those
       consultations at the bedside of the patient, where no one
       thinks fit to be of the same opinion as another, lest he may
       have the appearance of being subordinate to another; hence,
       too, that ominous inscription to be read upon a tomb, 'It was
       the multitude of physicians that killed me.' The medical art,
       so often modified and renewed as it has been, is still on the
       change from day to day, and still are we impelled onwards by
       the puffs which emanate from the ingenuity of the Greeks. …
       Cassius Hemina, one of our most ancient writers, says that the
       first physician that visited Rome was Archagathus, the son of
       Lysanias, who came over from Peloponnesus, in the year of the
       City 535, L. Æmilius and M. Livius being consuls. He states
       also, that the right of free citizenship was granted him, and
       that he had a shop provided for his practice at the public
       expense in the Acilian Cross-way; that from his practice he
       received the name of 'Vulnerarius'; that on his arrival he was
       greatly welcomed at first, but that soon afterwards, from the
       cruelty displayed by him in cutting and searing his patients,
       he acquired the new name of 'Carnifex,' and brought his art
       and physicians in general into considerable disrepute. That
       such was the fact, we may readily understand from the words of
       M. Cato, a man whose authority stands so high of itself, that
       but little weight is added to it by the triumph which he
       gained, and the Censorship which he held. I shall, therefore,
       give his own words in reference to this subject. 'Concerning
       those Greeks, son Marcus, I will speak to you more at length
       on the befitting occasion. I will show you the results of my
       own experience at Athens, and that, while it is a good plan to
       dip into their literature, it is not worth while to make a
       thorough acquaintance with it. They are a most iniquitous and
       intractable race, and you may take my word as the word of a
       prophet, when I tell you, that whenever that nation shall
       bestow its literature upon Rome it will mar everything; and
       that all the sooner, if it sends its physicians among us. They
       have conspired among themselves to murder all barbarians with
       their medicine; a profession which they exercise for lucre, in
       order that they may win our confidence, and dispatch us all
       the more easily. They are in the common habit, too, of calling
       us barbarians, and stigmatize us beyond all other nations, by
       giving us the abominable appellation of Opici.
    {2128}
       I forbid you to have anything to do with physicians.' Cato,
       who wrote to this effect, died in his eighty-fifth year, in
       the year of the City 605; so that no one is to suppose that he
       had not sufficient time to form his experience, either with
       reference to the duration of the republic, or the length of
       his own life. Well then—are we to conclude that he has
       stamped with condemnation a thing that in itself is most
       useful? Far from it, by Hercules! … Medicine is the only one
       of the arts of Greece, that, lucrative as it is, the Roman
       gravity has hitherto refused to cultivate. It is but very few
       of our fellow-citizens that have even attempted it."

          Pliny,
          Natural History
          (Bohn's translation),
          book 29, chapters 3-8 (volume 5).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d Century.
       Galen and the development of Anatomy and Pathology.

       "In the earliest conceptions which men entertained of their
       power of moving their own members, they probably had no
       thought of any mechanism or organization by which this was
       effected. The foot and the hand, no less than the head, were
       seen to be endowed with life; and this pervading life seemed
       sufficiently to explain the power of motion in each part of
       the frame, without its being held necessary to seek out a
       special seat of the will, or instruments by which its impulses
       were made effective. But the slightest inspection of dissected
       animals showed that their limbs were formed of a curious and
       complex collection of cordage, and communications of various
       kinds, running along and connecting the bones of the skeleton.
       These cords and communications we now distinguish as muscles,
       nerves, veins, arteries, &c.; and among these, we assign to
       the muscles the office of moving the parts to which they are
       attached, as cords move the parts of a machine. Though this
       action of the muscles on the bones may now appear very
       obvious, it was, probably, not at first discerned. It is
       observed that Homer, who describes the wounds which are
       inflicted in his battles with so much apparent anatomical
       precision, nowhere employs the word muscle. And even
       Hippocrates of Cos, the most celebrated physician of
       antiquity, is held to have had no distinct conception of such
       an organ. … Nor do we find much more distinctness on this
       subject even in Aristotle, a generation or two later. … He
       is held to have really had the merit of discovering the nerves
       of sensation, which he calls the 'canals of the brain' … ,
       but the analysis of the mechanism of motion is left by him
       almost untouched. … His immediate predecessors were far from
       remedying the deficiencies of his doctrines. Those who
       professed to study physiology and medicine were, for the most
       part, studious only to frame some general system of abstract
       principles, which might give an appearance of connexion and
       profundity to their tenets. In this manner the successors of
       Hippocrates became a medical school, of great note in its day,
       designated as the Dogmatic school; in opposition to which
       arose an Empiric sect, who professed to deduce their modes of
       cure, not from theoretical dogmas, but from experience. These
       rival parties prevailed principally in Asia Minor and Egypt,
       during the time of Alexander's successors,—a period rich in
       names, but poor in discoveries; and we find no clear evidence
       of any decided advance in anatomy. … The victories of
       Lucullus and Pompeius, in Greece and Asia, made the Romans
       acquainted with the Greek philosophy; and the consequence soon
       was, that shoals of philosophers, rhetoricians, poets, and
       physicians streamed from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt, to
       Rome and Italy, to traffic their knowledge and their arts for
       Roman wealth. Among these was one person whose name makes a
       great figure in the history of medicine, Asclepiades of Prusa
       in Bithynia. This man appears to have been a quack, with the
       usual endowments of his class. … He would not, on such
       accounts, deserve a place in the history of science, but that
       he became the founder of a new school, the Methodic, which
       professed to hold itself separate both from the Dogmatics and
       the Empirics. I have noticed these schools of medicine,
       because, though I am not able to state distinctly their
       respective merits in the cultivation of anatomy, a great
       progress in that science was undoubtedly made during their
       domination, of which the praise must, I conceive, be in some
       way divided among them. The amount of this progress we are
       able to estimate, when we come to the works of Galen, who
       flourished under the Antonines, and died about A. D. 203. The
       following passage from his works will show that this progress
       in knowledge was not made without the usual condition of
       laborious and careful experiment, while it implies the curious
       fact of such experiment being conducted by means of family
       tradition and instruction, so as to give rise to a caste of
       dissectors. In the opening of his Second Book on Anatomical
       Manipulations, he speaks thus of his predecessors: 'I do not
       blame the ancients, who did not write books on anatomical
       manipulation; though I praise Marinus, who did. For it was
       superfluous for them to compose such records for themselves or
       others, while they were, from their childhood, exercised by
       their parents in dissecting, just as familiarly as in writing
       and reading; so that there was no more fear of their
       forgetting their anatomy, than of forgetting their alphabet.
       But when grown men, as well as children, were taught, this
       thorough discipline fell off; and, the art being carried out
       of the family of the Asclepiads, and declining by repeated
       transmission, books became necessary for the student.' That
       the general structure of the animal frame, as composed of
       bones and muscles, was known with great accuracy before the
       time of Galen, is manifest from the nature of the mistakes and
       deficiencies of his predecessors which he finds it necessary
       to notice. … Galen was from the first highly esteemed as an
       anatomist. He was originally of Pergamus; and after receiving
       the instructions of many medical and philosophical professors,
       and especially of those of Alexandria, which was then the
       metropolis of the learned and scientific world, he came to
       Rome, where his reputation was soon so great as to excite the
       envy and hatred of the Roman physicians. The emperors Marcus
       Aurelius and Lucius Verus would have retained him near them;
       but he preferred pursuing his travels, directed principally by
       curiosity. When he died, he left behind him numerous works, an
       of them of great value for the light they throw on the history
       of anatomy and medicine; and these were for a long period the
       storehouse of all the most important anatomical knowledge
       which the world possessed. In the time of intellectual
       barrenness and servility, among the Arabians and the Europeans
       of the dark ages, the writings of Galen had almost unquestioned
       authority; and it was only by an uncommon effort of
       independent thinking that Abdollatif ventured to assert, that
       even Galen's assertions must give way to the evidence of the
       senses. In more modern times, when Vesalius, in the sixteenth
       century, accused Galen of mistakes, he drew upon himself the
       hostility of the whole body of physicians."

          W. Whewell,
          History of the Inductive Sciences,
          book 17, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 2).

    {2129}

       "Galen strongly denied being attached to any of the sects of
       his day, and regarded as slaves those who took the title of
       Hippocratists, Praxagoreaus, or Herophilists, and so on.
       Nevertheless his predilection in favor of the Hippocratic
       writings is well marked, for he explains, comments upon them,
       and amplifies them at length, refutes the objections of their
       adversaries and gives them the highest place. He says, 'No one
       before me has given the true method of treating disease;
       Hippocrates, I confess, has heretofore shown the path, but as
       he was the first to enter it he was not able to go as far as
       he wished. … He has not made all the necessary distinction,
       and is often obscure, as is usually the case with ancients
       when they attempt to be concise. He says very little of
       complicated diseases; in a word, he has only sketched what
       another was to complete; he has opened the path, but has left
       it for a successor to enlarge and make it plain.' This implies
       how he regarded himself as the successor of Hippocrates, and
       how little weight he attached to the labors of others. He held
       that there were three sorts of principles in man—spirits,
       humors, and solids. Throughout his metaphysical speculations
       Galen reproduces and amplifies the Hippocratic dogmatism.
       Between perfect health and disease there were, he thought,
       eight kinds of temperaments or imperfect mixtures compatible
       with the exercise of the functions of life. With Plato and
       Aristotle he thought the human soul to be composed of three
       faculties or parts, the vegetive, residing in the liver; the
       irascible, having its seat in the heart, and the rational,
       which resided in the brain. He divided diseases of the solids
       of the body into what he called distempers; he distinguished
       between the continued and intermittent fevers, regarding the
       quotidian as being caused by phlegm, the tertian as due to
       yellow bile, and the quartan due to atrabile. In the doctrine
       of coction, crises, and critical days, he agreed with
       Hippocrates; with him he also agreed in the positive statement
       that diseases are cured by their contraries."

          Roswell Park,
          Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11th Centuries.
       Medical Art of the Arabs.

       "It probably sounds paradoxical (though it is not) to affirm
       that, throughout the first half of the Middle Ages, science
       made its home chiefly with the Semites and Græco-Romans (its
       founders), while, in opposition to the original relations,
       faith and its outgrowths alone were fostered by the Germans.
       In the sterile wastes of the desert the Arabians constructed a
       verdant oasis of science, in lands to-day the home once more
       of absolute or partial barbarism. A genuine meteor of
       civilization were these Arabians. … The Arabians built their
       medicine upon the principles and theories of the Greeks (whose
       medical writings were studied and copied mostly in
       translations only), and especially upon those of Galen, in
       such a way, that, on the whole, they added to it very little
       matter of their own, save numerous subtle definitions and
       amplifications. But Indian medical views and works, as well as
       those of other earlier Asiatic peoples (e. g., the Chaldeans),
       exercised demonstrably, but in a subordinate degree, an
       influence upon Arabian medicine. The Arabians interwove too
       into their medical views various philosophical theorems,
       especially those of Aristotle, already corrupted by the
       Alexandrians and still further falsified by themselves with
       portions of the Neo-Platonic philosophy; and finally they
       added thereto a goodly share of the absurdities of astrology
       and alchemy. Indeed it is nowadays considered proven that they
       even made use of ancient Egyptian medical works, e. g., the
       papyrus Ebers. Thus the medicine of the Arabians, like Grecian
       medicine its parent, did not greatly surpass the grade of
       development of mere medical philosophy, and, so far as regards
       its intrinsic worth, it stands entirely upon Grecian
       foundations. … Yet they constantly advanced novelties in the
       sciences subsidiary to medicine, materia medica and pharmacy,
       from the latter of which chemistry, pharmacies and the
       profession of the apothecary were developed. … The mode of
       transfer of Greek medicine to the Arabians was probably as
       follows: The inhabitants of the neighboring parts of Asia,
       including both the Persians and Arabians, as the result of
       multifarious business connexions with Alexandria, came, even
       at an early date, in contact with Grecian science, and by
       degrees a permanent alliance was formed with it. In a more
       evident way the same result was accomplished by the Jewish
       schools in Asia, the great majority of which owed their
       foundation to Alexandria. Such schools were established at
       Nisibis, at Nahardea in Mesopotamia, at Mathæ-Mechasja on the
       Euphrates, at Sura, &c., and their period of prime falls in
       the 5th century. The influence of the Nestorian universities
       was especially favorable and permanent, particularly the
       school under Greek management founded at Edessa, in
       Mesopotamia, where Stephen of Edessa, the reputed father of
       Alexander of Tralles, taught (A. D. 530). …. Still more
       influential in the transfer of Grecian science to the Arabians
       was the banishment of the 'heathen' philosophers of the last
       so-called Platonic school of Athens, by the 'Christian' despot
       Justinian I. (529). These philosophers were well received at
       the court of the infidel Chosroës, and in return manifested
       their gratitude by the propagation of Grecian science. …
       From all these causes it resulted that, even as early as the
       time of Mohammed (571-632), physicians educated in the Grecian
       doctrines lived among the Arabians. … Arabian culture (and
       of course Arabian medicine) reached its zenith at the period
       of the greatest power and greatest wealth of the Caliphate in
       the 9th and 10th centuries. At that time intellectual life was
       rooted in the schools of the mosques, i. e., the Arabian
       universities, which the great caliphs were zealous in
       founding. Such Arabian universities arose and existed in the
       progress of time (even as late as the 14th century) at Bagdad,
       Bassora, Cufa, Samarcand, Ispahan, Damascus, Bokhara,
       Firuzabad and Khurdistan, and under the scholastic Fatimides
       (909-1171) in Alexandria. Under the Ommyiades (755-1031),
       after the settlement of the Arabians in Spain in the beginning
       of the 8th century, were founded the famous universities of
       Cordova (possessing in the 10th century a library of 250,000
       volumes), Seville, Toledo, Almeria and Murcia under the three
       caliphs named Abderrahman and Al Hakem.
    {2130}
       Less important were the universities of Granada and Valencia,
       and least important of all, those founded by the Edrisi
       dynasty (800-986) in the provinces of Tunis, Fez and Morocco.
       In spite of all these institutions the Arabians possessed no
       talent for productive research; still less, like the ancient
       Semites, did they create any arts, save poesy and
       architecture. Their whole civilization bore the stamp of its
       foreign origin. … 'The Prince of Physicians' (el Sheik el
       Reis—he was also a poet) was the title given by the Arabians
       to Abu Ali el Hossein ebn Abdallah ebn Sina (Ebn Sina,
       Avicenna), 980-1037, in recognition of his great erudition, of
       which the chief evidences are stored in his 'Canon.' This
       work, though it contains substantially merely the conclusions
       of the Greeks, was the text-book and law of the healing art,
       even as late as the first century of modern times."

          J. H. Baas,
          Outlines of the History of Medicine,
          pages 216-229.

       "The Saracens commenced the application of chemistry, both to
       the theory and practice of medicine, in the explanation of the
       functions of the human body and in the cure of its diseases.
       Nor was their surgery behind their medicine. Albucasis, of
       Cordova, shrinks not from the performance of the most
       formidable operations in his own and in the obstetrical art;
       the actual cautery and the knife are used without hesitation.
       He has left us ample descriptions of the surgical instruments
       then employed; and from him we learn that, in operations on
       females in which considerations of delicacy intervened, the
       services of properly instructed women were secured. How
       different was all this from the state of things in Europe: the
       Christian peasant, fever-stricken or overtaken by accident,
       hied to the nearest saint-shrine and expected a miracle; the
       Spanish Moor relied on the prescription or lancet of his
       physician, or the bandage and knife of his surgeon."

          J. W. Draper,
          History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

       "The accession of Gehwer to the throne of Mussulman Spain,
       early in the eleventh century, was marked by the promulgation
       of regulations so judiciously planned, touching medical
       science and its practice, that he deserves the highest
       commendation for the unwavering zeal with which he supervised
       this important branch of learning taught in the metropolis.
       Those evils which the provinces had suffered previous to his
       rule, through the practice of medicine by debased empirics,
       were quickly removed by this sagacious Caliph. Upon the
       publication of his rescripts, such medical charlatans or
       ambulatory physicians as boldly announced themselves to be
       medici, without a knowledge of the science, were ignominiously
       expelled from the provincial towns. He decreed that a college
       of skilled surgeons should be forthwith organized, for the
       single specified function of rigidly examining into the
       assumed qualifications of applicants for licenses to exercise
       the curative art in municipal or rural departments, or sought
       professional employment as physicians in the numerous
       hospitals upon the Mahometan domains."

          G. F. Fort,
          Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
          chapter 17.

       "Anatomy and physiology, far from making any conquests under
       Arabian rule, followed on the contrary a retrograde movement.
       As those physicians never devoted themselves to dissections,
       they were under the necessity of conforming entirely to the
       accounts of Galen. … Pathology was enriched in the Arabian
       writings by some new observations. … The physicians of this
       nation were the first … who began to distinguish eruptive
       fevers by the exterior characters of the eruption, while the
       Greeks paid but little attention to these signs. Therapeutics
       made also some interesting acquisitions under the Arab
       physicians. It owes to them, among other things, the
       introduction of mild purgatives, such as cassia, senna, and
       manna, which replaced advantageously, in many cases, the
       drastics employed by the ancients; it is indebted to them,
       also, for several chemical and pharmaceutical improvements, as
       the confection of syrups, tinctures, and distilled waters,
       which are very frequently and usefully employed. Finally,
       external therapeutics, or surgery, received some minor
       additions, such as pomades, plasters, and new ointments; but
       these additions were very far from compensating for the
       considerable losses which it suffered by their abandoning a
       multitude of operations in use among the Greeks."

          P. V. Renouard,
          History of Medicine,
          page 267.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17th Centuries.
       Mediæval Medicine.

       "The difficulties under which medical science laboured may be
       estimated from the fact that dissection was forbidden by the
       clergy of the Middle Ages, on the ground that it was impious
       to mutilate a form made in the image of God. We do not find
       this pious objection interfering with such mutilation when
       effected by means of the rack and the wheel and such other
       clerical rather than medical instruments. But in the reign of
       Philip the Second of Spain a famous Spanish doctor was
       actually condemned by the Inquisition to be burnt for having
       performed a surgical operation, and it was only by royal
       favour that he was permitted instead to expiate his crime by a
       pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he died in poverty and
       exile. This being the attitude of the all-powerful Church
       towards medical progress, it is not surprising that medical
       science should have stagnated, and that Galen and Dioscorides
       were permitted to lay down the law in the sixteenth century as
       they had done since the beginning of the Christian era. Some
       light is thrown upon the state of things here from resulting
       by a work translated from the German in the year 1561, and
       entitled 'A most excellent and perfecte homish apothecarye or
       physicke booke, for all the grefes and diseases of the bodye.'
       The first chapter is 'Concerning the Head and his partes.'
       'Galen sayth, the head is divided into foure partes: in the
       fore part hath blood the dominion; Colera in the ryght syde,
       Melancholy in the left syde, and Flegma beareth rule in the
       hindermost part. If the head doth ake so sore by reason of a
       runninge that he cannot snoffe hys nose, bath hys fete in a
       depe tub untill the knees and give him this medicine … which
       riseth into hys head and dryeth hys moyst braynes. Galen sayth
       He that hath payne in the hindermost part of hys head, the
       same must be let blood under the chynne, specially on the
       right side; also were it good ofte to burn the heyre of a man
       before hys nose. The braynes are greved many wayes; many there
       are whom the head whyrleth so sore that he thinketh the earth
       turneth upsydedoune: Cummin refraineth the whyrling,
       comforteth the braynes and maketh them to growe agayne: or he
       may take the braynes of a hogge, rost the same upon a grede
       yron and cut slices thereof and lay to the greved parts.'
    {2131}
       This doctrine of like helping like was of universal
       application, and in medical works of the Middle Ages we meet
       constantly with such prescriptions as these:—'Take the right
       eye of a Frogg, lap it in a peece of russet cloth and hang it
       about the neck: it cureth the light eye if it bee en flamed or
       bleared. And if the left eye be greved, do the like by the
       left eye of the said Frogg." Again—'The skin of a Raven's
       heel is good against the gout, but the right heel skin must be
       laid upon the right foot if that be gouty, and the left upon
       the left. … If you would have a man become bold or impudent
       let him carry about him the skin or eyes of a Lion or a Cock,
       and he will be fearless of his enemies, nay, he will be very
       terrible unto them. If you would have him talkative, give him
       tongues, and seek out those of water frogs and ducks and such
       creatures notorious for their continuall noise making.' On the
       same principle we find it prescribed as a cure for the
       quartane ague to lay the fourth book of Homer's Iliad under
       the patient's head; a remedy which had at least the negative
       merit of not being nauseous. … For weak eyes the patient is
       to 'take the tounge of a foxe, and hange the same about his
       necke, and so long it hangeth there his sight shall not wax
       feeble, as sayth Pliny.' The hanging of such amulets round the
       neck was very frequently prescribed, and the efficacy of them
       is a thing curiously well attested. Elias Ashmole in his diary
       for 1681 has entered the following—'I tooke this morning a
       good dose of elixir, and hung three spiders about my neck, and
       they drove my ague away. Deo gratias!' A baked toad hung in a
       silk bag about the neck was also held in high esteem, as was a
       toad, either alive or dried, laid upon the back of the neck as
       a means of stopping a bleeding at the nose: and again, 'either
       frogg or toade, the nails whereof have been clipped, hanged
       about one that is sick of quartane ague, riddeth away the
       disease forever, as sayth Pliny.' We have even a striking
       instance of the benefit derived from an amulet by a horse, who
       could not be suspected of having helped forward the cure by
       the strength of his faith in it. 'The root of cut Malowe
       hanged about the neck driveth away blemishes of the eyen,
       whether it be in a man or a horse, as I Jerome of Brunsweig,
       have seene myselfe. I have myselfe done it to a blind horse
       that I bought for X crounes, and was sold again of XL
       crounes'—a trick distinctly worth knowing."

          E. A. King,
          Mediæval Medicine
          (Nineteenth Century, July 1893).

       "If we survey the social and political state of Europe from
       the twelfth to the sixteenth century, in its relation to the
       development of medical art, our attention is at once arrested
       by Italy, which at this period was far ahead of the rest of
       the world. Taking the number of universities as an index of
       civilization, we find that, before the year 1500, there were
       sixteen in Italy,—while in France there were but six: in
       Germany, including Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria, &c., there were
       eight: and in Britain, two; making sixteen in all,—the exact
       number which existed in Italy alone. The Italian Universities
       were, likewise, no less superior in number than in fame to
       those of the north. … In many of the Italian republics,
       during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, the
       power was chiefly in the hands of the middle classes; and it
       is probable that the physicians occupied a high and
       influential position among them. Galvanis Flamma describes
       Milan in 1288, as having a population of 200,000, among whom
       were 600 notaries, 200 physicians, 80 schoolmasters, and fifty
       transcribers of manuscripts or books. Milan was about this
       period at a pitch of glory which has not been equalled since
       the Greek republics."

          J. R. Russell,
          History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
          chapter 5.

       "Three schools, as early as 1158, had a reputation which
       extended throughout the whole of Europe: Paris for theological
       studies, Bologna for Roman or civil law, and Salerno as the
       chief medical school of the west."

          G. F. Fort,
          Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
          chapter 24.

       "In 1215 Pope Innocent III. fulminated an anathema specially
       directed against surgery, by ordaining, that as the church
       abhorred all cruel or sanguinary practices, no priest should
       be permitted to follow surgery, or to perform any operations
       in which either instruments of steel or fire were employed:
       and that they should refuse their benediction to all those who
       professed and pursued it. … The saints have proved sad
       enemies to the doctors. Miraculous cures are attested by
       monks, abbots, bishops, popes, and consecrated saints. …
       Pilgrimages and visits to holy shrines have usurped the place
       of medicine, and, as in many cases at our own watering places,
       by air and exercise, have unquestionably effected what the
       employment of regular professional aid had been unable to
       accomplish. St. Dominic, St. Bellinus, and St. Vitus have been
       greatly renowned in the cure of diseases in general; the
       latter particularly, who takes both poisons and madness of all
       kinds under his special protection. Melton says 'the saints of
       the Romanists have usurped the place of the zodiacal
       constellations in their governance of the parts of man's body,
       and that "for every limbe they have a saint." Thus St. Otilia
       keepes the head instead of Aries; St. Blasius is appointed to
       governe the necke instead of Taurus; St. Lawrence keepes the
       backe and shoulders instead of Gemini, Cancer, and Leo: St.
       Erasmus rules the belly with the entrayles, in the place of
       Libra and Scorpius; in the stead of Sagittarius, Capricornus,
       Aquarius, and Pisces, the holy church of Rome hath elected St.
       Burgarde, St. Rochus. St. Quirinus, St. John, and many others,
       which governe the thighes, feet, shinnes, and knees.' This
       supposed influence of the Romish saints is more minutely
       exhibited, according to Hone, in two very old prints, from
       engravings on wood, in the collection of the British Museum.
       Right hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated to God,
       the second joint to the Virgin; the top joint of the
       fore-finger to St. Barnabas, the second joint to St. John, the
       third to St. Paul: the top joint of the second finger to Simon
       Cleophas, the second joint to Tathideo, the third to Joseph;
       the top joint of the third finger to Zaccheus, the second to
       Stephen, the third to the evangelist Luke; the top joint of
       the little finger to Leatus, the second to Mark, the third to
       Nicodemus. Left hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated
       to Christ, the second joint to the Virgin: the top joint of
       the fore-finger to St. James, the second to St. John the
       Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; the first joint of the
       second finger to St. Simon, the second joint to St. Matthew,
       the third to St. James the Great; the top joint of the third
       finger to St. Jude, the second joint to St. Bartholomew, the
       third to St. Andrew; the top joint of the little finger to St.
       Matthias, the second to St. Thomas, the third joint to St.
       Philip. …
    {2132}
       "The credulity of mankind has never been more strongly
       displayed than in the general belief afforded to the
       authenticity of remarkable cures of diseases said to have been
       effected by the imposition of royal hands. The practice seems
       to have originated in an opinion that there is something
       sacred or divine attaching either to the sovereign or his
       functions. … The practice appears to be one of English
       growth, commencing with Edward the Confessor, and descending
       only to foreign potentates who could show an alliance with the
       royal family of England. The kings of France, however, claimed
       the right to dispense the Gift of Healing, and it was
       certainly exercised by Philip the First; but the French
       historians say that he was deprived of the power on account of
       the irregularity of his life. Laurentius, first physician to
       Henry IV, of France, who is indignant at the attempt made to
       derive its origin from Edward the Confessor, asserts the power
       to have commenced with Clovis I, A. D. 481, and says that
       Louis I, A. D. 814, added to the ceremonial of touching, the
       sign of the cross. Mezeray also says, that St. Louis, through
       humility, first added the sign of the cross in touching for
       the king's evil. … If credit is to be given to a statement
       … by William of Malmesbury, with respect to Edward the
       Confessor, we must admit that in England, for a period of
       nearly 700 years, the practice of the royal touch was
       exercised in a greater or lesser degree, as it extended to the
       reign of Queen Anne. It must not however be supposed that
       historical documents are extant to prove a regular continuance
       of the practice during this time. No accounts whatever of the
       first four Norman kings attempting to cure the complaint are
       to be found. In the reign of William III, it was not on any
       occasion exercised. He manifested more sense than his
       predecessors, for he withheld from employing the royal touch
       for the cure of scrofula; and Rapin says, that he was so
       persuaded he should do no injury to persons afflicted with
       this distemper by not touching them, that he refrained from it
       all his reign. Queen Elizabeth was also averse to the
       practice, yet she extensively performed it. It flourished most
       in the time of Charles II, particularly after his restoration,
       and a public register of cases was kept at Whitehall, the
       principal scene of its operation."

          T. J. Pettigrew,
          Superstitions connected with the History and Practice
          of Medicine and Surgery,
          pages 34-37, and 117-121.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
       Paracelsus.

       Paracelsus, of whose many names this one stands alone in
       history to represent him, was an extraordinary person, born in
       Switzerland, in 1493. He died in 1541. "His character has been
       very variously estimated. The obstructives of his own age and
       many hasty judges since have pronounced him a quack. This is
       simply ridiculous. As a chemist, he is considered to have been
       the discoverer of zinc, and perhaps of bismuth. He was
       acquainted with hydrogen, muriatic, and sulphurous gases. He
       distinguished alum from the vitriols; remarking that the
       former contained an earth, and the latter metals. He perceived
       the part played by the atmosphere in combustion, and
       recognized the analogy between combustion and respiration. He
       saw that in the organic system chemical processes are
       constantly going on. Thus, to him is due the fundamental idea
       from which have sprung the chemico-physiological researches of
       Liebig, Mulder, Boussingault, and others. By using in
       medicine, not crude vegetables, but their active principles,
       he opened the way to the discovery of the proximate principles
       of vegetables, organic alkalis, and the like. But perhaps the
       greatest service he rendered to chemistry, was by declaring it
       an essential part of medical education, and by showing that
       its true practical application lay not in gold-making, but in
       pharmacy and the industrial arts. In medicine he scouted the
       fearfully complex electuaries and mixtures of the Galenists
       and the Arabian polypharmacists, recommending simpler and more
       active preparations. He showed that the idea of poison is
       merely relative, and knew that poisons in suitable doses may
       be employed in medicine. He prescribed tin as a remedy for
       intestinal worms, mercury as an anti-syphilitic, and lead in
       the diseases of the skin. He also used preparations of
       antimony, arsenic, and iron. He employed sulphuric acid in the
       treatment of saturnine affections. The astonishing cures which
       he undoubtedly performed were, however, due not so much to his
       peculiar medicines, as to his eminent sagacity and insight. He
       showed the importance of a chemical examination of urine for
       the diagnosis of disease."

          J. W. Slater,
          Paracelsus
          (Imperial Dict. of Univ. Biog.).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
       The first English College of Physicians.

       "The modern doctor dates only from the reign of Henry VIII.,
       when the College of Physicians in England was founded as a
       body corporate by letters patent in the tenth year of the
       reign. This grant was in response to a petition from a few of
       the most notable members of the profession resident in London,
       who were perhaps moved by both a laudable zeal in the
       interests of science, and a compassion for the sufferings of
       the subjects of astrological and toxicological experiments.
       The charter thus obtained, though probably drafted by the
       promoters themselves, was found to be so inadequately worded
       and expressed, that it became necessary to obtain powers to
       amend it by Act of Parliament. Among these early members were
       Linacre, Wotton, and others, famous scholars beyond doubt,
       though possibly but indifferent practitioners. In fact, we are
       constantly struck throughout the early history of the
       profession by the frequent occurrence of names associated with
       almost every other branch of study than that strictly
       appertaining to the art of medicine. We have naturalists,
       magneticians, astronomers, mathematicians, logicians, and
       classical scholars, but scarce one who accomplished anything
       worthy to be recorded in the annals of medical science. Indeed
       it is difficult to conceive any useful object that could have
       been attained by the existence of the College as a
       professional licensing body, other than the pecuniary
       interests of the orthodox. … It is most significant as to
       the social degradation of the science of medicine, that most
       of the notorious empirics of the latter half of the sixteenth
       century were both highly recommended and strenuously supported
       in their resistance to the proctors of orthodoxy by some of
       the greatest names of the age. These self-deluded victims of
       quackery were not indeed adverse in theory to the pretensions
       of more regular members of the profession.
    {2133}
       They would patronize the Court physicians, or, if favorites of
       the Crown, they might even submit to the Sovereign's
       recommendation in that behalf; but none the less their family
       doctor was in far too many cases some outlandish professor of
       occult arts, retained in learned state on the premises, who
       undertook the speedy, not to say miraculous, cure of his
       patron's particular disease by all the charms of the Cabala."

          H. Hall,
          The Early Medicus
          (Merry England; also in Eclectic Magazine, June, 1884).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
       The System of Van Helmont.

       John Baptist van Helmont "was born at Brussels in the year
       1577. … His parents were noble, and he was heir to great
       possessions. He pursued in Louvain the usual course of
       scholastic philosophy. … Becoming accidentally acquainted
       with the writings of Thomas à Kempis and John Tauler, he from
       that day adopted what goes by the vague term of mysticism.
       That is, thoroughly convinced that there was a spiritual world
       in intimate and eternal union with the spirit of man; that
       this spiritual world was revealed to that human soul which
       submitted to receive it in humility; and that the doctrines of
       Christianity were not to be looked upon as a system of
       philosophy; but as a rule of life, he resolved to follow them
       to the letter. The consequence of this resolution was, that he
       devoted himself to the art of medicine, in imitation of the
       Great Healer of the body as well as of the soul; and as the
       prejudices of his time and country made his rank and wealth an
       obstacle to his entrance into the medical profession, he made
       over all his property, with its honours, to his sister; that,
       'laying aside every weight, he might run the race that was set
       before him.' He entered on his new studies with all the zeal
       of his character, and very soon had so completely mastered the
       writings of Hippocrates and Galen, as to excite the surprise
       of his contemporaries. But although styled a dreamer, and
       having a mind easily moved to belief in spiritual
       manifestation, he was not of a credulous nature in regard to
       matters belonging to the senses. And as he believed that
       Christianity was to be practised, and to be found true by the
       test of experiment, so he believed that the doctrines of
       Hippocrates and of Galen were to be subjected to a similar
       trial. An opportunity soon occurred to himself. He caught the
       itch and turned to Galen for its cure. Galen attributes this
       disease to overheated bile and sour phlegm, and says that it
       is to be cured by purgatives. Van Helmont, with the implicit
       faith of his simple nature, procured the prescribed medicines,
       and took them as ordered by Galen. Alas, no cure of the itch
       followed, but great exhaustion of his whole body: so Galen was
       not to be trusted. This was a serious discovery; for if he
       could not trust Galen, by whom the whole medical world swore,
       to whom was he to turn? … Van Helmont resolved to work out
       for himself a solution of the great problem to which he had
       devoted his life. Van Helmont's system may be called spiritual
       vitalism. The primary cause of all organization was Archæus.
       By Archæus, a man is much more nearly allied, he says, to the
       world of spirits and the Father of spirits than to the
       external world. Archæus is the creative spirit which, working
       upon the raw material of water or fluidity, by means of 'a
       ferment' excites all the endless actions which result in the
       growth and nourishment of the body. Thus, digestion is neither
       a chemical nor a mechanical operation; nor is it, as was then
       supposed, the effects of heat, for it is arrested instead of
       aided by fever, and goes on in perfection in fishes and
       cold-blooded animals; but, on the command of Archæus, an acid
       is generated in the stomach, which dissolves the food. This is
       the first digestion. The second consists in the neutralization
       of this acid by the bile out of the gall bladder. The third
       takes place in the vessels of the mesentery. The fourth goes
       on in the heart, by the action of the vital spirits. The fifth
       consists in the conversion of the arterial blood into vital
       spirits, chiefly in the brain. The sixth consists of the
       preparation of nourishment in the laboratory of each organ,
       during which operation Archæus, present everywhere, is itself
       regenerated, and superintends the momentary regeneration of
       the whole frame. If for digestion we substitute the word
       nutrition, we cannot fail to be struck by the near approach to
       accuracy in this description of the succession of processes by
       which it is brought about. Van Helmont's pathology was quite
       consistent with his physiology. As life and all vital action
       depended upon Archæus, so the perturbation of Archæus gave
       rise to fevers, and derangements of the blood and secretions.
       Thus, gout was a disease not confined to the part in which it
       showed itself, but was the result of Archæus. It will be seen
       that by this theory the entire system of Galen was non-suited.
       There is no place for the elements and the humours."

          J. R. Russell,
          History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
          chapter 8.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
       Harvey and the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

       William Harvey, "physician and discoverer of the circulation
       of the blood, was born at Folkestone, Kent, 1 April 1578, in a
       house which was in later times the posthouse of the town and
       which still belongs to Caius College, Cambridge, to which
       Harvey bequeathed it. His father was Thomas Harvey, a Kentish
       yeoman. … In 1588 William was sent to the King's School,
       Canterbury. Thence he went to Cambridge, where he was admitted
       a pensioner in Gonville and Caius College, 31 May 1593. … He
       graduated B. A. 1597, and, determining to study medicine,
       travelled through France and Germany to Padua, the most famous
       school of physic of that time. … He returned to England,
       graduated M. D. at Cambridge 1602, and soon after took a house
       in the parish of St. Martin-extra-Ludgate in London. … On 4
       August 1615 he was elected Lumleian lecturer at the College of
       Physicians, … and in the following April, on the 16th, 17th,
       and 18th, he delivered at the college in Knightrider Street,
       near St. Paul's Cathedral, the lectures in which he made the
       first public statement of his thoughts on the circulation of
       the blood. The notes from which he delivered these lectures
       exist in their original manuscript and binding at the British
       Museum. … In 1628, twelve years after his first statement of
       it in his lectures, he published at Frankfurt, through William
       Fitzer, his discovery of the circulation of the blood. The
       book is a small quarto, entitled 'Exercitatio Anatomica de
       Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus,' and contains
       seventy-two pages and two plates of diagrams. The printers
       evidently had difficulty in reading the author's handwriting,
       and there are many misprints. …
    {2134}
       He begins by modestly stating how the difficulties of the
       subject had gradually become clear to him, and by expressing
       with a quotation from the 'Andria' of Terence, the hope that
       his discovery might help others to still further knowledge. He
       then describes the motions of arteries, of the ventricles of
       the heart, and of its auricles, as seen in living animals, and
       the use of these movements. He shows that the blood coming
       into the right auricle from the vena cava, and passing then to
       the right ventricle, is pumped out to the lungs through the
       pulmonary artery, passes through the parenchyma of the lungs,
       and comes thence by the pulmonary veins to the left ventricle.
       This same blood, he shows, is then pumped out to the body. It
       is carried out by arteries and comes back by veins, performing
       a complete circulation. He shows that, in a live snake, when
       the great veins are tied some way from the heart, the piece of
       vein between the ligature and the heart is empty, and further,
       that blood coming from the heart is checked in an artery by a
       ligature, so that there is blood between the heart and the
       ligature and no blood beyond the ligature. He then shows how
       the blood comes back to the heart by the veins, and
       demonstrates their valves. These had before been described by
       Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente, but before Harvey no
       exact explanation of their function had been given. He gives
       diagrams showing the results of obstructing the veins, and
       that these valves may thus be seen to prevent the flow of
       blood in the veins in any direction except towards the heart.
       After a summary of a few lines in the fourteenth chapter he
       further illustrates the perpetual circuit of the blood, and
       points out how morbid materials are carried from the heart all
       over the body. The last chapter gives a masterly account of
       the structure of the heart in men and animals, and points out
       that the right ventricle is thinner than the left because it
       has only to send the blood a short way into the lungs, while
       the left ventricle has to pump it all over the body. This
       great and original book at once attracted attention and
       excited discussion. In the College of Physicians of London,
       where Harvey had mentioned the discovery in his lectures every
       year since 1616, the Exercitatio received all the honour it
       deserved. On the continent of Europe it was received with less
       favour, but neither in England nor abroad did anyone suggest
       that the discovery was to be found in other writers. …
       Before his death the great discovery of Harvey was accepted
       throughout the medical world. The modern controversy … as to
       whether the discovery was taken from some previous author is
       sufficiently refuted by the opinion of the opponents of his
       views in his own time, who agreed in denouncing the doctrine
       as new; by the laborious method of gradual demonstration
       obvious in his book and lectures; and, lastly, by the complete
       absence of lucid demonstration of the action of the heart and
       course of the blood in Cæsalpinus, Servetus, and all others
       who have been suggested as possible originals of the
       discovery. It remains to this day the greatest of the
       discoveries of physiology, and its whole honour belongs to
       Harvey."

          N. Moore,
          Harvey
          (Dict. of National Biog., volume 25).

          ALSO IN:
          R. Willis,
          William Harvey: A history of the Discovery of
          the Circulation of the Blood.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
       Discovery of the Lymphatic Circulation.

       "The discovery of the lymphatic vessels and their purpose was
       scarcely less remarkable than that of the circulation of the
       blood. It has about it less of eclat, because it was not the
       work of one man, but was a matter of slow development.
       Herophilus and Erasistratus had seen white vessels connected
       with the lymph nodes in the mesentery of certain animals, and
       had supposed them to be arteries full of air. Galen disputed
       this, and believed the intestinal chyle to be carried by the
       veins of the mesentery into the liver. In 1563 Eustachius had
       described the thoracic duct in the horse; in 1622 Aselli,
       professor of anatomy at Milan, discovered the lacteal vessels
       in a dog which had been killed immediately after eating.
       Having pricked one of these by mistake, he saw a white fluid
       issue from it. Repeating the same experiment at other times he
       became certain that the white threads were vessels which drew
       the chyle from the intestines. He observed the valves with
       which they are supplied, and supposed these vessels to all
       meet in the pancreas and to be continued into the liver. In
       1647 Pecquet, who was still a student at Montpelier,
       discovered the lymph reservoir, or receptaculum chyli, and the
       canal which leads from it, i. e., the thoracic duct, which he
       followed to its termination in the left subclavian vein.
       Having ligated it he saw it swell below, and empty itself
       above the ligature. He studied the courses of the lacteals,
       and convinced himself that they all entered into the common
       reservoir. His discovery gave the last blow to the ancient
       theory, which attributed to the liver the function of blood
       making, and it confirmed the doctrine of Harvey, while, like
       it, it had been very strongly opposed. Strangely enough,
       Harvey in this instance united with his great opponent,
       Riolan, in making common cause against the discovery of
       Pecquet and its significance. From that time the lymphatic
       vessels and glands became objects of common interest and were
       investigated by many anatomists, especially Bartholin, Ruysch,
       the Hunters, Hewson, and above all by Mascagni. He was the
       first to give a graphic description of the whole lymphatic
       apparatus."

          Roswell Park,
          Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
       Descartes and the dawn of modern Physiological science.

       "The essence of modern, as contrasted with ancient,
       physiological science appears to me to lie in its antagonism
       to animistic hypotheses and animistic phraseology. It offers
       physical explanations of vital phenomena, or frankly confesses
       that it has none to offer. And, so far as I know, the first
       person who gave expression to this modern view of physiology,
       who was bold enough to enunciate the proposition that vital
       phenomena, like all the other phenomena of the physical world,
       are, in ultimate analysis, resolvable into matter and motion
       was René Descartes. The fifty-four years of life of this most
       original and powerful thinker are widely overlapped, on both
       sides, by the eighty of Harvey, who survived his younger
       contemporary by seven years, and takes pleasure in
       acknowledging the French philosopher's appreciation of his
       great discovery.
    {2135}
       In fact, Descartes accepted the doctrine of the circulation as
       propounded by 'Harvæus médecin d'Angleterre,' and gave a full
       account of it in his first work, the famous 'Discours de la
       Méthode,' which was published in 1637, only nine years after
       the exercitation 'De motu cordis;' and, though differing from
       Harvey on some important points (in which it may be noted, in
       passing, Descartes was wrong and Harvey right), he always
       speaks of him with great respect. And so important does the
       subject seem to Descartes that he returns to it in the 'Traité
       des Passions' and in the 'Traité de l'Homme.' It is easy to
       see that Harvey's work must have had a peculiar significance
       for the subtle thinker, to whom we owe both the spiritualistic
       and the materialistic philosophies of modern times. It was in
       the very year of its publication, 1628, that Descartes
       withdrew into that life of solitary investigation and
       meditation of which his philosophy was the fruit. …
       Descartes uses 'thought' as the equivalent of our modern term
       'consciousness.' Thought is the function of the soul, and its
       only function. Our natural heat and all the movements of the
       body, says he, do not depend on the soul. Death does not take
       place from any fault of the soul, but only because some of the
       principal parts of the body become corrupted. … Descartes'
       'Treatise on Man' is a sketch of human physiology, in which a
       bold attempt is made to explain all the phenomena of life,
       except those of consciousness, by physical reasonings. To a
       mind turned in this direction, Harvey's exposition of the
       heart and vessels as a hydraulic mechanism must have been
       supremely welcome. Descartes was not a mere philosophical
       theorist, but a hardworking dissector and experimenter, and he
       held the strongest opinion respecting the practical value of
       the new conception which he was introducing. … 'It is true,'
       says he, 'that as medicine is now practised, it contains
       little that is very useful; but without any desire to
       depreciate, I am sure that there is no one, even among
       professional men, who will not declare that all we know is
       very little as compared with that which remains to be known;
       and that we might escape an infinity of diseases of the mind,
       no less than of the body, and even perhaps from the weakness
       of old age, if we had sufficient knowledge of their causes and
       of all the remedies with which nature has provided us.' So
       strongly impressed was Descartes with this, that he resolved
       to spend the rest of his life in trying to acquire such a
       knowledge of nature as would lead to the construction of a
       better medical doctrine. The anti-Cartesians found material
       for cheap ridicule in these aspirations of the philosopher;
       and it is almost needless to say that, in the thirteen years
       which elapsed between the publication of the 'Discours' and
       the death of Descartes, he did not contribute much to their
       realisation. But, for the next century, all progress in
       physiology took place along the lines which Descartes laid
       down. The greatest physiological and pathological work of the
       seventeenth century, Borelli's treatise 'De Motu Animalium,'
       is, to all intents and purposes, a development of Descartes'
       fundamental conception; and the same may be said of the
       physiology and pathology of Boerhaave, whose authority
       dominated in the medical world of the first half of the
       eighteenth century. With the origin of modern chemistry, and
       of electrical science, in the latter half of the eighteenth
       century, aids in the analysis of the phenomena of life, of
       which Descartes could not have dreamed, were offered to the
       physiologist. And the greater part of the gigantic progress
       which has been made in the present century is a justification
       of the prevision of Descartes. For it consists, essentially,
       in a more and more complete resolution of the grosser organs
       of the living body into physico-chemical mechanisms. 'I shall
       try to explain our whole bodily machinery in such a way, that
       it will be no more necessary for us to suppose that the soul
       produces such movements as are not voluntary, than it is to
       think that there is in a clock a soul which causes it to show
       the hours.' These words of Descartes might be appropriately
       taken as a motto by the author of any modern treatise on
       physiology."

          T. H. Huxley,
          Connection of the Biological Sciences with Medicine
          (Science and Culture, etc., lecture 13).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
       Introduction of Peruvian Bark.

       "The aborigines of South America appear, except perhaps in one
       locality, to have been ignorant of the virtues of Peruvian
       bark. This sovereign remedy is absent in the wallets of
       itinerant doctors, whose materia medica has been handed down
       from father to son, since the days of the Yncas. It is
       mentioned neither by the Ynca Garcilasso de la Vega, nor by
       Acosta, in their lists of Indian medicines. It seems probable,
       nevertheless, that the Indians were aware of the virtues of
       Peruvian bark in the neighborhood of Loxa, 230 miles south of
       Quito, where its use was first made known to Europeans; and
       the local name for the tree quina-quina, 'bark of bark,'
       indicates that it was believed to possess some special
       medicinal properties. … In 1638 the wife of Don Luis
       Geronimo Fernandez de Cabrera Bobadilla y Mendoza, fourth
       Count of Chinchon, and Viceroy of Peru, lay sick of an
       intermittent fever in the palace of Lima. … The news of her
       illness at Lima reached Don Francisco Lopez de Canizares, the
       Corregidor of Loxa, who had become acquainted with the
       febrifuge virtues of the bark. He sent a parcel of it to the
       Vice-Queen, and the new remedy, administered by her physician,
       Dr. Don Juan de Vega, effected a rapid and complete cure. …
       The Countess of Chinchon returned to Spain in the spring of
       1640, bringing with her a supply of that precious quina bark
       which had worked so wonderful a cure upon herself, and the
       healing virtues of which she intended to distribute amongst
       the sick on her husband's estates. It thus gradually became
       known in Europe, and was most appropriately called Countess's
       powder (Pulvis Comitissæ). By this name it was long known to
       druggists and in commerce. … In memory of the great service
       to humanity performed by the Countess of Chinchon, Linnæus
       named the genus which yields Peruvian bark, Chinchona.
       Unfortunately the great botanist was misinformed as to the
       name of her whom he desired to honour. This is to be accounted
       for by his having received his knowledge of the Countess
       through a foreign and not a Spanish source. Thus misled,
       Linnæus spelt the word Cinchona … and Cinhona, … omitting
       one or two letters. … After the cure of the Countess of
       Chinchon the Jesuits were the great promoters of the
       introduction of bark into Europe. In 1670 these fathers sent
       parcels of the powdered bark to Rome, whence it was
       distributed to members of the fraternity throughout Europe, by
       Cardinal de Lugo, and used for the cure of agues with great
       success. Hence the name of 'Jesuits' bark,' and 'Cardinal's
       bark;' and it was a ludicrous result of its patronage by the
       Jesuits that its use should have been for a long time opposed
       by Protestants, and favoured by Roman Catholics. In 1679 Louis
       XIV. bought the secret of preparing quinquina from Sir Robert
       Talbor, an English doctor, for 2,000 louis-d'or, a large
       pension, and a title. From that time Peruvian bark seems to
       have been recognised as the most efficacious remedy for
       intermittent fevers."

          C. R. Markham,
          Peruvian Bark,
          chapters 2-4.

    {2136}

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
       Sydenham, the Father of Rational Medicine.

       "Sydenham [Thomas Sydenham, 1624-1689], the prince of
       practical physicians, whose character is as beautiful and as
       genuinely English as his name, did for his art what Locke did
       for the philosophy of mind—he made it, in the main,
       observational; he made knowledge a means, not an end. It would
       not be easy to over-estimate our obligations as a nation to these
       two men, in regard to all that is involved in the promotion of
       health of body and soundness of mind. They were among the
       first in their respective regions to show their faith in the
       inductive method, by their works. They both professed to be
       more of guides than critics, and were the interpreters and
       servants of Nature, not her diviners and tormentors." Of
       Sydenham, "we must remember in the midst of what a mass of
       errors and prejudices, of theories actively mischievous, he
       was placed, at a time when the mania of hypothesis was at its
       height, and when the practical part of his art was overrun and
       stultified by vile and silly nostrums. We must have all this
       in our mind, or we shall fail in estimating the amount of
       independent thought, of courage and uprightness, and of all
       that deserves to be called magnanimity and virtue, which was
       involved in his thinking and writing and acting as he did.
       'The improvement of physic [he wrote] in my opinion, depends,
       1st, Upon collecting as genuine and natural a description or
       history of diseases as can be procured; and, 2d, Upon laying
       down a fixed and complete method of cure. With regard to the
       history of diseases, whoever considers the undertaking
       deliberately will perceive that a few such particulars must be
       attended to: 1st, All diseases should be described as objects
       of natural history, with the same exactness as is done by
       botanists, for there are many diseases that come under the
       same genus, and bear the same name, that, being specifically
       different, require a different treatment. The word carduus or
       thistle, is applied to several herbs, and yet a botanist would
       be inaccurate and imperfect who would content himself with a
       generic description. Furthermore, when this distribution of
       distempers into genera has been attempted, it has been to fit
       into some hypothesis, and hence this distribution is made to
       suit the bent of the author rather than the real nature of the
       disorder. How much this has obstructed the improvement of
       physic any man may know. In writing, therefore, such a natural
       history of diseases, every merely philosophical hypothesis
       should be set aside, and the manifest and natural phenomena,
       however minute, should be noted with the utmost exactness. The
       usefulness of this procedure cannot be easily overrated, as
       compared with the subtle inquiries and trifling notions of
       modern writers. … If only one person in every age had
       accurately described, and consistently cured, but a single
       disease, and made known his secret, physic would not be where
       it now is; but we have long since forsook the ancient method
       of cure, founded upon the knowledge of conjunct causes,
       insomuch that the art, as at this day practised, is rather the
       art of talking about diseases than of curing them.' … His
       friend Locke could not have stated the case more clearly or
       sensibly. It is this doctrine of 'conjunct causes,' this
       necessity for watching the action of compound and often
       opposing forces, and the having to do all this not in a
       machine, of which if you have seen one, you have seen all, but
       where each organism has often much that is different from, as
       well as common with, all others. … It is this which takes
       medicine out of the category of exact sciences, and puts it
       into that which includes politics, ethics, navigation and
       practical engineering, in all of which, though there are
       principles, and those principles quite within the scope of
       human reason, yet the application of these principles must, in
       the main, be left to each man's skill, presence of mind, and
       judgment, as to the case in hand. … It would not be easy to
       over-estimate the permanent impression for good, which the
       writings, the character, and the practice of Sydenham have
       made on the art of healing in England, and on the Continent
       generally. In the writings of Boerhaave, Stahl, Gaubius,
       Pinel, Bordeu, Haller, and many others, he is spoken of as the
       father of rational medicine; as the first man who applied to
       his profession the Baconian principles of interpreting and
       serving nature, and who never forgot the master's rule, 'Non
       fingendum aut excogitandum, sed inveniendum, quid natura aut
       faciat aut ferat.' … Like all men of a large practical
       nature, he could not have been what he was, or done what he
       did, without possessing and often exercising the true
       philosophizing faculty. He was a man of the same quality of
       mind in this respect with Watt, Franklin, and John Hunter, in
       whom speculation was not the less genuine that it was with
       them a means rather than an end."

          Dr. John Brown,
          Locke and Sydenham and other Papers,
          pages 54-90.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Sydenham,
          Works;
          translated by R. G, Latham.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
       Closing period of the Humoral Pathology.
       The Doctrines of Hoffmann, Stahl and Boerhaave.

       "If we take a general survey of medical opinions, we shall
       find that they are all either subordinate to, or coincident
       with, two grand theories. The one of these considers the solid
       constituents of the animal economy as the elementary vehicle
       of life, and consequently places in them the primary seat of
       disease. The other, on the contrary, sees in the humors the
       original realization of vitality; and these, as they determine
       the existence and quality of the secondary parts, or solids,
       contain, therefore, within themselves, the ultimate principle
       of the morbid affection. By relation to these theories, the
       history of medicine is divided into three great periods.
       During the first, the two theories, still crude, are not yet
       disentangled from each other; this period extends from the
       origin of medicine to the time of Galen. The second
       comprehends the reign of Humoral Pathology—the interval
       between Galen and Frederic Hoffmann. In the last the doctrine
       of the Living Solid is predominant; from Hoffmann it reaches
       to the present day. … By Galen, Humorism was first formally
       expounded, and reduced to a regular code of doctrine.
    {2137}
       Four elementary fluids, their relations and changes, sufficed
       to explain the varieties of natural temperament, and the
       causes of disease; while the genius, eloquence, and unbounded
       learning with which he illustrated this theory, mainly
       bestowed on it the ascendency, which, without essential
       alteration, it retained from the conclusion of the second to
       the beginning of the eighteenth century. Galenism and Humorism
       are, in fact, convertible expressions. Not that this
       hypothesis during that long interval encountered no
       opposition. It met, certainly, with some partial contradiction
       among the Greek and Arabian physicians. After the restoration
       of learning Fernelius and Brissot, Argenterius and Joubert,
       attacked it in different ways. … Until the epoch we have
       stated, the prevalence of the Humoral Pathology was, however,
       all but universal. Nor was this doctrine merely an erroneous
       speculation; it exerted the most decisive, the most pernicious
       influence on practice.—The various diseased affections were
       denominated in accommodation to the theory. In place of saying
       that a malady affected the liver, the peritonæum, or the
       organs of circulation, its seat was assumed in the blood, the
       bile, or the lymph. The morbific causes acted exclusively on
       the fluids; the food digested in the stomach, and converted
       into chyle, determined the qualities of the blood; and poisons
       operated through the corruption they thus effected in the
       vital humors. All symptoms were interpreted in blind
       subservience to the hypothesis; and those only attracted
       attention which the hypothesis seemed calculated to explain.
       The color and consistence of the blood, mucus, feces, urine,
       and pus, were carefully studied. On the other hand the
       phenomena of the solids, if not wholly overlooked, as mere
       accidents, were slumped together under some collective name,
       and attached to the theory through a subsidiary hypothesis. By
       supposed changes in the humors, they explained the association
       and consecution of symptoms. Under the terms, crudity,
       coction, and evacuation, were designated the three principal
       periods of diseases, as dependent on an alteration of the
       morbific matter. In the first, this matter, in all its
       deleterious energy, had not yet undergone any change on the
       part of the organs; it was still crude. In the second, nature
       gradually resumed the ascendant; coction took place. In the
       third, the peccant matter, now rendered mobile, was evacuated
       by urine, perspiration, dejection, &c., and æquilibrium
       restored. When no critical discharge was apparent, the
       morbific matter, it was supposed, had, after a suitable
       elaboration, been assimilated to the humors, and its
       deleterious character neutralized. Coction might be perfect or
       imperfect; and the transformation of one disease into another
       was lightly solved by the transport or emigration of the
       noxious humor. … Examinations of the dead body confirmed
       them in their notions. In the redness and tumefaction of
       inflamed parts, they beheld only a congestion of blood; and in
       dropsies, merely the dissolution of that fluid; tubercles were
       simply coagula of lymph; and other organic alterations, in
       general, naught but obstructions from an increased viscosity
       of the humors. The plan of cure was in unison with the rest of
       the hypothesis. Venesection was copiously employed to renew
       the blood, to attenuate its consistency, or to remove a part
       of the morbific matter with which it was impregnated; and
       cathartics, sudorifics, diuretics, were largely administered,
       with a similar intent. In a word, as plethora or cacochymia
       were the two great causes of disease, their whole therapeutic
       was directed to change the quantity or quality of the fluids.
       Nor was this murderous treatment limited to the actual period
       of disease. Seven or eight annual bloodings, and as many
       purgations—such was the common regimen the theory prescribed
       to insure continuance of health; and the twofold depletion,
       still customary, at spring and fall, among the peasantry of
       many European countries, is a remnant of the once universal
       practice. In Spain, every village has even now its Sangrador,
       whose only cast of surgery is blood-letting; and he is rarely
       idle. The medical treatment of Lewis XIII, may be quoted as a
       specimen of the humoral therapeutic, Within a single year this
       theory inflicted on that unfortunate monarch above a hundred
       cathartics, and more than forty bloodings.—During the fifteen
       centuries of Humorism, how many millions of lives did medicine
       cost mankind? The establishment of a system founded on the
       correcter doctrine of Solidism, and purified from the
       crudities of the Iatro-mathematical and Iatro-chemical
       hypotheses was reserved for three celebrated physicians toward
       the commencement of the eighteenth century—Frederic
       Hoffmann—George Ernest Stahl—and Hermann Boerhaave. The
       first and second of this triumvirate were born in the same
       year, were both pupils of Wedelius of Jena, and both
       professors, and rival professors, in the University of Halle;
       the third was eight years younger than his contemporaries, and
       long an ornament of the University of Leyden."

          Sir W. Hamilton,
          Discussions on Philosophy and Literature,
          pages 246-249.

       "The great and permanent merits of Hoffmann [1660-1742] as a
       medical philosopher, undoubtedly consisted in his having
       perceived and pointed out more clearly than any of his
       predecessors, the extensive and powerful influence of the
       Nervous System, in modifying and regulating at least, if not
       in producing, all the phenomena of the organic as well as of
       the animal functions in the human economy, and more
       particularly in his application of this doctrine to the
       explanation of diseases. … It was reserved for Hoffmann …
       to take a comprehensive view of the Nervous System, not only
       as the organ of sense and motion, but also as the common
       centre by which all the different parts of the animal economy
       are connected together, and through which they mutually
       influence each other. He was, accordingly, led to regard all
       those alterations in the structure and functions of this
       economy, which constitute the state of disease, as having
       their primary origin in affections of the nervous system, and
       as depending, therefore, upon a deranged state of the
       imperceptible and contractile motions in the solids, rather
       than upon changes induced in the chemical composition of the
       fluid parts of the body."

          J. Thomson,
          Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of William Cullen,
          pages 195-196.

    {2138}

       "George Ernest Stahl (1660-1734), chemist, was professor of
       medicine at Halle (1694) and physician to the King of Prussia
       (1716). He opposed materialism, and substituted 'animism,'
       explaining the symptoms of disease as efforts of the soul to
       get rid of morbid influences. Stahl's 'anima' corresponds to
       Sydenham's 'nature' in a measure, and has some relationship to
       the Archeus of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. Stahl was the author
       of the 'phlogiston' theory in chemistry, which in its time has
       had important influence on medicine. Phlogiston was a
       substance which he supposed to exist in all combustible
       matters, and the escape of this principle from any compound
       was held to account for the phenomenon of fire. According to
       Stahl, diseases arise from the direct action of noxious powers
       upon the body; and from the reaction of the system itself
       endeavouring to oppose and counteract the effects of the
       noxious powers, and so preserve and repair itself. He did not
       consider diseases, therefore, pernicious in themselves, though
       he admitted that they might become so from mistakes made by
       the soul in the choice, or proportion of the motions excited
       to remove them, or the time when these efforts are made.
       Death, according to this theory, is due to the indolence of
       the soul, leading it to desist from its vital motions, and
       refusing to continue longer the struggle against the
       derangements of the body. Here we have the 'expectant
       treatment' so much in vogue with many medical men. 'Trusting
       to the constant attention and wisdom of nature,' they
       administered inert medicines as placebos, while they left to
       nature the cure of the disease. But they neglected the use of
       invaluable remedies such as opium and Peruvian bark, for which
       error it must be admitted they atoned by discountenancing
       bleeding, vomiting, etc. Stahl's remedies were chiefly of the
       class known as 'Antiphlogistic,' or anti-febrile."

          E. Berdoe,
          The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
          book 5, chapter 7.

       "The influence of Boerhaave [1668-1738] was immense while it
       lasted—it was world-wide; but it was like a ripple on the
       ocean—it had no depth. He knew everything and did everything
       better than any of his contemporaries, except those who made
       one thing, not everything, their study. He was familiar with
       the researches of the great anatomists, of the chemists, of
       the botanists, of historians, of men of learning, but he was
       not a great anatomist, chemist, or historian. As to his
       practice, we cannot pronounce a very decided opinion, except
       that he was a man of judgment and independence. Here his
       reputation made his success: a prescription of his would no
       doubt effect many a cure, although the patient had taken the
       remedy he prescribed fifty times without any benefit. His
       greatness depended upon his inexhaustible activity. He had the
       energy of a dozen ordinary men, and so he was twelve times as
       powerful as one. He mentions quite incidentally how he was in
       the habit of frequently spending whole nights in botanical
       excursions on foot; and we know he had no time to sleep in the
       day. He took an interest in everything, was always on the
       alert, had a prodigious memory, and indefatigable industry. On
       these great homely qualities, added to a kind disposition and
       an unaffected piety, his popularity was founded. It was all
       fairly won and nobly worn. It is startling, however, to find
       that a man whose name one hundred years ago was familiar to
       the ear as household words, and of whom historians predicted
       that he would always be regarded as one of the greatest as
       well as best of men, an example to his race, should be already
       almost forgotten. An example is of no use unless it is known;
       Boerhaave is now unknown. The reason is plain;—he was not the
       founder of any system, nor did he make any discovery. He
       simply used with supreme success the thoughts and discoveries
       of others; as soon as he ceased to live, his influence began
       therefore to decline; and before his generation had passed
       away, his star had waned before the genius of Cullen, who
       succeeded in fixing the attention of Europe, and who, in his
       turn, was soon to be displaced by others."

          J. R. Russell,
          History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
          pages 297-298.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
       Introduction of the Microscope in Medicine.
       First glimmerings of the Germ Theory of Disease.

       "Since Athanasius Kircher [1601-1680] mistook blood and pus
       corpuscles for small worms, and built up on his mistake a new
       theory of disease and putrefaction, and since Christian Lange,
       the Professor of Pathological Anatomy in Leipzig, in the
       preface to Kircher's book (1671) expressed his opinion that
       the purpura of lying-in-women, measles, and other fevers were
       the result of putrefaction caused by worms or animalculæ, a
       'Pathologia Animata' has, from time to time, been put forward
       to explain the causation of disease. … Remarkable as were
       Kircher's observations, still more wonderful were those of
       Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, a native of Delft in Holland, who in
       his youth had learned the art of polishing lenses, and who was
       able, ultimately, to produce the first really good microscope
       that had yet been constructed. Not only did Leeuwenhoek make
       his microscope, but he used it to such good purpose that he
       was able to place before the Royal Society of London a series
       of most interesting and valuable letters giving the result of
       his researches on minute specks of living protoplasm. … The
       world that Leeuwenhoek … opened up so thoroughly was rapidly
       invaded by other observers and theorists. The thoughtful
       physicians of the time believed that at last they had found
       the 'fons et origo mali,' and Nicolas Andry, reviewing
       Kircher's' Contagium Animatum,' replaced his worms by these
       newly-described animalculæ or germs, and pushing the theory to
       its legitimate and logical conclusion, he also evolved a germ
       theory of putrefaction and fermentation. He maintained that
       air, water, vinegar, fermenting wine, old beer, and sour milk
       were all full of germs; that the blood and pustules of
       smallpox also contained them, and that other diseases, very
       rife about this period, were the result of the activity of
       these organisms. Such headway did he make, and such conviction
       did his arguments carry with them, that the mercurial
       treatment much in vogue at that time was actually based on the
       supposition that these organisms, the 'causæ causantes' of
       disease, were killed by the action of mercury and mercurial
       salts. With a kind of prophetic instinct, and certainly as the
       result of keen observation, Varro and Lancisi ascribed the
       dangerous character of marsh or swamp air to the action of
       invisible animalculæ; in fact the theory was so freely and
       forcibly propagated that even where no micro-organisms could
       be found their presence was inferred with the inevitable
       result, as Löffler points out, that these 'inconceivable'
       worms became the legitimate butts for the shafts of ridicule;
       and in 1726 there appeared in Paris a satirical work, in which
       these small organisms received the name of 'fainter,'
       'body-pincher,' 'ulcerator,' 'weeping fistula,' 'sensualist';
       the whole system was thus laughingly held up to satire, and
       the germ theory of disease completely discredited.
    {2139}
       Linnæus [1707-1778], however, with his wonderful powers of
       observation and deduction, considered that it was possible
       that there might be rescued from this 'chaos' small living
       beings which were as yet insufficiently separated and
       examined, but in which he firmly believed might lie not only
       the actual contagium of certain eruptive diseases, and of
       acute fevers, but also the exciting causes of both
       fermentation and putrefaction. The man, however, who of all
       workers earliest recognized the importance of Linnæus'
       observations was a Viennese doctor, Marcus Antonius Plenciz.
       … He it was who, at this time, insisted upon the specific
       character of the infective agent in every case of disease; for
       scarlet fever there was a scarlet fever seed or germ—a seed
       which could never give rise to smallpox. He showed that it was
       possible for this organism to become disseminated through the
       air, and for it to multiply in the body; and he explained the
       incubation stage of a febrile disease as dependent on the
       growth of a germ within the body during the period after its
       introduction, when its presence had not yet been made
       manifest. … As regards putrefaction, having corroborated
       Linnæus' observations and found countless animalculæ in
       putrefying matter, he came to the conclusion that this process
       was the result of the development, multiplication, and
       carrying on of the functions of nutrition and excretion by
       these germs; the products of fermentation being the volatile
       salts set free by the organisms, which, multiplying rapidly by
       forming seeds or eggs, rendered the fluid in which they
       developed thick, turbid, and foul. This theory, admirable as
       it was, and accurate as it has since been proved to be, could
       not then be based on any very extensive or detailed
       observation, and we find that some of the most prominent and
       brilliant men of the period did not feel justified in
       accepting the explanation that Plenciz had offered as to the
       causes of disease and fermentation processes."

          G. S. Woodhead,
          Bacteria and their Products,
          chapter 3.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
       Hahnemann and the origin of the System of Homœopathy.

       Samuel Hahnemann, originator of the system of medicine called
       "Homœopathy," was born in 1755, at Meissen, in Saxony. He
       studied medicine at Leipsic, and afterwards at Vienna. In 1784
       he settled in Dresden, but returned to Leipsic in 1789. "In
       the following year, while translating Cullen's Materia Medica
       out of English into German, his attention was arrested by the
       insufficient explanation's advanced in that work of the cure
       of ague by cinchona bark. By way of experiment, he took a
       large dose of that substance to ascertain its action on the
       healthy body. In the course of a few days he experienced the
       symptoms of ague; and it thus occurred to him that perhaps the
       reason why cinchona cures ague is because it has the power to
       produce symptoms in a healthy person similar to those of ague.
       To ascertain the truth of this conjecture, he ransacked the
       records of medicine for well-attested cures effected by single
       remedies; and finding sufficient evidences of this fact, he
       advanced a step further, and proposed, in an article published
       in Hufeland's Journal, in the year 1797, to apply this new
       principle to the discovery of proper medicines for every form
       of disease. Soon afterwards he published a case to illustrate
       his method. It was one of a severe kind of colic cured by a
       strong dose of veratrum album. Before this substance gave
       relief to the patient it excited a severe aggravation of his
       symptoms. This induced Hahnemann, instead of drops or grains,
       to give the fraction of a drop or grain, and he thus
       introduced infinitesimal doses. Some years later he applied
       his new principle in the treatment of scarlet fever; and
       finding that belladonna cured the peculiar type of that
       disease, which then prevailed in Germany, he proposed to give
       this medicine as a prophylactic, or preventive against scarlet
       fever; from that time it has been extensively employed for
       this purpose. In the year 1810 he published his great work,
       entitled Organon of Medicine, which has been translated into
       all the European languages, as well as into Arabic. In this
       book he fully expounded his new system, which he called
       Homœopathy. His next publication was a Materia Medica,
       consisting of a description of the effects of medicines upon
       persons in health. These works were published between the
       years 1810 and 1821, at Leipsic, where he founded a school,
       and was surrounded by disciples. As his system involved the
       administration of medicines, each separately by itself, and in
       doses infinitely minute, there was no longer any need of the
       apothecaries' intervention between their physician and the
       patient. In consequence of this the Apothecaries Company
       brought to bear upon Hahnemann an act forbidding physicians to
       dispense their own medicines, and with such effect that he was
       obliged to leave Leipsic. The Grand Duke of Anhalt Köthen,
       appointed him his physician, and invited him to live at
       Köthen. Thither, accordingly, he removed in the year 1821, and
       there he prepared various new editions of his Organon, and new
       volumes of his Materia Medica for publication. In 1835 he
       married a second time; his wife was a French lady of
       considerable position; and in the same year he left Köthen,
       and settled in Paris, where he enjoyed a great reputation till
       his death, which took place in the year 1843."

          W. Bayes,
          Origin and Present Status of Homœopathy
          (Translation of the Homœopathic Medical Society
          of the State of New York, 1869, article 21).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Aneke,
          History of Homœopathy.

          J. C. Burnett,
          Ecce Medicus;
          or Hahnemann as a man and as a physician.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
       The work of John Hunter in surgery and anatomy.

       "John Hunter [born 1728, died 1793] was not only one of the
       most profound anatomists of the age in which he lived, but he
       is by the common consent of his successors allowed to be one
       of the greatest men that ever practised surgery. One of the
       most striking discoveries in this part of his profession—
       indeed one of the most brilliant in surgery of his
       century—was the operation for the cure of popliteal aneurism
       by tying the femoral artery above the tumour in the ham, and
       without interfering with it. He improved the treatment of the
       rupture of the tendo achillis, in consequence of having
       experienced the accident himself when dancing. He invented the
       method of curing fistula lacrymalis by perforating the os
       unguis, and curing hydrocele radically by injection. His
       anatomical discoveries were numerous and important—amongst
       others the distribution of the blood-vessels of the uterus,
       which he traced till their disappearance in the placenta.
    {2140}
       He was the first who demonstrated the existence of lymphatic
       vessels in birds; described the distribution of the branches
       of the olfactory nerve, as well as those of the fifth pair;
       and to him we owe the best and most faithful account of the
       descent of the testicle in the human subject, from the abdomen
       into the scrotum. Physiology is also indebted to him for many
       new views and ingenious suggestions. … 'Before his time
       surgery had been little more than a mechanical art, somewhat
       dignified by the material on which it was employed. Hunter
       first made it a science; and by pointing out its peculiar
       excellence as affording visible examples of the effects and
       progress of disease, induced men of far higher attainments
       than those who had before practised it to make it their
       study.' The best monument of his genius and talents, however,
       is the splendid museum which he formed by his sole efforts,
       and which he made, too, when labouring under every
       disadvantage of deficient education and limited means. It
       shows that as an anatomist and physiologist he had no
       superior."

          W. Baird,
          Hunter (The Imperial dictionary of universal biography).

          ALSO IN:
          S. D. Gross,
          John Hunter and his Pupils.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
       Preventive Inoculation against Smallpox.

       "One of the most notable events of the 18th century, or for
       that matter, in the history of medicine, was the introduction
       of the systematic practice of preventive inoculation against
       small-pox. We are so generally taught that this is entirely
       due to the efforts of Jenner, or rather we are so often
       allowed to think it without being necessarily taught
       otherwise, that the measure deserves a historical sketch. The
       communication of the natural disease to the healthy in order
       to protect them from the same natural disease, in other words,
       the communication of small-pox to prevent the same, reaches
       back into antiquity. It is mentioned in the Sanskrit Vedas as
       then performed, always by Brahmins, who employed pus procured
       from small-pox vesicles a year before. They rubbed the place
       selected for operation until the skin was red, then scratched
       with a sharp instrument, and laid upon the place cotton soaked
       in the variolous pus, moistened with water from the sacred
       Ganges. Along with this measure they insisted upon most
       hygienic regulations, to which in a large measure their good
       results were due. Among the Chinese was practised what was
       known as 'Pock-sowing,' and as long ago as 1000 years before
       Christ they introduced into the nasal cavities of young
       children pledgets of cotton saturated with variolous pus. The
       Arabians inoculated the same disease with needles, and so did
       the Circassians, while in the states of north Africa incisions
       were made between the fingers, and among some of the negroes
       inoculation was performed in or upon the nose. In
       Constantinople, under the Greeks, the custom had long been
       naturalized and was practised by old women instructed in the
       art, who regarded it as a revelation of St. Mary. The first
       accounts of this practice were given to the Royal Society by
       Timoni, a physician of Constantinople, in 1714. The actual
       introduction of the practice into the West, however, was due
       to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who died in 1762, and who was
       wife of the English ambassador to the Porte in 1717. She had
       her son inoculated in Constantinople by her surgeon Maitland,
       and after her return to London, in 1721, it was also performed
       upon her daughter. During the same years experiments were
       undertaken by Maitland upon criminals; and as these turned out
       favorably, the Prince of Wales and his sisters were inoculated
       by Mead. The practice was then more or less speedily adopted
       on this side of the ocean as well as on that, but suffered
       occasional severe blows because of unfortunate cases here and
       there, such as never can be avoided. The clergy, especially,
       using the Bible, as designing men always can use it, to back
       up any view or practice, became warm opponents of vaccination,
       and stigmatized it as a very atrocious invasion of the Divine
       prerogative of punishment. But in 1746 the Bishop of Worcester
       recommended it from the pulpit, and established houses for
       inoculation, and thus made it again popular. In Germany the
       operation was generally favored, and in France and Italy a
       little later came into vogue."

          Roswell Park,
          Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
       Jenner and the discovery of Vaccination.

       Many before the English physician, Dr. Jenner, "had witnessed
       the cow-pox, and had heard of the report current among the
       milkmaids in Gloucestershire, that whoever had taken that
       disease was secure against smallpox. It was a trifling, vulgar
       rumor, supposed to have no significance whatever; and no one
       had thought it worthy of investigation, until it was
       accidentally brought under the notice of Jenner. He was a
       youth, pursuing his studies at Sodbury, when his attention was
       arrested by the casual observation made by a country girl who
       came to his master's shop for advice. The smallpox was
       mentioned, when the girl said, 'I can't take that disease, for
       I have had cow-pox.' The observation immediately riveted
       Jenner's attention, and he forthwith set about inquiring and
       making observations on the subject. His professional friends,
       to whom he mentioned his views as to the prophylactic virtues
       of cow-pox, laughed at him, and even threatened to expel him
       from their society, if he persisted in harassing them with the
       subject. In London he was so fortunate as to study under John
       Hunter [1770-1773] to whom he communicated his views. The
       advice of the great anatomist was thoroughly characteristic:
       'Don't think, but try; be patient, be accurate.' Jenner's
       courage was greatly supported by the advice, which conveyed to
       him the true art of philosophical investigation. He went back
       to the country to practise his profession, and carefully to
       make observations and experiments, which he continued to
       pursue for a period of twenty years. His faith in his
       discovery was so implicit that he vaccinated his own son on
       three several occasions. At length he published his views in a
       quarto of about seventy pages, in which he gave the details of
       twenty-three cases of successful vaccination of individuals,
       to whom it was found afterwards impossible to communicate the
       smallpox either by contagion or inoculation. It was in 1798
       that this treatise was published; though he had been working
       out his ideas as long before as 1775, when they began to
       assume a definite form. How was the discovery received? First
       with indifference, then with active hostility. He proceeded to
       London to exhibit to the profession the process of vaccination
       and its successful results; but not a single doctor could be
       got to make a trial of it, and after fruitlessly waiting for
       nearly three months, Jenner returned to his native village.
    {2141}
       He was even caricatured and abused for his attempt to
       'bestialize' his species by the introduction into their
       systems of diseased matter from the cow's udder. Cobbett was
       one of his most furious assailants. Vaccination was denounced
       from the pulpit as 'diabolical.' It was averred that
       vaccinated children became 'ox-faced,' that abscesses broke
       out to 'indicate sprouting horns,' and that the countenance
       was gradually 'transmuted into the visage of a cow, the voice
       into the bellowing of bulls.' Vaccination, however, was a
       truth, and notwithstanding the violence of the opposition
       belief in it spread slowly. In one village where a gentleman
       tried to introduce the practice, the first persons who
       permitted themselves to be vaccinated were absolutely pelted,
       and were driven into their houses if they appeared out of
       doors. Two ladies of title,—Lady Ducie and the Countess of
       Berkeley,—to their honor be it remembered,—had the courage
       to vaccinate their own children; and the prejudices of the day
       were at once broken through. The medical profession gradually
       came round, and there were several who even sought to rob Dr.
       Jenner of the merit of the discovery, when its vast importance
       came to be recognized. Jenner's cause at last triumphed, and
       he was publicly honored and rewarded. In his prosperity he was
       as modest as he had been in his obscurity. He was invited to
       settle in London, and told that he might command a practice of
       £10,000 a year. But his answer was, 'No! In the morning of my
       days I have sought the sequestered and lowly paths of
       life,—the valley, and not the mountain,—and now, in the
       evening of my days, it is not meet for me to hold myself up as
       an object for fortune and for fame.' In Jenner's own lifetime
       the practice of vaccination had been adopted all over the
       civilized world; and when he died, his title as Benefactor of
       his kind was recognized far and wide. Cuvier has said, 'If
       vaccine were the only discovery of the epoch, it would serve
       to render it illustrious forever."

          S. Smiles,
          Self-help,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Barron,
          Life of Edward Jenner.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
       The Brunonian System of Stimulation.

       "John Brown, born of obscure parents in a village of Berwick,
       in Scotland, was remarkable, from his early youth, for an
       extraordinary aptitude for acquiring languages, a decided
       inclination for scholastic dispute, a pedantic tone and
       manner, and somewhat irregular conduct. Having abandoned
       theology for medicine, he fixed his residence in Edinburgh.
       … He was particularly entertained and countenanced by
       Cullen, who even took him into his family in the character of
       preceptor of his children. This agreeable relation subsisted
       during twelve consecutive years between these two men, whose
       characters and minds were so different. … But some trifling
       matters of mutual discontent grew at length into coldness, and
       changed the old friendship which had united them into an
       irreconcilable hatred. Their rupture broke out about the year
       1778, and in a short time after, Brown published his Elements
       of Medicine. … Brown employed some of the ideas of his
       master to develop a doctrine much more simple in appearance,
       but founded entirely on abstract considerations; a doctrine in
       which every provision seems to be made for discussion, but
       none for practice. Cullen had said that the nervous system
       receives the first impression of excitants, and transmits it
       afterwards to the other organs endowed with motion and
       vitality. Brown explains thus, the same thought: 'Life is only
       sustained by incitation. It is only the result of the action
       of incitants on the incitability of organs.' Cullen regarded
       the atony of the small vessels as the proximate cause of
       fever. Brown, improving on this hypothesis, admits, with
       hardly any exceptions, only hyposthenic diseases. … The
       Scotch physiologist distinguished only two pathological
       states—one consisting in an excess of incitability, which he
       names the sthenic diathesis; the other, constituted by a want,
       more or less notable, of the same faculty, which he designates
       as the asthenic diathesis. Besides, Brown considers these two
       states as affecting the entire economy, rather than any organ
       in particular. … After having reduced all diseases to two
       genera, and withdrawn from pathology the study of local
       lesions, Brown arrives, by a subtile argumentation, to
       consider the affections of the sthenic order as prevailing in
       a very small number of instances, so that the diseases of the
       asthenic type comprehend nearly the totality of affections.
       According to this theory, a physician is rarely ever mistaken
       if he orders in all his cases, remedies of an exciting nature.
       … Never since the days of Thessalus (of charlatan memory)
       had anyone simplified to such a point the study and practice
       of medicine. We may even say that in this respect the Scotch
       pathologist left far in the rear the physician of Nero. To
       this attraction, well calculated to tempt students and
       practitioners, the doctrine of Brown joined the advantage of
       being presented in an energetic and captivating style, full of
       imagery, which suffices to explain its rapid progress. But
       this doctrine, so seductive in its exposition, so easy in its
       application, is one of the most disastrous that man has been
       able to imagine, for it tends to propagate the abuse of
       diffusible stimulants, of which spirituous liquors make a
       part, an abuse excessively injurious to health in general, and
       the intellectual faculties in particular—an abuse to which
       man is too much inclined, naturally, and which the sophisms of
       Brown may have contributed to spread in all classes of English
       society. … Notwithstanding its defects, the system of Brown
       made rapid progress, principally in Germany and Italy."

          P. V. Renouard,
          History of Medicine,
          pages 555-560.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
       The System of Haller.

       "About the time when we seniors commenced the study of
       medicine, it was still under the influence of the important
       discoveries which Albrecht von Haller [1708-1777] had made on
       the excitability of nerves; and which he had placed in
       connection with the vitalistic theory of the nature of life.
       Haller had observed the excitability in the nerves and muscles
       of amputated members. The most surprising thing to him was,
       that the most varied external actions, mechanical, chemical,
       thermal, to which electrical ones were subsequently added, had
       always the same result; namely, that they produced muscular
       contraction. They were only quantitatively distinguished as
       regards their action on the organism, that is, only by the
       strength of the excitation; he designated them by the common
       name of stimulus; he called the altered condition of the nerve
       the excitation, and its capacity of responding to a stimulus
       the excitability, which was lost at death.
    {2142}
       This entire condition of things, which physically speaking
       asserts no more than the nerves, as concerns the changes which
       take place in them after excitation, are in an exceedingly
       unstable state of equilibrium; this was looked upon as the
       fundamental property of animal life, and was unhesitatingly
       transferred to the other organs and tissues of the body, for
       which there was no similar justification. It was believed that
       none of them were active of themselves, but must receive an
       impulse by a stimulus from without; air and nourishment were
       considered to be the normal stimuli. The kind of activity
       seemed, on the contrary, to be conditioned by the specific
       energy of the organ, under the influence of the vital force.
       Increase or diminution of the excitability was the category
       under which the whole of the acute diseases were referred, and
       from which indications were taken as to whether the treatment
       should be lowering or stimulating. The rigid one-sidedness and
       the unrelenting logic with which … [John] Brown had once
       worked out the system was broken, but it always furnished the
       leading points of view."

          H. Helmholtz,
          On Thought in Medicine
          (Popular Lectures, series 2, lecture 5).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th. Century.
       Physiological Views of Bichat.

       Marie Francis Xavier Bichat, was born in 1771 and died in
       1802, accomplishing his extraordinary work as an anatomist and
       physician within a lifetime of thirty-one years. "The peculiar
       physiological views of Bichat are to be found stated more or
       less distinctly in all his works; and it is a merit of his
       that he has always kept in sight the necessary connexion of
       this part of the science of medicine with every other, and, so
       far as he has developed his ideas upon the subjects of
       pathology, materia medica, and therapeutics, they seem all to
       have been founded upon and connected with the principles of
       physiology, which he had adopted. … Everything around living
       bodies, according to Bichat, tends constantly to their
       destruction. And to this influence they would necessarily
       yield, were they not gifted with some permanent principle of
       reaction. This principle is their life, and a living system is
       therefore necessarily always engaged in the performance of
       functions, whose object is to resist death. Life, however,
       does not consist in a single principle, as has been taught by
       some celebrated writers, by Stahl, Van Helmont, and Barthez,
       &c. We are to study the phenomena of life, as we do those of
       other matter, and refer the operations performed in living
       systems to such ultimate principles as we can trace them to,
       in the same way that we do the operations taking place among
       inorganic substances. … His essential doctrine … is that
       there is no one single, individual, presiding principle of
       vitality, which animates the body, but that it is a collection
       of matter gifted for a time with certain powers of action,
       combined into organs which are thus enabled to act, and that
       the result is a series of functions, the connected performance
       of which constitutes it a living thing. This is his view of
       life, considered in the most general and simple way. But in
       carrying the examination farther, he points out two remarkable
       modifications of life, as considered in different relations,
       one common both to vegetables and animals, the other peculiar
       to animals. … Those which we have in common with the
       vegetable, which are necessary merely to our individual,
       bodily existence, are called the functions of organic life,
       because they are common to all organized matter. Those, on the
       other hand, which are peculiar to animals, which in them are
       superadded to the possession of the organic functions, are
       called the functions of animal life. Physiologically speaking,
       then, we have two lives, the concurrence of which enables us
       to live and move and have our being; both equally necessary to
       the relations we maintain as human beings, but not equally
       necessary to the simple existence of a living thing. … The
       two lives differ, in some important respects, as to the organs
       by which their functions are performed. Those of the animal
       life present a symmetry of external form, strongly contrasted
       with the irregularity, which is a prominent characteristic of
       those of organic life. In the animal life, every function IS
       either performed by a pair of organs, perfectly similar in
       structure and size, situated one upon each side of the median
       dividing line of the body, or else by a single organ divided
       into two similar and perfectly symmetrical halves by that
       line. … The organs of the organic life, on the contrary,
       present a picture totally different; they are irregularly
       formed, and irregularly arranged. … This symmetry of the
       form is accompanied by a corresponding harmony in the
       functions of the organs of the animal life. … The functions
       of the organic life are constantly going on; they admit of no
       interruption, no repose. … In those of the animal life, the
       case is widely different. They have intervals of entire
       repose. The organs of this life are incapable of constant
       activity, they become fatigued by exercise and require rest.
       This rest, with regard to any particular organ, is the sleep
       of that organ. … Upon this principle, Bichat founds his
       theory of sleep. General sleep is the combination of the sleep
       of particular organs. Sleep then is not any definite state,
       but is more or less complete rest of the whole system in
       proportion to the number of organs which require repose. …
       The two lives differ also in regard to habit; the animal being
       much under its control, the organic but slightly. … But the
       principal and most important feature in the physiological
       system of Bichat, is the complete, and entire, and exclusive
       explanation of all the phenomena of the living system upon the
       principles of vitality alone. Former physiologists have not
       always kept this distinctly in view. … The human body has
       been regarded, too often, as a mass of matter, organized to be
       sure, but yet under the direction of physical laws, and the
       performance of its functions has been ascribed to the powers
       of inorganic matter. Hence, physiology has generally been
       somewhat tinctured by the favorite science of the age, with
       some of its notions. … With Bichat the properties of life
       were all in all. The phenomena of the system, whether in
       health or disease, were all ascribed to their influence and
       operation."

          J. Ware,
          Life and Writings of Bichat
          (North American Review, July, 1822).

    {2143}

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19th Centuries.
       Pinel and the Reform in treatment of the Insane.

       Philippe Pinel, "who had attained some distinction as an
       alienist, was appointed, 1792, to fill the post of
       superintendent of the Bicêtre, which then contained upwards of
       200 male patients, believed not only to be incurable, but
       entirely uncontrollable. The previous experience of the
       physician, here stood him in good stead. He had been a
       diligent student of the authorities of his own and foreign
       countries on diseases of the mind, and in his earlier years
       had been appointed by the French government to report on the
       condition of the asylums at Paris and Charenton. On assuming
       the oversight of the Bicêtre, he found 53 men languishing in
       chains, some of whom had been bound for a great number of
       years. These were regarded by the authorities as dangerous and
       even desperate characters; but the sight of men grown gray and
       decrepit as the result of prolonged torture, made a very
       different impression on the mind of Pinel. He addressed appeal
       after appeal to the Commune, craving power to release, without
       delay, the unhappy beings under his charge. The authorities
       tardily and unwillingly yielded to the importunity of the
       physician. An official, who was deputed by the Commune to
       accompany the superintendent and watch his experiment, no
       sooner caught sight of the chained maniacs than he excitedly
       exclaimed: 'Ah, ça! citoyen, es-tu fou toi-même de vouloir
       déchaîner de pareils animaux?' The physician was not to be
       deterred, however, from carrying out his benevolent project,
       and did not rest satisfied until all of the 53 men had been
       gradually liberated from their chains. Singular as it may
       appear, the man who had been regarded as the most dangerous,
       and who had survived forty years of this severe treatment, was
       afterwards known as the faithful and devoted servant of Pinel.
       The reforms of Pinel were not confined to the Bicêtre, an
       establishment exclusively for men, but extended to the
       Salpêtrière, an institution for women. There is, perhaps, no
       more touching event in history than that of this kind-hearted
       and wise physician removing the bands and chains from the
       ill-fated inmates of this place of horrors. The monstrous
       fallacy of cruel treatment once fully exposed, the insane came
       to be looked upon as unfortunate human beings, stricken with a
       terrible disease, and, like other sick persons, requiring
       every aid which science and benevolent sympathy could provide
       with a view to cure. Governmental inquiries were instituted
       with a view to the attainment of better treatment, and in
       different countries, almost simultaneously, the provision of
       suitable and adequate accommodation for the insane was
       declared to be a State necessity."

          W. P. Letchworth,
          The Insane in Foreign Countries,
          chapter 1.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
       The Discovery of Anæsthetics.

       "In 1798, Mr. Humphry Davy, an apprentice to Mr. Borlase a
       surgeon at Bodmin, had so distinguished himself by zeal and
       power in the study of chemistry and natural philosophy, that
       he was invited by Dr. Beddoes of Bristol, to become the
       'superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution which had been
       established at Clifton for the purpose of trying the medicinal
       effects of different gases.' He obtained release from his
       apprenticeship, accepted the appointment, and devoted himself
       to the study of gases, not only in their medicinal effects,
       but much more in all their chemical and physical relations.
       After two years' work he published his 'Researches, Chemical
       and Philosophical, chiefly concerning Nitrous Oxide.' … He
       wrote, near the end of his essay: 'As nitrous oxide in its
       extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical
       pain, it may probably be used with advantage during surgical
       operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place.'
       It seems strange that no one caught at a suggestion such as
       this. … The nitrous oxide might have been of as little
       general interest as the carbonic or any other, had it not been
       for the strange and various excitements produced by its
       inhalation. These made it a favourite subject with chemical
       lecturers, and year after year, in nearly every chemical
       theatre, it was fun to inhale it after the lecture on the
       gaseous compounds of nitrogen; and among those who inhaled it
       there must have been many who, in their intoxication, received
       sharp and heavy blows, but, at the time, felt no pain. And
       this went on for more than forty years, exciting nothing
       worthy to be called thought or observation, till, in December
       1844, Mr. Colton, a popular itinerant lecturer on chemistry,
       delivered a lecture on 'laughing gas' in Hartford,
       Connecticut. Among his auditors was Mr. Horace Wells, an
       enterprising dentist in that town, a man of some power in
       mechanical invention. After the lecture came the usual
       amusement of inhaling the gas, and Wells, in whom long wishing
       had bred a kind of belief that something might be found to
       make tooth-drawing painless, observed that one of the men
       excited by the gas was not conscious of hurting himself when
       he fell on the benches and bruised and cut his knees. Even
       when he became calm and clear-headed the man was sure that he
       did not feel pain at the time of his fall. Wells was at once
       convinced—more easily convinced than a man of more scientific
       mind would have been—that, during similar insensibility, in a
       state of intense nervous excitement, teeth might be drawn
       without pain, and he determined that himself and one of his
       own largest teeth should be the first for trial. Next morning
       Colton gave him the gas, and his friend Dr. Riggs extracted
       his tooth. He remained unconscious for a few moments, and then
       exclaimed, 'A new era in tooth-pulling! It did not hurt me
       more than the prick of a pin. It is the greatest discovery
       ever made.' In the next three weeks Wells extracted teeth from
       some twelve or fifteen persons under the influence of the
       nitrous oxide, and gave pain to only two or three. Dr. Riggs,
       also, used it with the same success, and the practice was well
       known and talked of in Hartford. Encouraged by his success
       Wells went to Boston, wishing to enlarge the reputation of his
       discovery and to have an opportunity of giving the gas to some
       one undergoing a surgical operation. Dr. J. C. Warren, the
       senior Surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital, to whom
       he applied for this purpose, asked him to show first its
       effects on some one from whom he would draw a tooth. He
       undertook to do this in the theatre of the medical college
       before a large class of students, to whom he had, on a
       previous day, explained his plan. Unluckily, the bag of gas
       from which the patient was inhaling was taken a way too soon;
       he cried out when his tooth was drawn; the students hissed and
       hooted; and the discovery was denounced as an imposture. Wells
       left Boston disappointed and disheartened; he fell ill, and
       was for many months unable to practise his profession. Soon
       afterwards he gave up dentistry, and neglected the use and
       study of the nitrous oxide, till he was recalled to it by a
       discovery even more important than his own. The thread of the
       history of nitrous oxide may be broken here.
    {2144}
       The inhalation of sulphuric ether was often, even in the last
       century, used for the relief of spasmodic asthma, phthisis,
       and some other diseases of the chest. … As the sulphuric
       ether would 'produce effects very similar to those occasioned
       by nitrous oxide,' and was much the more easy to procure, it
       came to be often inhaled, for amusement, by chemist's lads and
       by pupils in the dispensaries of surgeons. It was often thus
       used by young people in many places in the United States. They
       had what they called 'ether frolics.' … Among those who had
       joined in these ether-frolics was Dr. Wilhite of Anderson,
       South Carolina. In one of them, in 1839," a negro boy was
       unconscious so long that he was supposed for some time to be
       dead. "The fright at having, it was supposed, so nearly killed
       the boy, put an end to the ether-frolics in that
       neighbourhood; but in 1842, Wilhite had become a pupil of Dr.
       Crauford Long, practising at that time at Jefferson (Jackson
       County, Georgia). Here he and Dr. Long and three fellow-pupils
       often amused themselves with the ether-inhalation, and Dr.
       Long observed that when he became furiously excited, as he
       often did, he was unconscious of the blows which he, by
       chance, received as he rushed or tumbled about. He observed
       the same in his pupils; and thinking over this, and emboldened
       by what Mr. Wilhite told him of the negro-boy recovering after
       an hour's insensibility, he determined to try whether the
       ether-inhalation would make any one insensible of the pain of
       an operation. So, in March, 1842, nearly three years before
       Wells's observations with the nitrous oxide, he induced a Mr.
       Venable, who had been very fond of inhaling ether, to inhale
       it till he was quite insensible. Then he dissected a tumour
       from his neck; no pain was felt, and no harm followed. Three
       months later, he similarly removed another tumour from him;
       and again, in 1842 and in 1845, he operated on other three
       patients, and none felt pain. His operations were known and
       talked of in his neighbourhood; but the neighbourhood was only
       that of an obscure little town; and he did not publish any of
       his observations. … He waited to test the ether more
       thoroughly in some greater operation than those in which he
       had yet tried it; and then he would have published his account
       of it. While he was waiting, others began to stir more
       actively in busier places, where his work was quite unknown,
       not even heard of. Among those with whom, in his unlucky visit
       to Boston, Wells talked of his use of the nitrous oxide, and
       of the great discovery which he believed that he had made,
       were Dr. Morton and Dr. Charles Jackson. … Morton was a
       restless energetic dentist, a rough man, resolute to get
       practice and make his fortune. Jackson was a quiet scientific
       gentleman, unpractical and unselfish, in good repute as a
       chemist, geologist, and mineralogist. At the time of Wells's
       visit, Morton, who had been his pupil in 1842, and for a short
       time, in 1843, his partner, was studying medicine and anatomy
       at the Massachusetts Medical College, and was living in
       Jackson's house. Neither Morton nor Jackson put much if any
       faith in Wells's story, and Morton witnessed his failure in
       the medical theatre. Still, Morton had it in his head that
       tooth-drawing might somehow be made painless. … Jackson had
       long known, as many others did, of sulphuric ether being
       inhaled for amusement and of its producing effects like those
       of nitrous oxide; he knew also of its employment as a remedy
       for the irritation caused by inhaling chlorine. He had himself
       used it for this purpose, and once, in 1842, while using it,
       he became completely insensible. He had thus been led to think
       that the pure ether might be used for the prevention of pain
       in surgical operations; he spoke of it with some scientific
       friends, and sometimes advised a trial of it; but he did not
       urge it or take any active steps to promote even the trial.
       One evening, Morton, who was now in practice as a dentist,
       called on him, full of some scheme which he did not divulge,
       and urgent for success in painless tooth-drawing. Jackson
       advised him to use the ether, and taught him how to use it. On
       that same evening, the 30th of September, 1846, Morton inhaled
       the ether, put himself to sleep, and, when he awoke, found
       that he had been asleep for eight minutes. Instantly, as he
       tells, he looked for an opportunity of giving it to a patient;
       and one just then coming in, a stout healthy man, he induced
       him to inhale, made him quite insensible, and drew his tooth
       without his having the least consciousness of what was done.
       But the great step had yet to be made. … Could it be right
       to incur the risk of insensibility long enough and deep enough
       for a large surgical operation? It was generally believed that
       in such insensibility there was serious danger to life. Was it
       really so? Jackson advised Morton to ask Dr. J. C. Warren to
       let him try, and Warren dared to let him. It is hard, now, to
       think how bold the enterprise must have seemed to those who
       were capable of thinking accurately on the facts then known.
       The first trial was made on the 16th of October, 1846. Morton
       gave the ether to a patient in the Massachusetts General
       Hospital, and Dr. Warren removed a tumour from his neck. The
       result was not complete success; the patient hardly felt the
       pain of the cutting, but he was aware that the operation was
       being performed. On the next day, in a severer operation by
       Dr. Hayward, the success was perfect; the patient felt
       nothing, and in long insensibility there was no appearance of
       danger to life. The discovery might already be deemed
       complete; for the trials of the next following days had the
       same success, and thence onwards the use of the ether extended
       over constantly widening fields. … It might almost be said
       that in every place, at least in Europe, where the discovery
       was promoted more quickly than in America, the month might be
       named before which all operative surgery was agonising, and
       after which it was painless."

          Sir J. Paget,
          Escape from Pain
          (Nineteenth Century, December 1879).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
       The Study of Fermentation and its results.

       "It was some time ago the current belief that epidemic
       diseases generally were propagated by a kind of malaria, which
       consisted of organic matter in a state of motor-decay; that
       when such matter was taken into the body through the lungs,
       skin, or stomach, it had the power of spreading there the
       destroying process by which itself had been assailed. Such a
       power was visibly exerted in the case of yeast. A little
       leaven was seen to leaven the whole lump—a mere speck of
       matter, in this supposed state of decomposition, being
       apparently competent to propagate indefinitely its own decay.
       Why should not a bit of rotten malaria act in a similar manner
       within the human frame? In 1836 a very wonderful reply was
       given to this question. In that year Cagniard de la Tour
       discovered the yeast-plant—a living organism, which when
       placed in a proper medium feeds, grows, and reproduces itself,
       and in this way carries on the process which we name
       fermentation. By this striking discovery fermentation was
       connected with organic growth. Schwann, of Berlin, discovered
       the yeast-plant independently about the same time."

          J. Tyndall,
          Fragments of Science,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

    {2145}

       The question of fermentation "had come to present an entirely
       new aspect through the discovery of Cagniard de la Tour that
       yeast is really a plant belonging to one of the lowest types
       of fungi, which grows and reproduces itself in the fermentable
       fluid, and whose vegetative action is presumably the cause of
       that fermentation, just as the development of mould in a
       jam-pot occasions a like change in the upper stratum of the
       jam, on whose surface, and at whose expense, it lives and
       reproduces itself. Chemists generally—especially Liebig, who
       had a fermentation theory of his own—pooh-poohed this idea
       altogether; maintaining the presence of the yeast-plant to be
       a mere concomitant, and refusing to believe that it had any
       real share in the process. But in 1843, Professor Helmholtz,
       then a young undistinguished man, devised a method of stopping
       the passage of organic germs from a fermenting into a
       fermentable liquid, without checking the passage of fluids;
       and as no fermentation was then set up, he drew the inference
       that the 'particulate' organic germs, not the soluble material
       of the yeast, furnish the primum mobile of this change,—a
       doctrine which, though now universally accepted, had to fight
       its way for some time against the whole force of chemical
       authority. A little before Cagniard de la Tour's discovery, a
       set of investigations had been made by Schulze and Schwann, to
       determine whether the exclusion of air was absolutely
       necessary to prevent the appearance of living organisms in
       decomposing fluids, or whether these fluids might be kept free
       from animal or vegetable life, by such means as would
       presumably destroy any germs which the air admitted to them
       might bring in from without, such as passing it through a
       red-hot tube or strong sulphuric acid. These experiments, it
       should be said, had reference rather to the question of
       'spontaneous generation,' or 'abiogenesis,' than to the cause
       of fermentation and decomposition; its object being to
       determine whether the living things found by the microscope in
       a decomposing liquid exposed to the air, spring from germs
       brought by the atmosphere, or are generated 'de novo' in the
       act of decay—the latter doctrine having then many upholders.
       But the discovery of the real nature of yeast, and the
       recognition of the part it plays in alcoholic fermentation,
       gave an entirely new value to Schulze's and Schwann's results;
       suggesting that putrefactive and other kinds of decomposition
       may be really due, not (as formerly supposed) to the action of
       atmospheric oxygen upon unstable organic compounds, but to a
       new arrangement of elements brought about by the development
       of germinal particles deposited from the atmosphere. It was at
       this point that Pasteur took up the inquiry; and for its
       subsequent complete working-out, science is mainly indebted to
       him: for although other investigators—notably Professor
       Tyndall—have confirmed and extended his conclusions by
       ingenious variations on his mode of research, they would be
       the first to acknowledge that all those main positions which
       have now gained universal acceptance—save on the part of a
       few obstinate 'irreconcilables'—have been established by
       Pasteur's own labours. … The first application of these
       doctrines to the study of disease in the living animal was
       made in a very important investigation, committed to Pasteur
       by his old master in chemistry (the eminent and eloquent
       Dumas), into the nature of the 'pébrine,' which was
       threatening to extinguish the whole silk culture of France and
       Italy. … Though it concerned only a humble worm, it laid the
       foundation of an entirely new system and method of research
       into the nature and causes of a large class of diseases in man
       and the higher animals, of which we are now only beginning to
       see the important issues. Among the most immediately
       productive of its results, may be accounted the 'antiseptic
       surgery' of Professor Lister; of which the principle is the
       careful exclusion of living bacteria and other germs, alike
       from the natural internal cavities of the body, and from such
       as are formed by disease, whenever these may be laid open by
       accident, or may have to be opened surgically. This exclusion
       is effected by the judicious use of carbolic acid, which kills
       the germs without doing any mischief to the patient; and the
       saving of lives, of limbs, and of severe suffering, already
       brought about by this method, constitutes in itself a glorious
       triumph alike to the scientific elaborator of the
       germ-doctrine, and to the scientific surgeon by whom it has
       been thus applied. A far wider range of study, however, soon
       opened itself. The revival by Dr. Farr of the doctrine of
       'zymosis' (fermentation),—long ago suggested by the sagacity
       of Robert Boyle, and practically taken up in the middle of the
       last century by Sir John Pringle (the most scientific
       physician of his time),—as the expression of the effect
       produced in the blood by the introduction of a specific poison
       (such as that of small-pox, measles, scarlatina, cholera,
       typhus, &c.), had naturally directed the attention of
       thoughtful men to the question (often previously raised
       speculatively), whether these specific poisons are not really
       organic germs, each kind of which, a real 'contagium vivum,'
       when sown in the circulating fluid, produces a definite
       'zymosis' of its own, in the course of which the poison is
       reproduced with large increase, exactly after the manner of
       yeast in a fermenting wort. Pasteur's success brought this
       question to the front, as one not to talk about, but to work at."

          W. B. Carpenter,
          Disease-Germs
          (Nineteenth Century, October, 1881).

          ALSO IN:
          L. Pasteur,
          Studies in Fermentation.

          Dr. Duclaux,
          Fermentation.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
       Virchow and Cellular Pathology.

       "That really gifted scholar and paragon of industry and
       attainment, Rudolph Virchow, announced in 1858 a theory known
       as Modern Vitalism which was borrowed from natural scientific
       medicine and is distinguished from the vitalism of the
       previous century in this, that it breaks up the old vital
       force, which was supposed to be either distributed throughout
       the entire body, or located in a few organs, into an
       indefinite number of associate vital forces working
       harmoniously, and assigns to them all the final elementary
       principles without microscopic seat. 'Every animal principle
       has a sum of vital unities, each of which bears all the
       characteristics of life.
    {2146}
       The characteristics and unity of life cannot be found in any
       determinate point of a higher organism, e. g., in the brain,
       but only in the definite, ever recurring arrangements of each
       element present. Hence it results that the composition of a
       large body amounts to a kind of social arrangement, in which
       each one of the movements of individual existence is dependent
       upon the others, but in such a way that each element has a
       special activity of its own, and that each, although it
       receives the impulse to its own activity from other parts,
       still itself performs its own functions.' This it will be seen
       is nothing but another way of expressing the cell doctrine to
       which most medical men are now committed, which means that our
       bodies are built up with cells, and that each cell has a unity
       and a purpose of its own. Sir Robert Hooke in 1677 discovered
       plant cells. Schwann discovered animal cells, and Robert Brown
       discovered cell nuclei, but it remained for Virchow, using the
       microscope, to supply the gap which had risen between
       anatomical knowledge and medical theory, that is, to supply a
       'cellular pathology,' since which time the cell has assumed
       the role which the fibre occupied in the theories of the 17th
       and 18th centuries. Time alone can decide as to the ultimate
       validity of these views. This theory was from its announcement
       most enthusiastically received, and so far has responded to
       nearly all the requirements which have been made of it. Even
       its author was almost startled with its success. … As a
       result of Virchow's labors there has arisen in Germany what
       has been called the medical school of natural sciences of
       which Virchow is the intellectual father. This school seeks
       mainly by means of pathological anatomy and microscopy,
       experimental physiology and pathology, and the other applied
       sciences, or rather by their methods, to make medicine also an
       exact science."

          Roswell Park,
          Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
       The development of Bacteriology.

       "The traditional expression contagium vivum received a more
       precise meaning in 1840 from Henle, who in his 'Pathologischen
       Untersuchungen,' showed clearly and distinctly that the
       contagia till then invisible must be regarded as living
       organisms, and gave his reasons for this view. … If we are
       forced to recognise the characteristic qualities of living
       beings in these contagia, there is no good reason why we
       should not regard them as real living beings, parasites. For
       the only general distinction between their mode of appearance
       and operation and that of parasites is, that the parasites
       with which we are acquainted have been seen and the contagia
       have not. That this may be due to imperfect observation is
       shown by the experiments on the itch in 1840, in which the
       contagium, the itch-mite, though almost visible without
       magnifying power, was long at least misunderstood. It was only
       a short time before that the microscopic Fungus, Achorion,
       which causes favus, was unexpectedly discovered, as well as
       the Fungus which gives rise to the infectious disease in the
       caterpillar of the silkworm known as muscardine. Other and
       similar cases occurred at a later time, and among them that of
       the discovery of the Trichinae between 1850 and 1860, a very
       remarkable instance of a contagious parasite long overlooked.
       Henle repeated his statements in 1853 in his 'Rationelle
       Pathologie,' but for reasons which it is not our business to
       examine, his views on animal pathology met with little
       attention or approval. It was in connection with
       plant-pathology that Henle's views were first destined to
       further development, and obtained a firmer footing. It is true
       that the botanists who occupied themselves with the diseases
       of plants knew nothing of Henle's pathological writings, but
       made independent efforts to carry on some first attempts which
       had been made with distinguished success in the beginning of
       the century. But they did in fact strike upon the path
       indicated by Henle, and the constant advance made after, about
       the year 1850, resulted not only in the tracing back of all
       infectious diseases in plants to parasites as their exciting
       cause, but in proving that most of the diseases of plants are
       due to parasitic infection. It may now certainly be admitted
       that the task was comparatively easy in the vegetable kingdom,
       partly because the structure of plants makes them more
       accessible to research, partly because most of the parasites
       which infect them are true Fungi, and considerably larger than
       most of the contagia of animal bodies. From this time
       observers in the domain of animal pathology, partly
       influenced, more or less, by these discoveries in botany, and
       partly in consequence of the revival of the vitalistic theory
       of fermentation by Pasteur about the year 1860, returned to
       Henle's vitalistic theory of contagion. Henle himself, in the
       exposition of his views, had already indicated the points of
       comparison between his own theory and the theory of
       fermentation founded at that time by Cagniard-Latour and
       Schwann. Under the influence, as he expressly says, of
       Pasteur's writings, Davaine recalled to mind the little rods
       first seen by his teacher, Rayer, in the blood of an animal
       suffering from anthrax, and actually discovered in them the
       exciting cause of the disease, which may be taken as a type of
       an infectious disease both contagious and miasmatic also, in
       so far as it originates, as has been said, in
       anthrax-districts. This was, in 1863, a very important
       confirmation of Henle's theory, inasmuch as a very small
       parasite, not very easy of observation at that time, was
       recognised as a contagium. It was some time before much
       further advance was made. … The latest advance to be
       recorded begins with the participation of Robert Koch in the
       work of research since 1876."

          A. De Bary,
          Lectures on Bacteria,
          pages 145-148.

       "M. Pasteur is no ordinary man; he is one of the rare
       individuals who must be described by the term 'genius.' Having
       commenced his scientific career and attained great distinction
       as a chemist, M. Pasteur was led by his study of the chemical
       process of fermentations to give his attention to the
       phenomena of disease in living bodies resembling
       fermentations. Owing to a singular and fortunate mental
       characteristic, he has been able, not simply to pursue a rigid
       path of investigation dictated by the logical or natural
       connection of the phenomena investigated, but deliberately to
       select for inquiry matters of the most profound importance to
       the community, and to bring his inquiries to a successful
       practical issue in a large number of instances.
    {2147}
       Thus he has saved the silkworm industry of France and Italy
       from destruction, he has taught the French wine-makers to
       quickly mature their wine, he has effected an enormous
       improvement and economy in the manufacture of beer, he has
       rescued the sheep and cattle of Europe from the fatal disease
       'anthrax,' and it is probable—he would not himself assert
       that it is at present more than probable—that he has rendered
       hydrophobia a thing of the past. The discoveries made by this
       remarkable man would have rendered him, had he patented their
       application and disposed of them according to commercial
       principles, the richest man in the world. They represent a
       gain of some millions sterling annually to the community. …
       M. Pasteur's first experiment in relation to hydrophobia was
       made in December 1880, when he inoculated two rabbits with the
       mucus from the mouth of a child which had died of that
       disease. As his inquiries extended he found that it was
       necessary to establish by means of experiment even the most
       elementary facts with regard to the disease, for the existing
       knowledge on the subject was extremely small, and much of what
       passed for knowledge was only ill-founded tradition."

          E. R. Lankester,
          The Advancement of Science,
          pages 121-123.

       "The development of our knowledge relating to the bacteria,
       stimulated by the controversy relating to spontaneous
       generation and by the demonstration that various processes of
       fermentation and putrefaction are due to microörganisms of
       this class, has depended largely upon improvements in methods
       of research. Among the most important points in the
       development of bacteriological technique we may mention first,
       the use of a cotton air filter (Schröder and Von Dusch, 1854);
       second, the sterilization of culture fluids by heat (methods
       perfected by Pasteur, Koch, and others); third, the use of the
       aniline dyes as staining agents (first recommended by Weigert
       in 1877); fourth, the introduction of solid culture media and
       the 'plate method' for obtaining pure cultures, by Koch in
       1881. The various improvements in methods of research, and
       especially the introduction of solid culture media and Koch's
       'plate method' for isolating bacteria from mixed 'cultures,
       have placed bacteriology upon a scientific basis. … It was a
       distinguished French physician, Davaine, who first
       demonstrated the etiological relation of a microörganism of
       this class to a specific infectious disease. The anthrax
       bacillus had been seen in the blood of animals dying from this
       disease by Pollender in 1849, and by Davaine in 1850, but it
       was several years later (1863) before the last-named observer
       claimed to have demonstrated by inoculation experiments the
       causal relation of the bacillus to the disease in question.
       The experiments of Davaine were not generally accepted as
       conclusive, because in inoculating an animal with blood
       containing the bacillus, from an infected animal which had
       succumbed to the disease, the living microörganism was
       associated with material from the body of the diseased animal.
       This objection was subsequently removed by the experiments of
       Pasteur, Koch, and many others, with pure cultures of the
       bacillus, which were shown to have the same pathogenic effects
       as had been obtained in inoculation experiments with the blood
       of an infected animal."

          G. M. Sternberg,
          Manual of Bacteriology,
          page 6.

       "In 1876 the eminent microscopist, Professor Cohn, of Breslau,
       was in London, and he then handed me a number of his
       'Beiträge,' containing a memoir by Dr. Koch on Splenic Fever
       (Milzbrand, Charbon, Malignant Pustule), which seemed to me to
       mark an epoch in the history of this formidable disease. With
       admirable patience, skill, and penetration Koch followed up
       the life-history of bacillus anthracis, the contagium of this
       fever. At the time here referred to he was a young physician
       holding a small appointment in the neighbourhood of Breslau,
       and it was easy to predict, and indeed I predicted at the
       time, that he would soon find himself in a higher position.
       When I next heard of him he was head of the Imperial Sanitary
       Institute of Berlin. … Koch was not the discoverer of the
       parasite of splenic fever. Davaine and Rayer, in 1850, had
       observed the little microscopic rods in the blood of animals
       which had died of splenic fever. But they were quite
       unconscious of the significance of their observation, and for
       thirteen years, as M. Radot informs us, strangely let the
       matter drop. In 1863 Davaine's attention was again directed to
       the subject by the researches of Pasteur, and he then
       pronounced the parasite to be the cause of the fever. He was
       opposed by some of his fellow-countrymen; long discussions
       followed, and a second period of thirteen years, ending with
       the publication of Koch's paper, elapsed before M. Pasteur
       took up the question. I always, indeed, assumed that from the
       paper of the learned German came the impulse towards a line of
       inquiry in which M. Pasteur has achieved such splendid
       results."

          J. Tyndall,
          New Fragments,
          pages 190-191.

       "On the 24th of March, 1882, an address of very serious public
       import was delivered by Dr. Koch before the Physiological
       Society of Berlin. … The address … is entitled 'The
       Etiology of Tubercular Disease.' Koch first made himself
       known, and famous, by the penetration, skill, and thoroughness
       of his researches on the contagium of anthrax, or splenic
       fever. … Koch's last inquiry deals with a disease which, in
       point of mortality, stands at the head of them all. 'If,' he
       says, 'the seriousness of a malady be measured by the number
       of its victims, then the most dreaded pests which have
       hitherto ravaged the world—plague and cholera included—must
       stand far behind the one now under consideration.' Then
       follows the startling statement that one-seventh of the deaths
       of the human race are due to tubercular disease. Prior to Koch
       it had been placed beyond doubt that the disease was
       communicable; and the aim of the Berlin physician has been to
       determine the precise character of the contagium which
       previous experiments on inoculation and inhalation had proved
       to be capable of indefinite transfer and reproduction. He
       subjected the diseased organs of a great number of men and
       animals to microscopic examination, and found, in all cases,
       the tubercles infested by a minute, rod-shaped parasite, which
       by means of a special dye, he differentiated from the
       surrounding tissue. 'It was,' he says, 'in the highest degree
       impressive to observe in the centre of the tubercle-cell the
       minute organism which had created it.' Transferring directly,
       by inoculation, the tuberculous matter from diseased animals
       to healthy ones, he in every instance reproduced the disease.
       To meet the objection that it was not the parasite itself, but
       some virus in which it was imbedded in the diseased organ,
       that was the real contagium, he cultivated his bacilli
       artificially for long periods of time and through many
       successive generations.
    {2148}
       With a speck of matter, for example, from a tuberculous human
       lung, he infected a substance prepared, after much trial, by
       himself, with the view of affording nutriment to the parasite.
       In this medium he permitted it to grow and multiply: From the
       new generation he took a minute sample, and infected therewith
       fresh nutritive matter, thus producing another brood.
       Generation after generation of bacilli were developed in this
       way, without the intervention of disease. At the end of the
       process, which sometimes embraced successive cultivations
       extending over half a year, the purified bacilli were
       introduced into the circulation of healthy animals of various
       kinds. In every case inoculation was followed by the
       reproduction and spread of the parasite, and the generation of
       the original disease. … The moral of these experiments is
       obvious. In no other conceivable way than that pursued by Koch
       could the true character of the most destructive malady by
       which humanity is now assailed be determined. And however
       noisy the fanaticism of the moment may be, the common-sense of
       Englishmen will not, in the long run, permit it to enact
       cruelty in the name of tenderness, or to debar us from the
       light and leading of such investigations as that which is here
       so imperfectly described."

          J. Tyndall,
          New Fragments,
          pages 423-428.

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
       The Theory of Germ Diseases.

       "An account of the innumerable questions and investigations in
       this department of modern pathogenesis, of the various views
       on certain questions, etc., does not fall within the compass
       of our brief sketch. Nor are we able to furnish a consistent
       theory, simply because such an one does not [1889] exist. One
       fact alone is agreed upon, to wit, that certain of the lower
       fungi, as parasites within or upon the body, excite diseases
       (infectious diseases). As regards the modus operandi of these
       parasites two main theories are held. According to one theory,
       these parasites, by their development, deprive the body of its
       nutriment and endanger life particularly when, thronging in
       the blood, they deprive this of the oxygen necessary for
       existence. According to the other theory, they threaten life
       by occasioning decompositions which engender putrid poisons
       (ptomaines). These latter poisons were first isolated by P. L.
       Panum in 1856, and have been recently specially studied by
       Brieger (Ueber Ptomaine, Berlin, 1885-86). They act
       differently upon bodies according to the variety of the
       alkaloidal poison. Metschnikoff regards the white
       blood-corpuscles as antagonists of these parasites (thus
       explaining the cases of recovery from parasitic diseases), and
       in this point of view calls them 'phagocytes.' On the other
       hand E. Salmon and Theodore Smith ('Transactions of the
       Washington Biological Society, February 22d, 1886) were the
       first to demonstrate that sterilized nutritive solutions or
       germ-free products of change of matter of the virulent
       exciters of disease, when injected, afford protection. A.
       Chauveau as early as 1880 had brought forward evidence of the
       probability of this fact, and Hans Buchner in 1879 admitted
       the possibility of depriving bacteria of their virulence.
       Pasteur, however, believes he has demonstrated that by
       continued cultures (also a sort of bacillary Isopathy)
       'debilitated' germs act as prophylactics against the
       corresponding parasitic diseases, and he even thinks he has
       confirmed this by his inoculations against hydrophobia—a
       view, at all events, still open to doubt. … The chief
       diseases regarded as of parasitic origin at present are:
       anthrax (Davaine, 1850); relapsing fever (Obermeier, 1873);
       gonorrhœa and blenorrhœa neonatorum (Neisser, 1879); glanders
       (Struck, 1882, Loeffler and Schütz); syphilis (Sigm.
       Lustgarten, 1884); diphtheria (Oertel, Letzerich, Klebs);
       typhus (Eberle, Klebs); tuberculosis (Koch, 1882); cholera
       (Koch, 1884); lepra (Armauer-Hansen); actinomycosis (Bollinger
       in cattle, 1877; Israel in man, 1884); septicæmia (Klebs);
       erysipelas (Fehleisen); pneumonia (Friedländer); malarial
       fever (Klebs, Tommasi-Crudeli, Marchiafava); malignant œdema
       (Koch); tetanus (Carle and Rattone, Nicolaier, Roeschlaub
       assumed a tetania occasioned by bacilli); cancer (Scheuerlen;
       priority contested by Dr. G. Rappia and Prof. Domingo Freire
       of Rio Janeiro); yellow fever (microbe claimed to have been
       discovered by Freire); dysentery (bacillary diphtheritis of
       the large intestine); cholera nostras (Finkler and Prior);
       scarlet fever (Coze and Feltz, '72); variola and vaccina
       (Keber, Zülzer, Weigert, Klebs); acute yellow atrophy of the
       liver (Klebs, Waldeyer, Eppinger); endocarditis (Ziegler);
       hæmophilia neonatorum (Klebs, Eppinger); trachoma (Sattler);
       keratitis (Leber—aspergillus); ulcus rodens corneæ (Sattler);
       gonorrhœal rheumatism (Petrone, Kammerer). If the bacterial
       theory of infection, constantly threatening life by such
       numerous pathogenic varieties of infecting organisms, must be
       looked upon as a gloomy one, the anti-bacterial Phagocyte
       Theory of Metschnikoff, professor of zoology in Odessa, is
       adapted to make one feel more comfortable, inasmuch as it
       brings into view the possibility of an antagonism to these
       infecting organisms, and explains the method of nature's
       cures. Metschnikoff observed that the wandering cells—the
       white blood corpuscles—after the manner of amœbæ, surround,
       hold fast, digest ('devour,' hence 'phagocytes'), and thus
       render harmless the bacteria which have entered the body. …
       The prophylactic effects of inoculation are explained on the
       theory that by means of this operation the wandering cells are
       prepared, as it were, for subsequent accidental irruptions of
       similar pathogenic bacteria, are habituated or compelled
       thereby to at once devour such organisms when they enter the
       body spontaneously, and thus to render them harmless.
       Inoculation would thus be a sort of training or education of
       the phagocytes. The immunity of many persons from infectious
       diseases, so far as it is not effected by inoculations, would
       by analogy be explained on the theory that with such
       individuals the phagocytes are from the outset so constituted
       that they at once render harmless any stray bacteria which
       come within their domain by immediately devouring them. …
       When … in spite of the phagocytes, the patients die of
       infectious diseases, the fact is to be explained by the
       excessive number of the bacteria present, which is so great
       that the phagocytes are unequal to the task of 'devouring'
       them all."

          J. H. Baas,
          Outlines of the History of Medicine,
          pages 1007-1009.

    {2149}

    MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
       Sanitary Science and Legislation.

       "Together with the growth of our knowledge of the causes of
       disease there has been … slowly growing up also a new kind
       of warfare against disease. It is this science of hygiene
       which is now promising to transform all the old traditional
       ways of dealing with disease, and which now makes possible the
       organisation of the conditions of health. And this science of
       hygiene, it must be repeated, rests on the exact knowledge of
       the causes of disease which we are now obtaining. … At the
       beginning of the eighteenth century Mead, a famous physician
       of that day, whose reputation still lives, had proposed the
       formation of a central board of health to organise common
       measures for the public safety. It was not, however, until
       more than a hundred years later, in 1831, under the influence
       of the terror of cholera, that this first step was taken; so
       that, as it has been well said and often since proved, 'panic
       is the parent of sanitation.' In 1842 Sir Edwin Chadwick
       issued his report on 'The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring
       Population of Great Britain.' This report produced marked
       effect, and may truly be said to have inaugurated the new era
       of collective action, embodying itself in legislation directed
       to the preservation of national health, an era which is thus
       just half a century old. Chadwick's report led to a Royal
       Commission, which was the first step in the elevation of
       public health to a State interest; and a few years later
       (1847) Liverpool, and immediately afterwards London, appointed
       the first medical officers of health in Great Britain. In 1848
       another epidemic of cholera appeared, and a General Board of
       Health was established. During this epidemic Dr. Snow began
       those inquiries which led to the discovery that the spread of
       the disease was due to the contamination of drinking-water by
       the intestinal discharges of patients. That discovery marked
       the first great stage in the new movement. Henceforth the
       objects to be striven for in the evolution of sanitation
       became ever more clear and precise, and a succession of
       notable discoveries in connection with various epidemics
       enlarged the sphere of sanitation, and revealed new
       possibilities in the prevention of human misery."

          H. Ellis,
          The Nationalisation of Health,
          pages 21-24.

       "Of all countries of the civilized world, none has a sanitary
       code so complete and so precise as England. In addition,
       English legislation is distinguished from that of other
       countries, by the fact that the principal regulations emanate
       from Parliament instead of being simple administrative orders.
       Thus the legislation is the work of the nation, which has
       recognised its necessity in its own interest. Consequently the
       laws are respected, and, as a rule, religiously observed,
       without objection or murmur. In the whole country, the
       marvellous results which have been produced can be seen.
       Thanks to these laws, the rate of mortality has been lowered,
       the mean duration of life increased, the amount of sickness
       decreased. They have greatly alleviated the misery in the
       houses of the poor, who, thanks to sanitary measures, have a
       better prospect of recovering their health and the means of
       providing for their subsistence and that of their families.
       … The sanitary administration of England is, in accordance
       with the Public Health Act of 1875, in the hands of a central
       authority, the Local Government Board; and local authorities,
       the Local Boards of Health. The Local Government Board
       consists of a president, nominated by the Queen, and the
       following ex-officio members:—the Lord President of the Privy
       Council, all the principal Secretaries of State for the time
       being, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a
       Parliamentary Secretary, and a permanent Secretary. The
       President and Secretaries are, properly speaking, the
       directors of the Local Government Board, the other members
       being only consulted on matters of prime importance. Nine
       special departments are controlled by the Local Government
       Board:

          1. Poor-law administration.
          2. Legal questions.
          3. Sanitary regulations respecting buildings.
          4. Sanitary regulations respecting sewers, streets, etc.
          5. Medical and hygienic matters.
          6. Vaccination.
          7. The Hygiene of factories.
          8. The water supply of London.
          9. Statistics.

       Medical and sanitary matters are under the direction of a
       Medical Officer, and an Assistant Medical Officer."

          A. Palmberg,
          Treatise on Public Health: England,
          chapter 1.

       "The United States have no uniform legislation for the
       organization of public hygiene to the present day. Each State
       organizes this service as it chooses. … That which
       characterizes the sanitary organization of the States is the
       fact that, in a large number of States, the right is granted
       to the sanitary administrations to carry before the justices
       the infractions of the regulations on this subject. It is a
       similar organization to that of Great Britain, with a little
       less independence, and it is the logical result of the general
       system of administration which exists in the American Union.
       … Without doubt the day will come when the National Board of
       Health will be by act of Congress, with the consent of all the
       States, the real superior council of public hygiene of the
       American Union."

          E. Sève,
          On the General Organization of Public Hygiene
          (Proceedings, International Sanitary Conference, 1881).

       "The General Government [of the United States] can do little
       in the way of compulsory legislation, which might interfere
       with the action of the several States to control their own
       sanitary affairs. It is possible that upon the ground of power
       to legislate with regard to commerce, it might establish some
       general system of quarantine and do something toward the
       prevention of the pollution of navigable streams; but it could
       probably only do this with such restrictions and exceptions as
       would make its action of little practical value, unless,
       indeed, it should resort to its right of eminent domain, and
       become liable for all damages, individual or municipal, which
       its action might cause. … No one would deny that the General
       Government can properly create an organization for the purpose
       of collecting and diffusing information on sanitary matters;
       but comparatively few understand how much real power and
       influence such an organization might acquire without having
       the slightest legal authority to enforce any of its
       recommendations. The passing of sanitary laws, and the
       granting to a certain department the power to enforce these
       laws, will not ensure good public health unless the public at
       large supports those laws intelligently, and it can only do
       this through State and municipal sanitary organizations. The
       General Government might do much to promote the formation of
       such organizations, and to assist them in various ways. … By
       the 'act to prevent the introduction of infectious or
       contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a
       national board of health,' approved March 3, 1879, the first
       step has been taken in the direction above indicated.
    {2150}
       The act provides for a national board of health, to consist of
       seven members, appointed by the President, and of four
       officers detailed from the Medical Department of the Army,
       Medical Department of the Navy, and the Marine Hospital
       Service, and the Department of Justice respectively. No
       definite term of Office is prescribed, the Board being
       essentially provisional in character. The duties of the board
       are 'to obtain information upon all matters affecting the
       public health, to advise the several departments of the
       government, the executives of the several States, and the
       Commissioners of the District of Columbia, on all questions
       submitted by them, or whenever in the opinion of the board
       such advice may tend to the preservation and improvement of
       the public health.' The board is also directed to prepare a
       plan for a national public health organization in conjunction
       with the National Academy of Sciences."

          J. S. Billings,
          Introduction to "A Treatise on Hygiene and Public Health,"
          edited by A. IL Buck.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir J. Simon,
          English Sanitary Institutions

          Sir J. Simon,
          Public Health: Reports of the Medical Officer
          of the Privy Council and Local Government Board.

          United States National Board of Health, Annual Reports.

          Massachusetts Board of Health, Annual Reports.

       ----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: End----------

    MEDICI, The.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and after.

       ----------MEDINA: Start--------

    MEDINA: the City of the Prophet.

       By Mahomet's Hegira or flight from Mecca to Yethrib, A. D.
       622, the latter city became the seat of Islam and was
       henceforward known as Medina—Medinet-en-Neby—"the City of
       the Prophet."

          S. Lane-Poole,
          Studies in a Mosque,
          chapter 2.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    MEDINA: A. D. 661.
       The Caliphate transferred.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

    MEDINA: A. D. 683.
       Stormed and sacked.

       In the civil war which followed the accession of Yezid, the
       second of the Omeyyad caliphs, Medina was besieged and stormed
       by Yezid's army and given up for three days to every
       imaginable brutality on the part of the soldiery. The
       inhabitants who survived were made slaves.

          Sir W. Muir,
          Annals of the Early Caliphate,
          chapter 50.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Irving,
          Mahomet and his Successors,
          volume 2, chapter 47.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

       ----------MEDINA: End----------

    MEDINA DEL RIO SECO, Battle of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    MEDIOLANUM.

       Modern Milan. Taken by the Romans in 222 B. C. from the
       Insubrian Gauls.

          See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    MEDIOMATRICI.

       The original form of the name of the city of Metz, which had
       been called Divodurum by the Gauls at an earlier day.

    MEDISM.
    MEDIZED GREEKS.

       During the wars of the Persians against the Greeks, the former
       had many friends and allies, both secret and open, among the
       latter. These were commonly called Medized Greeks, and their
       treason went by the name of Medism.

    MEDITERRANEAN FUND.

       A special fund provided by the United States Congress, in
       1803, for the War with Tripoli.

          H. Adams,
          History of the United States,
          volume 2, chapter 7.

    MEDITERRANEAN SEA:
       When named.

       "For this sea … the Greeks had no distinctive name, because
       it had so long been practically the only one known to them;
       and Strabo can only distinguish it as 'the Inner' or 'Our'
       Sea. … The now familiar appellation of Mediterranean is in
       like manner first used by Solinus [third century], only as a
       convenient designation, not as a strictly geographical term.
       … The first extant author who employs it distinctly as a
       proper name is Isidorus, who wrote in the seventh century."

          E: H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 21, section 1,
          chapter 23, section 2, foot-note,
          chapter 31 (volume 2).

    MEERUT, The Sepoy mutiny at.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY).

    MEGALESIA, The.

          See LUDI.

      ----------MEGALOPOLIS: Start--------

    MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 371.
       The founding of the city.

          See GREECE: B. C. 371.

    MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 317.
       Defense against Polysperchon.

          See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

    MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 222.
       Destruction and restoration.

       The last exploit of Cleomenes of Sparta, in his struggle with
       the Achæan League and its ally, the king of Macedonia, before
       the fatal field of Sellasia, was the capture of Megalopolis,
       B. C. 222. Most of the citizens escaped. He offered to restore
       their town to them, if they would forsake the League. They
       refused, and he destroyed it, so utterly that its restoration
       was believed to be impossible. But in the following year the
       inhabitants were brought back and Megalopolis existed again,
       though never with its former importance.

          Polybius,
          Histories,
          book 2, chapter 55 and after (volume 1).

    MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 194-183.
       In the Achaian League.

       "The city of Megalopolis held at this time [B. C. 194-183] the
       same sort of position in the Achaian League which the State of
       Virginia held in the first days of the American Union. Without
       any sort of legal preëminence, without at all assuming the
       character of a capital, Megalopolis was clearly the first city
       of the League, the city which gave the nation the largest
       proportion of its leading statesmen. Megalopolis, like
       Virginia, was 'the Mother of Presidents,' and that too of
       Presidents of different political parties. As Virginia
       produced both Washington and Jefferson, so Megalopolis, if she
       produced Philopoimen and Lykortas, produced also Aristainos
       and Diophanes."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapter 9, section 2.

      ----------MEGALOPOLIS: End--------

      ----------MEGARA: Start--------

    MEGARA.

       Megara, the ancient Greek city and state whose territory lay
       between Attica and Corinth, forming part of the Corinthian
       isthmus, "is affirmed to have been originally settled by the
       Dorians of Corinth, and to have remained for some time a
       dependency of that city. It is farther said to have been at
       first merely one of five separate villages—Megara, Heræa,
       Peiræa, Kynosura, Tripodiskus—inhabited by a kindred
       population, and generally on friendly terms, yet sometimes
       distracted by quarrels. …

          See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

       Whatever may be the truth respecting this alleged early
       subjection of Megara, we know it in the historical age, and
       that too as early as the 14th Olympiad, only as an independent
       Dorian city, maintaining the integrity of its territory under its
       leader Orsippus, the famous Olympic runner, against some
       powerful enemies, probably the Corinthians. It was of no mean
       consideration, possessing a territory which extended across
       Mount Geraneia to the Corinthian Gulf, on which the fortified
       town and port of Pêgæ, belonging to the Megarians, was
       situated. It was mother of early and distant colonies,—and
       competent, during the time of Solon, to carry on a protracted
       contest with the Athenians, for the possession of Salamis;
       wherein, although the latter were at last victorious, it was
       not without an intermediate period of ill-success and
       despair."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 9.

          See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

    {2151}

    MEGARA: B. C. 610-600.
       Struggle with Athens for Salamis.
       Spartan arbitration favorable to the Athenians.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

    MEGARA: B. C. 458-456.
       Alliance with Athens in war with Corinth and Ægina.

          See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

    MEGARA: B. C. 446-445.
       Rising against Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

    MEGARA: B. C. 431-424.
       Athenian invasions and ravages.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 431.

    MEGARA: B. C. 339-338.
       Resistance to Philip of Macedon.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

      ----------MEGARA: End--------

    MEGARA OF CARTHAGE, The.

          See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS.

    MEGIDDO.

       The valley of Megiddo, forming the western part of the great
       Plain of Esdraelon, in northern Palestine—stretching from the
       valley of the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, along the
       course of the river Kishon—was the field of many important
       battles in ancient times. Thothmes III. of the eighteenth
       Egyptian dynasty, whose reign is placed about 1600 B. C., met
       there, near the city of Megiddo, and defeated a confederacy of
       Syrian and Canaanite princes who attempted to throw off his
       yoke. A remarkable account of his victory and of the spoils he
       took is preserved in inscriptions on the walls of the temple
       at Karnak.

          H. Brugsch,
          History of Egypt,
          chapter 13 (volume 1).

       It was at Megiddo, also, that Sisera, commanding the forces of
       the Canaanites, was beaten and driven to flight by the
       Israelites under Barak. Gideon's' assault on the Midianites
       was from the slope of Mount Gilboa, which rises out of the
       same valley. The latter battle has been called by historians
       the Battle of Jezreel, and Jezreel is one of the forms of the
       name of the valley of Esdraelon. It was there that the
       Philistines were arrayed when Saul fought his last battle with
       them, and on the slopes of Gilboa he fell on his sword and
       died. On the same historic plain, near the city of Megiddo,
       Josiah, king of Judah, fought against Necho, the Pharaoh of
       Egypt, B. C. 609, and was defeated and mortally wounded. The
       plain of Megiddo was so often, in fact, the meeting place of
       ancient armies that it seems to have come to be looked upon as
       the typical battle-ground, and apparently the name Armageddon
       in Revelations is an allusion to it in that sense. The ancient
       city of Megiddo has been identified in site with the present
       town of Ledjûn, which is the Legio of the Romans—the station
       of a Roman legion.

    MEGISTANES, The.

       "The king [of the Parthian monarchy] was permanently advised
       by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own
       nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office,
       entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave,
       … or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House;
       the other was a senate comprising both the spiritual and the
       temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or 'Wise Men,' and
       the Magi, or 'Priests.' Together these two bodies constituted
       the Megistanes, the 'Nobles' or 'Great Men'—the privileged
       class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled
       the monarch. The monarchy was elective; but only in the house
       of the Arsacidæ."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 6.

    MEHDI, AL.

          See MAHDI, AL.

    MEHEMET ALI AND THE INDEPENDENT PASHALIK OF EGYPT.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
          and EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

    MEHERRINS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH

    MEIGS, Fort, Sieges of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813
          HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

    MELBOURNE MINISTRIES, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837; and 1841-1842.

    MELCHITES.

       A name applied in the religious controversies of the 6th
       century, by the heretical Jacobites, to the adherents of the
       orthodox church. It signified that they were imperialists, or
       royalists, taking their doctrines from the sovereign power.

          H. F. Tozer,
          The Church and the Eastern Empire,
          chapter 5.

    MELDÆ, The.

       A tribe in ancient Gaul which was established in the north of
       the modern French department of the Seine-et-Marne and in a
       small part of the department of the Oise.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).

    MELIAN FAMINE.

          See GREECE: B. C. 416.

    MELIGNANO,
    MARIGNANO, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

    MELISCEET INDIANS, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    MELORIA, Battles of (1241 and 1284).

          See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

    MELOS: Siege, conquest and massacre by the Athenians:

          See GREECE: B. C. 416.

    MELUN, Siege of.

       One of the important sieges in the second campaign of the
       English king Henry V. in France, A. D. 1420.

          Monstrelet,
          Chronicles,
          book 1, chapters 226-230 (volume 1).

    MEMLUKS.

          See MAMELUKES.

      ----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: Start--------

    MEMPHIS, Egypt.

       The foundation of Memphis is the first event in Egyptian
       history, the one large historical incident in the reign of the
       first king, who emerges a real man from the shadow land which
       the Egyptians called the reign of the gods. … Menes, the
       founder of Memphis and Egyptian history, came from the south.
       Civilisation descended the Nile. His native place was Thinis,
       or This, in Upper Egypt, a still older town, where his shadowy
       predecessors ruled. … A great engineering work was the first
       act of the builder. He chose his site … but the stream was
       on the wrong side, flowing below the Libyan chain, flowing
       over where the city should be, offering no water-bulwark
       against the invader from the eastern border. So he raised, a
       few miles to the south, a mighty dyke, and turned the river
       into the present course, founding the city on the west bank,
       with the desert behind and the Nile before. … The new city
       received a name which reflects the satisfaction of the ancient
       founder: he called it Mennufre, 'the Good' or 'Perfect
       Mansion.' This was the civil name. … The civil name is
       the parent of the Greek Memphis and the Hebrew Moph, also
       found in the form Noph."

          R. S. Poole,
          Cities of Egypt,
          chapter 2.

          See, also,
          EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

    {2152}

    MEMPHIS: A. D. 640-641.
       Surrender to the Moslems.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

      ----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: End--------

      ----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: Start--------

    MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1739-1740.
       A French fort on the site.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

    MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
       Naval fight in the river.
       Surrender of the city to the Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

      ----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: End--------

    MENAPII, The.

       See BELGÆ;
       also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

    MENDICANT ORDERS.
       Franciscans.
       Dominicans.

       "This period [12-13th centuries], so prolific in institutions
       of every sort, also gave birth to the Mendicant orders, a
       species of spiritual chivalry still more generous and heroic
       than that which we have just treated [the military-religious
       orders], and unique in history. … Many causes combined to
       call them into existence. In proportion as the Church grew
       wealthy her discipline relaxed, and dangers menaced her on
       every side. … The problem thus presented to the Church was
       taken up at the opening of the 13th century, and thrown into
       practical shape by two men equally eminent in intellectual
       endowments and spiritual gifts. While each solved it in his
       own way, they were both attached to each other by the closest
       friendship. Dominic, a member of the powerful house of Guzman,
       was born in the year 1170, at Callaruega (Calahorra, in Old
       Castile), a village in the diocese of Osma. While pursuing his
       studies in the university of Valencia, he was distinguished by
       a spirit of charity and self-sacrifice. … Diego, Bishop of
       Osma, … a man of severe character, and ardently devoted to
       the good of the Church, found in Dominic one after his own
       heart. He took the young priest with him on a mission which he
       made to the south of France." Dominic was finally left in
       charge of the mission. "His peaceful disposition, his spirit
       of prayer, his charity, forbearance, and patient temper formed
       a consoling contrast to the bloody crusade which had recently
       been set on foot against the Albigenses. After spending ten
       years in this toilsome and thankless mission, labouring only
       for love of God and the profit of souls, he set out for Rome,
       in 1215, with his plans fully matured, and submitted to Pope
       Innocent III. the project of giving to the Church a new method
       of defence, in an order which should combine the contemplative
       life of the monk with the active career of a secular priest.
       … Innocent gave his sanction to Dominic's project, provided
       he would manage to bring it under some of the existing Rules.
       Dominic accordingly selected the Rule of St. Augustine,
       introducing a few changes, with a view to greater severity,
       taken from the Rule of the Premonstratensians. That the
       members of the new order might be free to devote themselves
       entirely to their spiritual labours, they were forbidden to
       accept any property requiring their active administration, but
       were permitted to receive the incomes of such as was
       administered by others. Property, therefore, might be held by
       the Order as a body, but not administered by its members. Pope
       Honorius III. confirmed the action of his illustrious
       predecessor, and approved the Order in the following year,
       giving it, from its object, the name of the 'Order of Friars
       Preachers' ('Ordo Prædicatorum, Fratres Prædicatores'). …
       Dominic founded, in the year 1206, an Order of Dominican nuns.
       … The dress of the Dominicans is a white garment and
       scapular, resembling in form that of the Augustinians, with a
       black cloak and a pointed cap. Francis of Assisi, the son of a
       wealthy merchant named Bernardini, was born in the year 1182,
       in Assisi, in Umbria. His baptismal name was John, but from
       his habit of reading the romances of the Troubadours in his
       youth, he gradually acquired the name of Il Francesco, or the
       Little Frenchman. … When about twenty-four years of age, he
       fell dangerously ill, and, while suffering from this attack,
       gave himself up to a train of religious thought which led him
       to consider the emptiness and uselessness of his past life.
       … He … conceived the idea of founding a society whose
       members should go about through the whole world, after the
       manner of the apostles, preaching and exhorting to penance.
       … His zeal gradually excited emulation, and prompted others
       to aspire after the same perfection. His first associates were
       his townsmen, Bernard Quintavalle and Peter Cattano, and
       others soon followed. Their habit consisted of a long brown
       tunic of coarse woolen cloth, surmounted by a hood of the same
       material, and confined about the waist with a hempen cord.
       This simple but ennobling dress was selected because it was
       that of the poor peasants of the surrounding country. … He
       sent his companions, two-and-two, in all directions, saying to
       them in taking leave: 'Go; always travel two-and-two. Pray
       until the third hour; then only may you speak. Let your speech
       be simple and humble.' … With St. Francis, absolute poverty
       was not only a practice, it was the essential principle on
       which he based his Order. Not only were the individual members
       forbidden to have any personal property whatever, but neither
       could they hold any as an Order, and were entirely dependent
       for their support upon alms. … Hence the chief difference
       between mendicant and other monastic orders consists in this,
       that, in the former, begging takes the place of the ordinary
       vow of personal poverty. … In 1223, Pope Honorius III.
       approved the Order of Franciscans (Fratres Minores), to which
       … Innocent III. had given a verbal sanction in 1210."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          section 247 (volume 2).

       "They were" called 'Friars' because, out of humility, their
       founders would not have them called 'Father' and 'Dominus,'
       like the monks, but simply 'Brother' ('Frater,' 'Frère,'
       Friar). … Dominic gave to his order the name of Preaching
       Friars; more commonly they were styled Dominicans, or, from
       the colour of their habits, Black Friars. … The Franciscans
       were styled by their founder 'Fratri Minori'—lesser brothers,
       Friars Minors; they were more usually called Grey Friars, from
       the colour of their habits, or Cordeliers, from the knotted
       cord which formed their characteristic girdle."

          E. L. Cutts,
          Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 5.

    {2153}

       "People talk of 'Monks and Friars' as if these were
       convertible terms. The truth is that the difference between
       the Monks and the Friars was almost one of kind. The Monk was
       supposed never to leave his cloister. The Friar in St.
       Francis' first intention had no cloister to leave."

          A. Jessopp,
          The Coming of the Friars, 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. Oliphant,
          Life of St. Francis of Assisi.

          H. L. Lacordaire,
          Life of St. Dominic.

          R. Pauli,
          Pictures of Old England,
          chapter 2.

          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 3, number 8.

          P. Sabatier,
          Life of St. Francis of Assisi.

    MENENDEZ'S MASSACRE OF FLORIDA HUGUENOTS.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

    MENHIR.

       Meaning literally "long-stone." The name is usually given to
       single, upright stones, sometimes very large, which are found
       in the British islands, France and elsewhere, and which are
       supposed to be the rude sepulchral monuments of some of the
       earlier races, Celtic and pre-Celtic.

          Sir J. Lubbock,
          Prehistoric Times,
          chapter 5.

    MENOMINEES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    MENTANA, Battle of (1867).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

      ----------MENTZ: Start--------

    MENTZ: Origin.

          See MOGONTIACUM.

    MENTZ: A. D. 406.
       Destruction by the Germans.

          See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

    MENTZ: 12th Century.
       Origin of the electorate.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    MENTZ: A. D. 1455-1456.
       Appearance of the first printed book.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

    MENTZ: A. D. 1631.
       Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    MENTZ: A. D. 1792.
       Occupation by the French Revolutionary army.
       Incorporation with the French Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    MENTZ: A. D. 1793.
       Recovery by the Germans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    MENTZ: A. D. 1801-1803.
       Extinction of the electorate.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

      ----------MENTZ: End--------

    MENTZ, Treaty of (1621).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

    MENZEL PAPERS, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and 1756.

    MERCED, The order of La.

       "Jayme [king of Aragon, called El Conquistador], when a
       captive in the hands of Simon de Montfort [see SPAIN: A. D.
       1212-1238], had—mere baby as he was—made a vow that, when he
       should be a man and a king, he would endeavour to do something
       for the redemption of captives. So, before he was a man in
       age, he instituted another religious order of knighthood,
       called La Merced, which added to their other duties that of
       collecting alms and using them for the ransoming of captives
       to the Moors."

          C. M. Yonge,
          The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
          page 184.

    MERCENARIES, Revolt of the.

          See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

    MERCHANT ADVENTURERS.

       "The original Company of the Merchant Adventurers carried on
       trade chiefly with the Netherlands. Their principal mart was
       at first Bruges, whence it was removed to Antwerp early in the
       fifteenth century. In distinction from the staplers, who dealt
       in certain raw materials, the Merchant Adventurers had the
       monopoly of exporting certain manufactured articles,
       especially cloths. Though of national importance, they
       constituted a strictly private company, and not, like the
       staplers, an administrative organ of the British government.
       The former were all subjects of the English crown; the
       staplers were made up of aliens as well as Englishmen. In the
       sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequent dissensions broke
       out between these two bodies regarding the exportation of
       cloth. To carry on foreign trade freely in wool as well as in
       cloth, a merchant had to join both companies. Much obscurity
       hangs over the early history of the Merchant Adventurers. They
       claimed' that John, Duke of Brabant, founded their society in
       1216 or 1248, and that it originally bore the name of the
       Brotherhood of St. Thomas à Becket. But it could scarcely have
       existed in its later form before the reign of Edward III.,
       when the cloth industry began to flourish in England. The
       earliest charter granted to it as an organized association
       dates from the year 1407. Their powers were greatly increased
       by Henry VII. The soul of this society, and perhaps its
       original nucleus, was the Mercers' Company of London. …
       Though the most influential Merchant Adventurers resided in
       London, there were many in other English towns. … The
       contrast between the old Gild Merchant and the Company of
       Merchant Adventurers is striking. The one had to do wholly
       with foreign trade, and its members were forbidden to exercise
       a manual occupation or even to be retail shopkeepers; the
       other consisted mainly of small shopkeepers and artisans. The
       line of demarkation between merchants and manual craftsmen was
       sharply drawn by the second half of the sixteenth century, the
       term 'merchant' having already acquired its modern
       signification as a dealer on an extensive scale. Besides the
       Company of Merchant Adventurers trading to the Low
       Countries—which during the eighteenth century was called the
       Hamburg Company—various new Companies of Merchant Adventurers
       trading to other lands arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth
       centuries, especially during the reigns of Elizabeth and her
       immediate successors. Among them were the Russian or Muscovy
       Company, the Turkey or Levant Company, the Guinea Company, the
       Morocco Company, the Eastland Company, the Spanish Company,
       and the East India Company, the last-mentioned being the most
       powerful of them all."

          C. Gross,
          The Gild Merchant,
          pages 148-156.

    MERCHANT GUILD.

          See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

    MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES—ENGLAND.

    MERCIA, The Kingdom of.

       A kingdom formed at the close of the 6th century by the West
       Angles, on the Welsh border, or March. The people who formed
       it had acquired the name of Men of the March, from which they
       came to be called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia. In the
       next century, under King Penda, its territory and its power
       were greatly extended, at the expense of Northumbria.

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England.

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    {2154}

    MERCY FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CHRISTIAN CAPTIVES, The Order of.

       "For the institution of this godlike order, the Christian
       world was indebted to Pope Innocent III., at the close of the
       12th century. … The exertions of the order were soon crowned
       with success. One third of its revenues was appropriated to
       the objects of its foundation, and thousands groaning in
       slavery were restored to their country. … The order … met
       with so much encouragement that, in the time of Alberic, the
       monk (who wrote about forty years after its institution), the
       number of monastic houses amounted to 600, most of which were
       situated in France, Lombardy and Spain."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 3, section 3, chapter 4 (volume 4).

    MERGENTHEIM, Battle of (1645).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

      ----------MERIDA: Start--------

    MERIDA, Origin of.

          See EMERITA AUGUSTA.

    MERIDA: A. D. 712.
       Siege and capture by the Arab-Moors.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

      ----------MERIDA: End--------

    MERIDIAN, Mississippi,
       Sherman's Raid to.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

    MERMNADÆ, The.
       The third dynasty of the kings of Lydia, beginning
       with Gyges and ending with Crœsus.

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 4, chapter 17 (volume 3).

    MEROË, The Kingdom of.

          See ETHIOPIA.

    MEROM, Battle of.

       The final great victory won by Joshua in the conquest of
       Canaan, over the Canaanite and Amorite kings, under Jabin,
       king of Hazor, who seems to have been a kind of over-king or
       chieftain among them.

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 12 (volume 1).

    MEROVINGIANS, The.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 448-456; and 511-752.

    MERRIMAC AND MONITOR, Battle of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

    MERRYMOUNT.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

    MERTÆ, The.

          See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

    MERTON, Statutes of.

       A body of laws enacted at a Great Council held at Merton, in
       England, under Henry III., A. D. 1236, which marks an
       important advance made in the development of constitutional
       legislation.

          G. W. Prothero,
          Simon de Montfort.

    MERU.

          See MERV.

      ----------MERV: Start--------

    MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1221.
       Destruction by Jingis Khan.

       In the merciless march through Central Asia of the awful
       Mongol horde set in motion by Jingis Khan, the great city of
       Meru (modern Merv) was reached in the autumn of A. D. 1220.
       This was "Meru Shahjan, i. e., Meru the king of the world, one
       of the four chief cities of Khorassan, and one of the oldest
       cities of the world. It had been the capital of the great
       Seljuk Sultans Melikshah and Sanjar, and was very rich and
       populous. It was situated on the banks of the Meri el rond,
       also called the Murjab. … The siege commenced on the 25th of
       February, 1221. The governor of the town … sent a venerable
       imam as an envoy to the Mongol camp. He returned with such
       fair promises that the governor himself repaired to the camp,
       and was loaded with presents; he was asked to send for his
       chief relations and friends; when these were fairly in his
       power, Tulni [one of the sons of Jingis Khan] ordered them
       all, including the governor, to be killed. The Mongols then
       entered the town, the inhabitants were ordered to evacuate it
       with their treasures; the mournful procession, we are told,
       took four days to defile out. … A general and frightful
       massacre ensued; only 400 artisans and a certain number of
       young people were reserved as slaves. The author of the
       'Jhankushai' says that the Seyid Yzz-ud-din, a man renowned
       for his virtues and piety, assisted by many people, were
       thirteen days in counting the corpses, which numbered
       1,300,000. Ibn al Ethir says that 700,000 corpses were
       counted. The town was sacked, the mausolemn of the Sultan
       Sanjar was rifled and then burnt, and the walls and citadel of
       Meru levelled with the ground."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          volume 1, page 87.

          See, also, KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

    MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1884.
       Russian occupation.

          See RUSSIA. A. D. 1869-1881.

      ----------MERV: End--------

    MERWAN I., Caliph, A. D. 683-684.

       Merwan II., Caliph, 744-750.

    MERWING.

       One of the forms given to the name of the royal family of the
       Franks, established in power by Clovis, and more commonly
       known as the Merovingian Family.

    MÉRY, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    MESCHIANZA,
    MISCHIANZA, The.

          See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

    MESOPOTAMIA.

       "Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the
       foot of the great mountain-range of Kurdistan and Luristan
       intervenes a territory long famous in the world's history, and
       the chief site of three out of the five empires of whose
       history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in
       the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or
       'Syria of the two rivers'; to the Greeks and Romans as
       Mesopotamia, or 'the between-river country'; to the Arabs as
       Al-Jezireh, or, 'the island,' this district has always taken
       its name from the streams [the Tigris and Euphrates] which
       constitute its most striking feature."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Chaldœa,
          chapter 1.

    MESSALINA, The infamies of.

          See ROME: A. D. 47-54.

    MESSANA.

          See MESSENE.

    MESSAPIANS, The.

          See ŒNOTRIANS.

      ----------MESSENE: Start--------

    MESSENE, in Peloponnesus: B. C. 369.
       The founding of the city.
       Restoration of the enslaved Messenians.

          See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;
          also, GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

    MESSENE: B. C. 338.
       Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

          See GREECE; B. C. 357-336.

    MESSENE: B. C. 184.
       Revolt from the Achæan League.

       A faction in Messene which was hostile to the Achæan League
       having gained the ascendancy, B. C. 184, declared its
       secession from the League. Philopœmen, the chief of the
       League, proceeded at once with a small force to reduce the
       Messenians to obedience, but was taken prisoner and was foully
       executed by his enemies. Bishop Thirlwall pronounced him "the
       last great man whom Greece produced." The death of Philopœmen
       was speedily avenged on those who caused it and Messene was
       recovered to the League.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 65.

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Philopœmen.

    {2155}

    MESSENE (MODERN MESSINA), in Sicily.
       The founding of the city.

       "Zancle was originally colonised by pirates who came from Cyme
       the Chalcidian city in Opicia. … Zancle was the original
       name of the place, a name given by the Sicels because the site
       was in shape like a sickle, for which the Sicel word is
       Zanclon. These earlier settlers were afterwards driven out by
       the Samians and other Ionians, who when they fled from the
       Persians found their way to Sicily. Not long afterwards
       Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegium, drove out these Samians. He
       then repeopled their city with a mixed multitude, and called
       the place Messene, after his native country."

          Thucydides,
          History,
          translated by Jowett,
          book 6, section 4.

    MESSENE: B. C. 396.
       Destruction by the Carthaginians.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

    MESSENE: B. C. 264.
       The Mamertines.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    MESSINA: A. D. 1849.
       Bombardment and capture by King Ferdinand.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

      ----------MESSENIAN WARS: Start--------

    MESSENIAN WARS, The First and Second.

       The Spartans were engaged in two successive wars with their
       neighbors of Messenia, whose territory, adjoining their own in
       the southwestern extremity of Peloponnesus, was rich,
       prosperous and covetable. "It was unavoidable that the
       Spartans should look down with envy from their bare rocky
       ridges into the prosperous land of their neighbours and the
       terraces close by, descending to the river, with their
       well-cultivated plantations of oil and wine. Besides, the
       Dorians who had immigrated into Messenia had, under the
       influence of the native population and of a life of
       comfortable ease, lost their primitive character. Messenia
       seemed like a piece of Arcadia, with which it was most
       intimately connected. … Hence this was no war of Dorians
       against Dorians; it rather seemed to be Sparta's mission to
       make good the failure of the Dorization of Messenia which had
       sunk back into Pelasgic conditions of life, and to unite with
       herself the remains of the Dorian people still surviving
       there. In short, a variety of motives contributed to provoke a
       forcible extension of Spartan military power on this
       particular side."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       The First Messenian War was commenced B. C. 745 and lasted
       twenty years, ending in the complete subjugation of the
       Messenians, who were reduced to a state of servitude like that
       of the Helots of Sparta. After enduring the oppression for
       thirty-nine years, the Messenians rose in revolt against their
       Spartan masters, B. C. 685. The leader and great hero of this
       Second Messenian War was Aristomenes, whose renown became so
       great in the despairing struggle that the latter was called
       among the ancients the Aristomnean War. But all the valor and
       self-sacrifice of the unhappy Messenians availed nothing. They
       gave up the contest, B. C. 668; large numbers of them escaped
       to other lands and those who remained were reduced to a more
       wretched condition than before.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 9.

          See, also, SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.

    MESSENIAN WARS: The Third.

       "The whole of Laconia [E. C. 464] was shaken by an earthquake,
       which opened great chasms in the ground, and rolled down huge
       masses from the highest peaks of Taygetus: Sparta itself
       became a heap of ruins, in which not more than five houses are
       said to have been left standing. More than 20,000 persons were
       believed to have been destroyed by the shock, and the flower
       of the Spartan youth was overwhelmed by the fall of the
       buildings in which they were exercising themselves at the
       time."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 17.

       The Helots of Sparta, especially those who were descended from
       the enslaved Messenians, took advantage of the confusion
       produced by the earthquake, to rise in revolt. Having secured
       possession of Ithome, they fortified themselves in the town
       and withstood there a siege of ten years,—sometimes called
       the Third Messenian War. The Spartans invited the Athenians to
       aid them in the siege, but soon grew jealous of their allies
       and dismissed them with some rudeness. This was one of the
       prime causes of the animosity between Athens and Sparta which
       afterward flamed out in the Peloponnesian War. In the end, the
       Messenians at Ithome capitulated and were allowed to quit the
       country; whereupon the Athenians settled them at Naupactus, on
       the Corinthian gulf, and so gained an ardent ally, in an
       important situation.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 1, sections 101-103.

       Nearly one hundred years later (B. C. 369) when Thebes, under
       Epaminondas, rose to power in Greece and Sparta was
       humiliated, it was one of the measures of the Theban statesman
       to found at Ithome an important city which he named Messene,
       into which the long oppressed Messenians were gathered, from
       slavery and from exile, and were organized in a state once
       more, free and independent.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 39.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 78.

       ----------MESSENIAN WARS: End----------

    MESSIDOR, The month,

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

    MESTIZO.
    MULATTO.

       A half-breed person in Peru, born of a white father and an
       Indian mother, is called a Mestizo. One born of a white father
       and a negro mother is called a mulatto.

          J. J. Von Tschudi,
          Travels in Peru,
          chapter 5.

    METAPONTIUM.

          See SIRIS.

    METAURUS, Battle of the.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    METAURUS, Defeat of the Alemanni.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

    MÉTAYERS.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789.

    METEMNEH, Battle of(1885).

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

    METHODISTS:
       Origin of the Religious Denomination.

       "The term Methodist was a college nickname bestowed upon a
       small society of students at Oxford who met together between
       1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement. They were
       accustomed to communicate every week, to fast regularly on
       Wednesdays and Fridays, and on most days during Lent; to read
       and discuss the Bible in common, to abstain from most forms of
       amusement and luxury, and to visit sick persons and prisoners
       in the gaol. John Wesley, the master-spirit of this society,
       and the future leader of the religious revival of the
       eighteenth century, was born in 1703, and was the second
       surviving son of Samuel Wesley, the Rector of Epworth, in
       Lincolnshire. … The society hardly numbered more than
       fifteen members, and was the object of much ridicule at the
       university; but it included some men who afterwards played
       considerable parts in the world.
    {2156}
       Among them was Charles, the younger brother of John Wesley,
       whose hymns became the favourite poetry of the sect, and whose
       gentler, more submissive, and more amiable character, though
       less fitted than that of his brother for the great conflicts
       of public life, was very useful in moderating the movement,
       and in drawing converts to it by personal influence. Charles
       Wesley appears to have been the first to originate the society
       at Oxford; he brought Whitefield into its pale, and besides
       being the most popular poet he was one of the most persuasive
       preachers of the movement. There, too, was James Hervey, who
       became one of the earliest links connecting Methodism with
       general literature."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

    METHUEN, Rout of.

       The first Scotch army assembled by Robert Bruce after he had
       been crowned king of Scotland, was surprised and routed by
       Aymer de Valence, June 26, 1306.

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2, chapter 14.

    METHUEN TREATY, The.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
          and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

    METÖACS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    METŒCI.

       "Resident aliens, or Metœci, are non-citizens possessed of
       personal freedom, and settled in Attica. Their number, in the
       flourishing periods of the State, might amount to 45,000, and
       therefore was about half that of the citizens."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3, section 2.

    METON, The year of.

       "Hitherto [before the age of Pericles] the Athenians had only
       had the Octaëteris, i. e., the period of eight years, of which
       three were composed of thirteen months, in order thus to make
       the lunar years correspond to the solar. But as eight such
       solar years still amount to something short of 99 lunar
       months, this cycle was insufficient for its purpose. … Meton
       and his associates calculated that a more correct adjustment
       might be obtained within a cycle of 6,940 days. These made up
       235 months, which formed a cycle of 19 years; and this was the
       so-called 'Great Year,' or 'Year of Meton.'"

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

    METRETES, The.

          See EPHAH.

    METROPOLITANS.

          See PRIMATES.

    METROPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

    METTERNICH, The governing system of.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

       ----------METZ: Start--------

    METZ: Original names.

       The Gallic town of Divodurum acquired later the name of
       Mediomatrici, which modern tongues have changed to Metz.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 34, foot-note.

    METZ: A. D. 451.
       Destruction by the Huns.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    METZ: A. D. 511-752.
       The Austrasian capital.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    METZ: A. D. 1552-1559.
       Treacherous occupation by the French.
       Siege by Charles V.
       Cession to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    METZ: A. D. 1648.
       Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    METZ: A. D. 1679-1680.
       The Chamber of Reannexation.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

    METZ: A. D. 1870.
       The French army of Bazaine enclosed and besieged.
       The surrender.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    METZ: A. D. 1871.
       Cession to Germany.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

       ----------METZ: End--------

    MEXICAN PICTURE-WRITING.

          See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

       ----------MEXICO: Start--------

    MEXICO.
       Ancient: The Maya and Nahua peoples and their civilization.

       "Notwithstanding evident marks of similarity in nearly all the
       manifestations of the progressional spirit in aboriginal
       America, in art, thought, and religion, there is much reason
       for and convenience in referring all the native civilization
       to two branches, the Maya and the Nahua, the former the more
       ancient, the latter the more recent and wide-spread. … It is
       only, however, in a very general sense that this
       classification can be accepted, and then only for practical
       convenience in elucidating the subject; since there are
       several nations that must be ranked among our civilized
       peoples, which, particularly in the matter of language, show
       no Maya nor Nahua affinities. Nor is too much importance to be
       attached to the names Maya and Nahua, by which I designate
       these parallel civilizations. The former is adopted for the
       reason that the Maya people and tongue are commonly regarded
       as among the most ancient in all the Central American region,
       a region where formerly flourished the civilization that left
       such wonderful remains at Palenque, Uxmal, and Copan; the
       latter as being an older designation than either Aztec or
       Toltec, both of which stocks the race Nahua includes. The
       civilization of what is now the Mexican Republic, north of
       Tehuantepec, belonged to the Nahua branch, both at the time of
       the conquest and throughout the historic period preceding.
       Very few traces of the Maya element occur north of Chiapas,
       and these are chiefly linguistic, appearing in two or three
       nations dwelling along the shores of the Mexican gulf. In
       published works upon the subject the Aztecs are the
       representatives of the Nahua element; indeed, what is known of
       the Aztecs has furnished material for nine tenths of all that
       has been written on the American civilized nations in general.
       The truth of the matter is that the Aztecs were only the most
       powerful of a league or confederation of three nations, which
       in the 16th century, from their capitals in the valley, ruled
       central Mexico."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          Native Races of the Pacific States,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

       "The evidence … has pointed—with varying force, but with
       great uniformity of direction—towards the Central or
       Usumacinta region [Central America], not necessarily as the
       original cradle of American civilization, but as the most
       ancient home to which it can be traced by traditional,
       monumental, and linguistic records. …
    {2157}
       Throughout several centuries preceding the Christian era, and
       perhaps one or two centuries following, there flourished in
       Central America the great Maya empire of the Chanes, Culhuas,
       or Serpents, known to its foes as Xibalba, with its centre in
       Chiapas at or near Palenque, and with several allied capitals
       in the surrounding region. Its first establishment at a remote
       period was attributed by the people to a being called Votan,
       who was afterwards worshipped as a god. … From its centre in
       the Usumacinta region the Votanic power was gradually extended
       north-westward towards Anáhuac, where its subjects vaguely
       appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants. It also penetrated
       northeastward into Yucatan, where Zamná was its reputed
       founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas probably its subjects. …
       The Maya empire seems to have been in the height of its
       prosperity when the rival Nahua power came into prominence,
       perhaps two or three centuries before Christ. The origin of
       the new people and of the new institutions is as deeply
       shrouded in mystery as is that of their predecessors. … The
       Plumed Serpent, known in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl,
       Gucumatz, and Cukulcan, was the being who traditionally
       founded the new order of things. The Nahua power grew up side
       by side with its Xibalban predecessor, having its capital
       Tulan apparently in Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was not
       confined to its original home, but was borne … towards
       Anáhuac. … The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems
       to have been that of an old effete monarchy against a young
       and progressive people. Whatever its cause, the result of the
       conquest was the overthrow of the Votanic monarchs at a date
       which may be approximately fixed within a century before or
       after the beginning of our era. From that time the ancient
       empire disappears from traditional history. … Respecting the
       ensuing period of Nahua greatness in Central America nothing
       is recorded save that it ended in revolt, disaster, and a
       general scattering of the tribes at some period probably
       preceding the 5th century. The national names that appear in
       connection with the closing struggles are the Toltecs,
       Chichimecs, Quichés, Nonohualcas, and Tutul Xius, none of them
       apparently identical with the Xibalbans. … Of the tribes
       that were successively defeated and forced to seek new homes,
       those that spoke the Maya dialects, although considering
       themselves Nahuas, seem to have settled chiefly in the south
       and east. Some of them afterwards rose to great prominence in
       Guatemala and Yucatan. … The Nahua-speaking tribes as a rule
       established themselves in Anáhuac and in the western and
       north-western parts of Mexico. … The valley of Mexico and
       the country immediately adjoining soon became the centre of
       the Nahuas in Mexico."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          Native Races of the Pacific States,
          volume 5, chapter 3.

          See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;
          and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

    MEXICO: Ancient:
       The Toltec empire and civilization.
       Are they mythical?

       "The old-time story, how the Toltecs in the 6th century
       appeared on the Mexican table-land, how they were driven out
       and scattered in the 11th century, how after a brief interval
       the Chichimecs followed their footsteps, and how these last
       were succeeded by the Aztecs who were found in
       possession,—the last two, and probably the first, migrating
       in immense hordes from the far north-west,—all this is
       sufficiently familiar to readers of Mexican history, and is
       furthermore fully set forth in the 5th volume of this work. It
       is probable, however, that this account, accurate to a certain
       degree, has been by many writers too literally construed;
       since the once popular theory of wholesale national migrations
       of American peoples within historic times, and particularly of
       such migrations from the northwest, may now be regarded as
       practically unfounded. The 6th century is the most remote
       period to which we are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by
       traditions sufficiently definite to be considered in any
       proper sense as historic records. … At the opening … of
       the historic times, we find the Toltecs in possession of
       Anáhuac and the surrounding country. Though the civilization
       was old, the name was new, derived probably, although not so
       regarded by all, from Tollan, a capital city of the empire,
       but afterward becoming synonymous with all that is excellent
       in art and high culture. Tradition imputes to the Toltecs a
       higher civilization than that found among the Aztecs, who had
       degenerated with the growth of the warlike spirit, and
       especially by the introduction of more cruel and sanguinary
       religious rites. But this superiority, in some respects not
       improbable, rests on no very strong evidence, since this
       people left no relics of that artistic skill which gave them
       so great traditional fame; there is, however, much reason to
       ascribe the construction of the pyramids at Teotihuacan and
       Cholula to the Toltec or a still earlier period. Among the
       civilized peoples of the 16th century, however, and among
       their descendants down to the present day, nearly every
       ancient relic of architecture or sculpture is accredited to
       the Toltecs, from whom all claim descent. … So confusing has
       been the effect of this universal reference of all traditional
       events to a Toltec source, that, while we can not doubt the
       actual existence of this great empire, the details of its
       history, into which the supernatural so largely enters, must
       be regarded as to a great extent mythical. There are no data
       for fixing accurately the bounds of the Toltec domain,
       particularly in the south. There is very little, however, to
       indicate that it was more extensive in this direction than
       that of the Aztecs in later times, although it seems to have
       extended somewhat farther northward. On the west there is some
       evidence that it included the territory of Michoacan, never
       subdued by the Aztecs; and it probably stretched eastward to
       the Atlantic. … During the most flourishing period of its
       traditional five centuries of duration, the Toltec empire was
       ruled by a confederacy, similar in some respects to the
       alliance of later date between Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan.
       The capitals were Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan, the two
       former corresponding somewhat in territory with Mexico and
       Tezcuco, while the latter was just beyond the limits of the
       valley toward the north-west. Each of these capital cities
       became in turn the leading power in the confederacy. Tollan
       reached the highest eminence in culture, splendor, and fame,
       and Culhuacan was the only one of the three to survive by name
       the bloody convulsions by which the empire was at last
       overthrown, and retain anything of her former greatness.
       Long-continued civil wars, arising chiefly from dissensions
       between rival religious factions, … gradually undermine the
       imperial thrones. … So the kings of Tollan, Culhuacan, and
       Otompan, lose, year by year, their prestige, and finally, in
       the middle of the 11th century, are completely overthrown,
       leaving the Mexican tableland to be ruled by new combinations
       of rising powers."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          Native Races of the Pacific States,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

    {2158}

       "Long before the Aztecs, a Toltec tribe called the Acolhuas,
       or Culhuas, had settled in the valley of Mexico. The name is
       more ancient than that of Toltec, and the Mexican civilization
       might perhaps as appropriately be called Culhua as Nahua. The
       name is interpreted 'crooked' from coloa, bend; also
       'grandfather' from colli. Colhuacan might therefore signify
       Land of Our Ancestors."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 4, page 23, foot-note.

       "The most venerable traditions of the Maya race claimed for
       them a migration from 'Tollan in Zuyva.' … This Tollan is
       certainly none other than the abode of Quetzalcoatl. … The
       cities which selected him as their tutelary deity were named
       for that which he was supposed to have ruled over. Thus we
       have Tollan and Tollantzinco ('behind Tollan') in the Valley
       of Mexico, and the pyramid Cholula was called
       'Tollan-Cholollan,' as well as many other Tollans and Tulas
       among the Nahuatl colonies. The natives of the city of Tula
       were called, from its name, Tolteca, which simply means 'those
       who dwell in Tollan.' And who, let us ask, were these Toltecs?
       They have hovered about the dawn of American history long
       enough. To them have been attributed not only the primitive
       culture of Central America and Mexico, but of lands far to the
       north, and even the earthworks of the Ohio Valley. It is time
       they were assigned their proper place, and that is among the
       purely fabulous creations of the imagination, among the giants
       and fairies, the gnomes and sylphs, and other such fancied
       beings which in all ages and nations the popular mind has
       loved to create. Toltec, Toltecatl, which in later days came
       to mean a skilled craftsman or artificer, signifies, as I have
       said, an inhabitant of Tollan—of the City of the Sun—in
       other words, a Child of Light. … In some, and these I
       consider the original versions of the myth, they do not
       constitute a nation at all, but are merely the disciples or
       servants of Quetzalcoatl. They have all the traits of beings
       of supernatural powers."

          D. G. Brinton,
          American Hero-Myths,
          chapter 3, section 3.

          ALSO IN:
          D. G. Brinton,
          Essays of an Americanist,
          pages 83-100.

       A recent totally contrary view, in which the Toltecs are fully
       accepted and modernized, is presented by M. Charnay.

          D. Charnay,
          Ancient Cities of the New World.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
       The Aztec period.
       The so called empire of Montezuma.

       "The new era succeeding the Toltec rule is that of the
       Chichimec empire, which endured with some variations down to
       the coming of Cortes. The ordinary version of the early annals
       has it, that the Chichimecs, a wild tribe living far in the
       north-west, learning that the fertile regions of Central
       Mexico had been abandoned by the Toltecs, came down in immense
       hordes to occupy the land. … The name Chichimec at the time
       of the Spanish conquest, and subsequently, was used with two
       significations, first, as applied to the line of kings that
       reigned at Tezcuco, and second, to all the wild hunting
       tribes, particularly in the broad and little-known regions of
       the north. Traditionally or historically, the name has been
       applied to nearly every people mentioned in the ancient
       history of America. This has caused the greatest confusion
       among writers on the subject, a confusion which I believe can
       only be cleared up by the supposition that the name Chichimec,
       like that of Toltec, never was applied as a tribal or national
       designation proper to any people, while such people were
       living. It seems probable that among the Nahua peoples that
       occupied the country from the 6th to the 11th centuries, a few
       of the leading powers appropriated to themselves the title
       Toltecs, which had been at first employed by the inhabitants
       of Tollan, whose artistic excellence soon rendered it a
       designation of honor. To the other Nahua peoples, by whom
       these leading powers were surrounded, whose institutions were
       identical, but whose polish and elegance of manner were deemed
       by these self-constituted aristocrats somewhat inferior, the
       term Chichimecs, barbarians, etymologically 'dogs,' was
       applied. After the convulsions that overthrew Tollan, and
       reversed the condition of the Nahua nations, the 'dogs' in
       their turn assumed an air of superiority and retained their
       designation, Chichimecs, as a title of honor and nobility."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          Native Races of the Pacific States,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

       "We may suppose the 'Toltec period' in Mexican tradition to
       have been simply the period when the pueblo-town of Tollan was
       flourishing, and domineered most likely over neighbouring
       pueblos. One might thus speak it as one would speak of the
       'Theban period' in Greek history. After the 'Toltec period,'
       with perhaps an intervening 'Chichimec period' of confusion,
       came the 'Aztec period;' or, in other words, some time after
       Tollan lost its importance, the city of Mexico came to the
       front. Such, I suspect, is the slender historical residuum
       underlying the legend of a 'Toltec empire.' The Codex Ramirez
       assigns the year 1168 as the date of the abandonment of the
       Serpent Hill by the people of Tollan. We begin to leave this
       twilight of legend when we meet the Aztecs already encamped in
       the Valley of Mexico. Finding the most obviously eligible
       sites preoccupied, they were sagacious enough to detect the
       advantages of a certain marshy spot through which the outlets
       of lakes Chalco and Xochimilco, besides sundry rivulets,
       flowed northward and eastward into Lake Tezcuco. Here in the
       year 1325 they began to build their pueblo, which they called
       Tenochtitlan,—a name whereby hangs a tale. When the Aztecs,
       hard pressed by foes, took refuge among these marshes, they
       came upon a sacrificial stone which they recognized as one
       upon which some years before one of their priests had
       immolated a captive chief. From a crevice in this stone, where
       a little earth was imbedded, there grew a cactus, upon which
       sat an eagle holding in its beak a serpent. A priest
       ingeniously interpreted this symbolism as a prophecy of signal
       and long-continued victory, and forthwith diving into the lake
       he had an interview with Tlaloc, the god of waters, who told
       him that upon that very spot the people were to build their
       town. The place was therefore called Tenochtitlan, or 'place
       of the cactus-rock,' but the name under which it afterward came
       to be best known was taken from Mexitl, one of the names of
       the war-god Huitzilopochtli. The device of the rock and
       cactus, with the eagle and serpent, formed a tribal totem for
       the Aztecs, and has been adopted as the coat-of-arms of the
       present Republic of Mexico.

    {2159}

       The pueblo of Tenochtitlan was surrounded by salt marshes;
       which by dint of dikes and causeways the Aztecs gradually
       converted into a large artificial lake, and thus made their
       pueblo by far the most defensible stronghold in Anahuac,—
       impregnable, indeed, so far as Indian modes of attack were
       concerned. The advantages of this commanding position were
       slowly but surely realized. A dangerous neighbour upon the
       western shore of the lake was the tribe of Tecpanecas, whose
       principal pueblo was Azcaputzalco. The Aztecs succeeded in
       making an alliance with these Tecpanecas, but it was upon
       unfavourable terms and involved the payment of tribute to
       Azcaputzalco. It gave the Aztecs, however, some time to
       develop their strength. Their military organization was
       gradually perfected, and in 1375 they elected their first
       tlacatecuhtli, or 'chief-of-men,' whom European writers, in
       the loose phraseology formerly current, called 'founder of the
       Mexican empire.' The name of this official was Acamapichtli,
       or 'Handful-of-Reeds.' During the eight-and-twenty years of
       his chieftancy the pueblo houses in Tenochtitlan began to be
       built very solidly of stone, and the irregular water-courses
       flowing between them were improved into canals. Some months
       after his death in 1403 his son Huitzilihuitl, or
       'Humming-bird,' was chosen to succeed him. This Huitzilihuitl
       was succeeded in 1414 by his brother Chimalpopoca, or 'Smoking
       Shield,' under whom temporary calamity visited the Aztec town.
       The alliance with Azcaputzalco was broken, and that pueblo
       joined its forces to those of Tezcuco on the eastern shore of
       the lake. United they attacked the Aztecs, defeated them, and
       captured their chief-of-men, who died a prisoner in 1427. He
       was succeeded by Izcoatzin, or 'Obsidian Snake,' an aged
       chieftain who died in 1436. During these nine years a complete
       change came over the scene. Quarrels arose between
       Azcaputzalco and Tezcuco; the latter pueblo entered into
       alliance with Tenochtitlan, and together they overwhelmed and
       destroyed Azcaputzalco, and butchered most of its people. What
       was left of the conquered pueblo was made a slave mart for the
       Aztecs, and the remnant of the people were removed to the
       neighbouring pueblo of Tlacopan, which was made tributary to
       Mexico. By this great victory the Aztecs also acquired secure
       control of the springs upon Chepultepec, or 'Grasshopper
       Hill,' which furnished a steady supply of fresh water to their
       island pueblo. The next step was the formation of a
       partnership between the three pueblo towns, Tenochtitlan,
       Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, for the organized and systematic
       plunder of other pueblos. All the tribute or spoils extorted
       was to be divided into five parts, of which two parts each
       were for Tezcuco and Tenochtitlan, and one part for Tlacopan.
       The Aztec chief-of-men became military commander of the
       confederacy, which now' began to extend operations to a
       distance. The next four chiefs-of-men were Montezuma, or
       'Angry Chief,' the First, from 1436 to 1464; Axayacatl, or
       'Face-in-the-Water,' from 1464 to 1477; Tizoc, or 'Wounded
       Leg,' from 1477 to 1486; and Ahuizotl, or 'Water-Rat,' from
       1486 to 1502. Under these chiefs the great temple of Mexico
       was completed, and the aqueduct from Chepultepec was increased
       in capacity until it not only supplied water for ordinary
       uses, but could also be made to maintain the level of the
       canals and the lake. In the driest seasons, therefore,
       Tenochtitlan remained safe from attack. Forth from this
       well-protected lair the Aztec warriors went on their errands
       of blood. Thirty or more pueblo towns, mostly between
       Tenochtitlan and the Gulf coast, scattered over an area about
       the size of Massachusetts, were made tributary to the
       Confederacy; and as all these communities spoke the Nahua
       language, this process of conquest, if it had not been cut
       short by the Spaniards, might in course of time have ended in
       the formation of a primitive kind of state. This tributary
       area formed but a very small portion of the country which we
       call Mexico. If the reader will just look at a map of the
       Republic of Mexico in a modern atlas, and observe that the
       states of Queretaro, Guanaxuato, Michoacan, Guerrero, and a
       good part of La Puebla, lie outside the region sometimes
       absurdly styled 'Montezuma's Empire,' and surround three sides
       of it, he will begin to put himself into the proper state of
       mind for appreciating the history of Cortes and his
       companions. Into the outlying region just mentioned, occupied
       by tribes for the most part akin to the Nahuas in blood and
       speech, the warriors of the Confederacy sometimes ventured,
       with varying fortunes. They levied occasional tribute among
       the pueblos in these regions, but hardly made any of them
       regularly tributary. The longest range of their arms seems to
       have been to the eastward, where they sent their tax-gatherers
       along the coast into the isthmus of Tehuantepec, and came into
       conflict with the warlike Mayas and Quiches. … Such was, in
       general outline, what we may call the political situation in
       the time of the son of Axayacatl, the second Montezuma, who
       was elected chief-of-men in 1502, being then thirty-four years
       of age."

          J. Fiske,
          The Discovery of America,
          chapter 8 (volume 2).

    MEXICO: A. D. 1517-1518.
       First found by the Spaniards.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (February-April).
       The coming of Cortes and the Spaniards.

       Some time in the latter part of the year 1517, the Spaniards
       in Cuba had acquired definite knowledge of a much civilized
       people who inhabited "terra firma" to the west of them, by the
       return of Hernandez de Cordova from his involuntary voyage to
       Yucatan (see AMERICA: A. D. 1157-1518). In the spring of 1518
       the Cuban governor, Velasquez, had enlarged that knowledge by
       sending an expedition under Grijalva to the Mexican coast,
       and, even before Grijalva returned, he had begun preparations
       for a more serious undertaking of conquest and occupation in
       the rich country newly found. For the command of this second
       armament he selected Hernando Cortes, one of the boldest and
       most ambitious of the adventurers who had helped to subdue and
       settle the island of Cuba. Before the fleet sailed, however, a
       jealous distrust of his lieutenant had become excited by some
       cause in the governor's mind, and he attempted to supersede
       him in the command, Cortes slipped out of port, half prepared
       as he was for the voyage, defied the orders of his superior,
       and made his way (February, 1519) to the scene of his future
       conquests, actually as a rebel against the authority which
       commissioned him. "The squadron of Cortés was composed of
       eleven small vessels.
    {2160}
       There were 110 sailors, 553 soldiers, of which 13 were armed
       with muskets, and 32 with arquebuses, the others with swords
       and pikes only. There were 10 little field-pieces, and 16
       horses. Such were the forces with which the bold adventurer
       set forth to conquer a vast empire, defended by large armies,
       not without courage, according to the report of Grijalva. But
       the companions of Cortes were unfamiliar with fear. Cortés
       followed the same route as Grijalva. … At the Tabasco River,
       which the Spanish called Rio de Grijalva, because that
       explorer had discovered it, they had a fight with some natives
       who resisted their approach. These natives fought bravely, but
       the fire-arms, and above all the horses, which they conceived
       to be of one piece with their riders, caused them extreme
       terror, and the rout was complete. … The native prince,
       overcome, sent gifts to the conqueror, and, without much
       knowing the extent of his agreement, acknowledged himself as
       vassal of the king of Spain, the most powerful monarch of the
       world." Meantime, tidings of a fresh appearance of the same
       strange race which had briefly visited the shores of the
       empire the year before were conveyed to Montezuma, and the
       king, who had sent envoys to the strangers before, but not
       quickly enough to find them, resolved to do so again. "The
       presents prepared for Grijalva, which had reached the shore
       too late, were, alas! all ready. To these were now added the
       ornaments used in the decoration of the image of Quetzalcoatl,
       on days of solemnity, regarded as the most sacred among all
       the possessions of the royal house of Mexico. Cortés accepted
       the rôle of Quetzalcoatl and allowed himself to be decorated
       with the ornaments belonging to that god without hesitation.
       The populace were convinced that it was their deity really
       returned to them. A feast was served to the envoys, with the
       accompaniment of some European wine which they found
       delicious. … During the feast native painters were busy
       depicting every thing they saw to be shown to their royal
       master. … Cortes sent to Montezuma a gilt helmet with the
       message that he hoped to see it back again filled with gold.
       … The bearer of this gift and communication, returning
       swiftly to the court, reported to the monarch that the
       intention of the stranger was to come at once to the capital
       of the empire. Montezuma at once assembled a new council of
       all his great vassals, some of whom urged the reception of
       Cortés, others his immediate dismissal. The latter view
       prevailed, and the monarch sent, with more presents to the
       unknown invader, benevolent but peremptory commands that he
       should go away immediately. … Meanwhile the Spanish camp was
       feasting and reposing in huts of cane, with fresh provisions,
       in great joy after the weariness of their voyage. They
       accepted with enthusiasm the presents of the emperor, but the
       treasures which were sent had an entirely different effect
       from that hoped for by Montezuma; they only inflamed the
       desire of the Spaniard to have all within his grasp, of which
       this was but a specimen. It was now that the great mistake in
       policy was apparent, by which the Aztec chieftain had for
       years been making enemies all over the country, invading
       surrounding states, and carrying off prisoners for a horrible
       death by sacrifice. These welcomed the strangers and
       encouraged their presence."

          S. Hale,
          The Story of Mexico,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 2-39 (volume 1).

          J. Fiske,
          The Discovery of America,
          chapter 8 (volume 2).

    MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (June-October).
       The advance of Cortés to Tlascala.

       "Meanwhile Cortés, by his craft, quieted a rising faction of
       the party of Velasquez which demanded to be led back to Cuba.
       He did this by seeming to acquiesce in the demand of his
       followers in laying the foundations of a town and constituting
       its people a municipality competent to choose a representative
       of the royal authority. This done, Cortés resigned his
       commission from Velasquez, and was at once invested with
       supreme power by the new municipality. The scheme which
       Velasquez had suspected was thus brought to fruition. Whoever
       resisted the new captain was conquered by force, persuasion,
       tact, or magnetism; and Cortés became as popular as he was
       irresistible. At this point messengers presented themselves
       from tribes not far off who were unwilling subjects of the
       Aztec power. The presence of possible allies was a propitious
       circumstance, and Cortés proceeded to cultivate the friendship
       of these tribes. He moved his camp day by day along the shore,
       inuring his men to marches, while the fleet sailed in company.
       They reached a large city [Cempoalla, or Zempoalla, the site
       of which has not been determined], and were regaled. Each
       chief told of the tyranny of Montezuma, and the eyes of Cortés
       glistened. The Spaniards went on to another town, slaves being
       provided to bear their burdens. Here they found tax-gatherers
       of Montezuma collecting tribute. Emboldened by Cortés' glance,
       his hosts seized the Aztec emissaries and delivered them to
       the Spaniards. Cortés now played a double game. He propitiated
       the servants of Montezuma by secretly releasing them, and
       added to his allies by enjoining every tribe he could reach to
       resist the Aztec collectors of tribute. The wandering
       municipality, as represented in this piratical army, at last
       stopped at a harbor where a town (La Villa Rica de Vera Cruz)
       sprang up, and became the base of future operations." At this
       point in his movements the adventurer despatched a vessel to
       Spain, with letters to the king, and with dazzling gifts of
       gold and Aztec fabrics. "Now came the famous resolve of
       Cortés. He would band his heterogeneous folk together—
       adherents of Cortés and of Velasquez—in one common cause and
       danger. So he adroitly led them to be partners in the deed
       which he stealthily planned. Hulk after hulk of the apparently
       worm-eaten vessels of the fleet sank in the harbor, until
       there was no flotilla left upon which any could desert him.
       The march to Mexico was now assured. The force with which to
       accomplish this consisted of about 450 Spaniards, six or seven
       light guns, fifteen horses, and a swarm of Indian slaves and
       attendants. A body of the Totonacs accompanied them. Two or
       three days brought them into the higher plain and its
       enlivening vegetation. When they reached the dependencies of
       Montezuma, they found orders had been given to extend to them
       every courtesy. They soon reached the Anahuac plateau, which
       reminded them not a little of Spain itself. They passed from
       cacique to cacique, some of whom groaned under the yoke of the
       Aztec; but not one dared do more than orders from Montezuma
       dictated.
    {2161}
       Then the invaders approached the territory of an independent
       people, those of Tlascala, who had walled their country
       against neighboring enemies. A fight took place at the
       frontiers, in which the Spaniards lost two horses. They forced
       passes against great odds, but again lost a horse or two,—
       which was a perceptible diminution of their power to terrify.
       The accounts speak of immense hordes of the Tlascalans, which
       historians now take with allowances, great or small. Cortés
       spread what alarm he could by burning villages and capturing
       the country people. His greatest obstacle soon appeared in the
       compacted army of Tlascalans arrayed in his front. The
       conflict which ensued was for a while doubtful. Every horse
       was hurt, and 60 Spaniards were wounded; but the result was
       the retreat of the Tlascalans. Divining that the Spanish power
       was derived from the sun, the enemy planned a night attack;
       but Cortés suspected it, and assaulted them in their own
       ambush. Cortés now had an opportunity to display his
       double-facedness and his wiles. He received embassies both
       from Montezuma and from the senate of the Tlascalans. He
       cajoled each, and played off his friendship for the one in
       cementing an alliance with the other. But to Tlascala and
       Mexico he would go, so he told them. The Tlascalans were not
       averse, for they thought it boded no good to the Aztecs, if he
       could be bound to themselves. Montezuma dreaded the contact,
       and tried to intimidate the strangers by tales of the horrible
       difficulties of the journey. Presently the army took up its
       march for Tlascala, where they were royally received, and
       wives in abundance were bestowed upon the leaders. Next they
       passed to Cholula, which was subject to the Aztecs."

          J. Winsor,
          Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (October).
       The Massacre at Cholula.
       The march to Mexico.

       "The distance from Tlascala to Chololan [or Cholula] is but
       from 15 to 20 miles. It was a kind of holy place, venerated
       far and wide in Anahuac; pilgrimages were made thither, as the
       Mahometans go to Mecca, and Christians to Jerusalem or Rome.
       The city was consecrated to the worship of Quetzalcoatl, who
       had there the noblest temple in all Mexico, built, like all
       the temples in the country, on the summit of a truncated
       pyramid. The traveller of the present day beholds this pyramid
       on the horizon as he approaches Puebla, on his route from Vera
       Cruz to Mexico. But the worship of the beneficent Quetzalcoatl
       had been perverted by the sombre genius of the Aztecs. To this
       essentially good deity 6,000 human victims were annually
       immolated in his temple at Chololan. … The Spaniards found
       at Chololan an eager and, to all appearance at least, a
       perfectly cordial welcome." But this hospitality masked, it is
       said, a great plot for their destruction, which Montezuma had
       inspired and to aid which he had sent into the neighborhood of
       the city a powerful Mexican army. The plot was revealed to
       Cortez—so the Spanish historians relate—and "he took his
       resolution with his accustomed energy and foresight. He made
       his dispositions for the very next day. He acquainted the
       caciques of Chololan that he should evacuate the city at break
       of dawn, and required them to furnish 2,000 porters or
       'tamanes,' for the baggage. The caciques then organized their
       attack for the morrow morning, not without a promise of the
       men required, whom, in fact, they brought at dawn to the great
       court in which the foreigners were domiciled. The conflict
       soon began. The Spaniards, who were perfectly prepared,
       commenced by massacring the caciques. The mass of Chololans
       that attempted to invade their quarters were crushed under the
       fire of their artillery and musketry, and the charges of their
       cavalry. Hearing the reports, the Tlascalans, who had been
       left at the entrance of the city, rushed on to the rescue. …
       They could now glut their hatred and vengeance; they
       slaughtered as long as they could, and then set to work at
       plunder. The Spaniards, too, after having killed all that
       resisted, betook themselves to pillage. The unfortunate city
       of Chololan was thus inundated with blood and sacked. Cortez,
       however, enjoined that the women and children should be
       spared, and we are assured that in that he was obeyed, even by
       his cruel auxiliaries from Tlascala. … To the praise of
       Cortez it must be said that, after the victory, he once more
       showed himself tolerant: he left the inhabitants at liberty to
       follow their old religion on condition that they should no
       longer immolate human victims. After this signal blow, all the
       threats, all the intrigues, of Montezuma, had no possible
       effect, and the Aztec emperor could be under no illusion as to
       the inflexible intention of Cortez. The latter, as soon as he
       had installed new chiefs at Chololan, and effaced the more
       hideous traces of the massacre and pillage that had desolated
       the city, set out with his own troops and his Indian
       auxiliaries from Tlascala for the capital of the Aztec empire,
       the magnificent city of Tenochtitlan."

          M. Chevalier,
          Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
          part 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

    MEXICO:
       The Capital of Montezuma as described
       by Cortés and Bernal Diaz.

       "This Province is in the form of a circle, surrounded on all
       sides by lofty and rugged mountains; its level surface
       comprises an area of about 70 leagues in circumference,
       including two lakes, that overspread nearly the whole valley,
       being navigated by boats more than 50 leagues round. One of
       these lakes contains fresh, and the other, which is the larger
       of the two, salt water. On one side of the lakes, in the
       middle of the valley, a range of highlands divides them from
       one another, with the exception of a narrow strait which lies
       between the highlands and the lofty Sierras. This strait is a
       bow-shot wide, and connects the two lakes; and by this means a
       trade is carried on between the cities and other settlements
       on the lakes in canoes without the necessity of travelling by
       land. As the salt lake rises and falls with its tides like the
       sea, during the time of high water it pours into the other
       lake with the rapidity of a powerful stream; and on the other
       hand, when the tide has ebbed, the water runs from the fresh
       into the salt lake. This great city of Temixtitan
       [Tenochtitlan—Mexico] is situated in this salt lake, and from
       the main land to the denser parts of it, by whichever route
       one chooses to enter, the distance is two leagues. There are
       four avenues or entrances to the city, all of which are formed
       by artificial causeways, two spears' length in width. The city
       is as large as Seville or Cordova; its streets, I speak of the
       principal ones, are very wide and straight; some of these, and
       all the inferior ones, are half land and half water, and are
       navigated by canoes.
    {2162}
       All the streets at intervals have openings, through which the
       water flows, crossing from one street to another; and at these
       openings, some of which are very wide, there are also very
       wide bridges, composed of large pieces of timber, of great
       strength and well put together; on many of these bridges ten
       horses can go abreast. … This city has many public squares,
       in which are situated the markets and other places for buying
       and selling. There is one square twice as large as that of the
       city of Salamanca, surrounded by porticoes, where are daily
       assembled more than 60,000 souls, engaged in buying and
       selling; and where are found all kinds of merchandise that the
       world affords, embracing the necessaries of life, as for
       instance articles of food, as well as jewels of gold and
       silver, lead, brass, copper, tin, precious stones, bones,
       shells, snails, and feathers. … Every kind of merchandise is
       sold in a particular street or quarter assigned to it
       exclusively, and thus the best order is preserved. They sell
       everything by number or measure; at least so far we have not
       observed them to sell any thing by weight. There is a building
       in the great square that is used as an audience house, where
       ten or twelve persons, who are magistrates, sit and decide all
       controversies that arise in the market, and order delinquents
       to be punished. … This great city contains a large number of
       temples, or houses for their idols, very handsome edifices,
       which are situated in the different districts and the suburbs.
       … Among these temples there is one which far surpasses all
       the rest, whose grandeur of architectural details no human
       tongue is able to describe; for within its precincts,
       surrounded by a lofty wall, there is room enough for a town of
       500 families. Around the interior of this enclosure there are
       handsome edifices, containing large halls and corridors, in
       which the religious persons attached to the temple reside.
       There are full 40 towers, which are lofty and well built, the
       largest of which has 50 steps leading to its main body, and is
       higher than the tower of the principal church at Seville. The
       stone and wood of which they are constructed are so well
       wrought in every part that nothing could be better done. …
       This noble city contains many fine and magnificent houses;
       which may be accounted for from the fact that all the nobility
       of the country, who are the vassals of Muteczuma, have houses
       in the city, in which they reside a certain part of the year;
       and, besides, there are numerous wealthy citizens who also
       possess fine houses."

          H. Cortés,
          Despatches [Letters] (translated by G. Folsom),
          letter 2, chapter 5.

       "We had already been four days in the city of Mexico, and
       neither our commander nor any of us had, during that time,
       left our quarters, excepting to visit the gardens and
       buildings adjoining the palace. Cortes now, therefore,
       determined to view the city, and visit the great market, and
       the chief temple of Huitzilopochtli. … The moment we arrived
       in this immense market, we were perfectly astonished at the
       vast numbers of people, the profusion of merchandise which was
       there exposed for sale, and at the good police and order that
       reigned throughout. … Every species of goods which New Spain
       produces were here to be found; and everything put me in mind
       of my native town Medina del Campo during fair time, where
       every merchandise has a separate street assigned for its sale.
       … On quitting the market, we entered the spacious yards
       which surround the chief temple. … Motecusuma, who was
       sacrificing on the top to his idols, sent six papas and two of
       his principal officers to conduct Cortes up the steps. There
       were 114 steps to the summit. …Indeed, this infernal temple,
       from its great height, commanded a view of the whole
       surrounding neighbourhood. From this place we could likewise
       see the three causeways which led into Mexico. … We also
       observed the aqueduct which ran from Chapultepec, and provided
       the whole town with sweet water. We could also distinctly see
       the bridges across the openings, by which these causeways were
       intersected, and through which the waters of the lake ebbed
       and flowed. The lake itself was crowded with canoes, which
       were bringing provisions, manufactures and other merchandise
       to the city. From here we also discovered that the only
       communication of the houses in this city, and of all the other
       towns built in the lake, was by means of drawbridges or
       canoes. In all these towns the beautiful white plastered
       temples rose above the smaller ones, like so many towers and
       castles in our Spanish towns, and this, it may be imagined,
       was a splendid sight."

          Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
          Memoirs (translated by Lockhart),
          chapter 92 (volume 1).

    MEXICO:
       The same as viewed in the light of modern historical criticism.

       "In the West India Islands the Spanish discoverers found small
       Indian tribes under the government of chiefs; but on the
       continent, in the Valley of Mexico, they found a confederacy
       of three Indian tribes under a more advanced but similar
       government. In the midst of the valley was a large pueblo, the
       largest in America, surrounded with water, approached by
       causeways; in fine, a water-girt fortress impregnable to
       Indian assault. This pueblo presented to the Spanish
       adventurers the extraordinary spectacle of an Indian society
       lying two ethnical periods back of European society, but with
       a government and plan of life at once intelligent, orderly,
       and complete. … The Spanish adventurers who captured the
       pueblo of Mexico saw a king in Montezuma, lords in Aztec
       chiefs, and a palace in the large joint-tenement house
       occupied, Indian fashion, by Montezuma and his
       fellow-householders. It was, perhaps, an unavoidable
       self-deception at the time, because they knew nothing of the
       Aztec social system. Unfortunately it inaugurated American
       aboriginal history upon a misconception of Indian life which
       has remained substantially unquestioned until recently. The
       first eye-witnesses gave the keynote to this history by
       introducing Montezuma as a king, occupying a palace of great
       extent crowded with retainers, and situated in the midst of a
       grand and populous city, over which, and much besides, he was
       reputed master. But king and kingdom were in time found too
       common to express all the glory and splendor the imagination
       was beginning to conceive of Aztec society; and emperor and
       empire gradually superseded the more humble conception of the
       conquerors. … To every author, from Cortes and Bernal Diaz
       to Brasseur de Bourbourg and Hubert H. Bancroft, Indian
       society was an unfathomable mystery, and their works have left
       it a mystery still. Ignorant of its structure and principles,
       and unable to comprehend its peculiarities, they invoked the
       imagination to supply whatever was necessary to fill out the
       picture. …
    {2163}
       Thus, in this case, we have a grand historical romance, strung
       upon the conquest of Mexico as upon a thread; the acts of the
       Spaniards, the pueblo of Mexico, and its capture, are
       historical, while the descriptions of Indian society and
       government are imaginary and delusive. … There is a strong
       probability, from what is known of Indian life and society,
       that the house in which Montezuma lived, was a joint-tenement
       house of the aboriginal American model, owned by a large
       number of related families, and occupied by them in common as
       joint proprietors; that the dinner [of Montezuma, in his
       palace, as described by Cortes and Bernal Diaz] … was the
       usual single daily meal of a communal household, prepared in a
       common cookhouse from common stores, and divided, Indian
       fashion, from the kettle; and that all the Spaniards found in
       Mexico was a simple confederacy of three Indian tribes, the
       counterpart of which was found in all parts of America. It may
       be premised further that the Spanish adventurers who thronged
       to the new world after its discovery found the same race of
       Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South
       America, in Florida, and in Mexico. In their mode of life and
       means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages, and
       customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
       physical characteristics, they were the same people in
       different stages of advancement. No distinction of race was
       observed, and none in fact existed. … Not a vestige of the
       ancient pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan) remains to assist us
       to a knowledge of its architecture. Its structures, which were
       useless to a people of European habits, were speedily
       destroyed to make room for a city adapted to the wants of a
       civilized race. We must seek for its characteristics in
       contemporary Indian houses which still remain in ruins, and in
       such of the early descriptions as have come down to us, and
       then leave the subject with but little accurate knowledge. Its
       situation, partly on dry land and partly in the waters of a
       shallow artificial pond formed by causeways and dikes, led to
       the formation of streets and squares, which were unusual in
       Indian pueblos, and gave to it a remarkable appearance. …
       Many of the houses were large, far beyond the supposable wants
       of a single Indian family. They were constructed of adobe
       brick, and of stone, and plastered over in both cases with
       gypsum, which made them a brilliant white; and some were
       constructed of a red porous stone. In cutting and dressing
       this stone flint implements were used. The fact that the
       houses were plastered externally leads us to infer that they
       had not learned to dress stone and lay them in courses. It is
       not certainly established that they had learned the use of a
       mortar of lime and sand. In the final attack and capture, it
       is said that Cortes, in the course of seventeen days,
       destroyed and levelled three-quarters of the pueblo, which
       demonstrates the flimsy character of the masonry. … It is
       doubtful whether there was a single pueblo in North America,
       with the exception of Tlascala, Cholula, Tezcuco, and Mexico,
       which contained 10,000 inhabitants. There is no occasion to
       apply the term 'city' to any of them. None of the Spanish
       descriptions enable us to realize the exact form and structure
       of these houses, or their relations to each other in forming a
       pueblo. … It is evident from the citations made that the
       largest of these joint-tenement houses would accommodate from
       500 to 1,000 or more people, living in the fashion of Indians;
       and that the courts were probably quadrangles, formed by
       constructing the building on three sides of an inclosed space,
       as in the New Mexican pueblos, or upon the four sides, as in
       the House of the Nuns, at Uxmal."

          L. H. Morgan,
          Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
          (United States Geographical and Geological Survey of
          Rocky Mountain Region:
          Contribution to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
          chapter 10.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1520.
       Captivity of Montezuma, Cortés ruling in his name.
       The discomfiture of Narvaez.
       The revolt of the capital.

       When Cortés had time to survey and to realize his position in
       the Mexican capital, he saw that it was full of extreme
       danger. To be isolated with so small a force in the midst of
       any hostile, populous city would be perilous; but in Mexico
       that peril was immeasurably increased by the peculiar
       situation and construction of the island-city—Venice-like in
       its insulation, and connected with the mainland by long and
       narrow, causeways and bridges, easily broken and difficult to
       secure for retreat. With characteristic audacity, the Spanish
       leader mastered the danger of the situation, so to speak, by
       taking Montezuma himself in pledge for the peace and good
       behavior of his subjects. Commanded by Cortés to quit his
       palace, and to take up his residence with the Spaniards in
       their quarters, the Mexican monarch remonstrated but obeyed,
       and became from that day the shadow of a king. "During, six
       months that Cortes remained in Mexico [from November, 1519,
       until May, 1520], the monarch continued in the Spanish
       quarters, with an appearance of as entire satisfaction and
       tranquillity as if he had resided there, not from constraint,
       but through choice. His ministers and officers attended him as
       usual. He took cognizance of all affairs; every order was
       issued in his name. … Such was the dread which both
       Montezuma and his subjects had of the Spaniards, or such the
       veneration in which they held them, that no attempt was made
       to deliver their sovereign from confinement, and though
       Cortes, relying on this ascendant which he had acquired over
       their minds, permitted him not only to visit his temples, but
       to make hunting excursions beyond the lake, a guard of a few
       Spaniards carried with it such a terrour as to intimidate the
       multitude, and secure the captive monarch. Thus, by the
       fortunate temerity of Cortes in seizing Montezuma, the
       Spaniards at once secured to themselves more extensive
       authority in the Mexican empire than it was possible to have
       acquired in a long course of time by open force; and they
       exercised more absolute sway in the name of another than they
       could have done in their own. … Cortes availed himself to
       the utmost of the powers which he possessed by being able to
       act in the name of Montezuma. He sent some Spaniards, whom he
       judged best qualified for such commissions, into different
       parts of the empire, accompanied by persons of distinction,
       whom Montezuma appointed to attend them both as guides and
       protectors. They visited most of the provinces, viewed their
       soil and productions, surveyed with particular care the
       districts which yielded gold or silver, pitched upon several
       places as proper stations for future colonies, and endeavoured
       to prepare the minds of the people for submitting to the
       Spanish yoke." At the same time, Cortes strengthened his
       footing in the capital by building and launching two brigantines
       on the lake, with an equipment and armament which his royal
       prisoner caused to be brought up for him from Vera Cruz.
    {2164}
       He also persuaded Montezuma to acknowledge himself a vassal of
       the King of Castile, and to subject his kingdom to the payment
       of an annual tribute. But, while his cunning conquest of an
       empire was advancing thus prosperously, the astute Spanish
       captain allowed his prudence to be overridden by his religious
       zeal. Becoming impatient at the obstinacy with which Montezuma
       clung to his false gods, Cortes made a rash attempt, with his
       soldiers, to cast down the idols in the great temple of the
       city, and to set the image of the Virgin in their place. The
       sacrilegious outrage roused the Mexicans from their tame
       submission and fired them with an inextinguishable rage. At
       this most unfortunate juncture, news came from Vera Cruz which
       demanded the personal presence of Cortes on the coast.
       Velasquez, the hostile governor of Cuba, to whom the
       adventurer in Mexico was a rebel, had sent, at last, an
       expedition, to put a stop to his unauthorized proceedings and
       to arrest his person. Cortes faced the new menace as boldly as
       he had faced all others. Leaving 150 men in the angry Mexican
       capital, under Pedro de Alvarado, he set out with the small
       remainder of his force to attack the Spanish intruders. Even
       after picking up some detachments outside and joining the
       garrison at Vera Cruz, he could muster but 250 men; while
       Narvaez, who commanded the expedition from Cuba, had brought
       800 foot soldiers and 80 horse, with twelve pieces of cannon.
       The latter had taken possession of the city of Zempoalla and
       was strongly posted in one of its temples. There Cortes
       surprised him, in a night attack, took him prisoner, in a
       wounded state, and compelled his troops to lay down their
       arms. Nearly the whole of the latter were soon captivated by
       the commanding genius of the man they had been sent to arrest,
       and enlisted in his service. He found himself now at the head
       of a thousand well armed men; and he found in the same moment
       that he needed them all. For news came from Mexico that
       Alvarado, thinking to anticipate and crush a suspected
       intention of the Mexicans to rise against him, had provoked
       the revolt and made it desperate by a most perfidious, brutal
       massacre of several hundred of the chief persons of the
       empire, committed while they were celebrating one of the
       festivals of their religion, in the temple. The Spaniards at
       Mexico were now beleaguered, as the consequence, in their
       quarters, and their only hope was the hope that Cortes would
       make haste to their rescue,—which he did.

          W. Robertson,
          History of America,
          book 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 4, chapters 17-23.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1520 (JUNE-JULY).
       The return of Cortes to the Mexican Capital.
       The battle in the city.
       The death of Montezuma.
       The disastrous Retreat of the Spaniards.

       The alarming intelligence which came to him from the Mexican
       capital called out in Cortés the whole energy of his nature.
       Hastily summoning back the various expeditions he had already
       sent out, and gathering all his forces together, he "reviewed
       his men, and found that they amounted to 1,300 soldiers, among
       whom were 96 horsemen, 80 cross-bowmen, and about 80
       musketeers. Cortez marched with great strides to Mexico, and
       entered the city at the head of this formidable force on the
       24th of June, 1520, the day of John the Baptist. Very
       different was the reception of Cortez on this occasion from
       that on his first entry into Mexico, when Montezuma had gone
       forth with all pomp to meet him. Now, the Indians stood
       silently in the doorways of their houses, and the bridges
       between the houses were taken up. Even when he arrived at his
       own quarters he found the gates barred, so strict had been the
       siege, and he had to demand an entry." The Mexicans, strangely
       enough, made no attempt to oppose his entrance into the city
       and his junction with Alvarado; yet the day after his return
       their attack upon the Spanish quarters, now so strongly
       reinforced, was renewed. "Cortez, who was not at all given to
       exaggeration, says that neither the streets nor the terraced
       roofs ('azoteas') were visible, being entirely obscured by the
       people who were upon them; that the multitude of stones was so
       great that it seemed as if it rained stones; and that the
       arrows came so thickly that the walls and the courts were full
       of them, rendering it difficult to move about. Cortez made two
       or three desperate sallies, and was wounded. The Mexicans
       succeeded in setting fire to the fortress, which was with
       difficulty subdued, and they would have scaled the walls at
       the point where the fire had done most damage but for a large
       force of cross-bowmen, musketeers, and artillery, which Cortez
       threw forward to meet the danger. The Mexicans at last drew
       back, leaving no fewer than 80 Spaniards wounded in this first
       encounter. The ensuing morning, as soon as it was daylight,
       the attack was renewed. … Again, and with considerable
       success, Cortez made sallies from the fortress in the course
       of the day; but at the end of it there were about 60 more of
       his men to be added to the list of wounded, already large,
       from the injuries received on the preceding day. The third day
       was devoted by the ingenious Cortez to making three movable
       fortresses, called 'mantas,' which, he thought, would enable
       his men, with less danger, to contend against the Mexicans
       upon their terraced roofs. … It was on this day that the
       unfortunate Montezuma, either at the request of Cortez, or of
       his own accord, came out upon a battlement and addressed the
       people." He was interrupted by a shower of stones and arrows
       and received wounds from which he died soon after. The
       fighting on this day was more desperate than it had been
       before. The Spaniards undertook to dislodge a body of the
       Indians who had posted themselves on the summit of the great
       temple, which was dangerously near at hand. Again and again
       they were driven back, until Cortez bound his shield to his
       wounded arm and led the assault. Then, after three hours of
       fighting, from terrace to terrace, they gained the upper
       platform and put every Mexican to the sword. But 40 Spaniards
       perished in the struggle. "This fight in the temple gave a
       momentary brightness to the arms of the Spaniards and afforded
       Cortez an opportunity to resume negotiations. But the
       determination of the Mexicans was fixed and complete. … They
       would all perish, if that were needful, to gain their point of
       destroying the Spaniards. They bade Cortez look at the
       streets, the squares, and the terraces, covered with people;
       and then, in a business-like and calculating manner, they told
       him that if 25,000 of them were to die for each Spaniard, still
       the Spaniards would perish first. …
    {2165}
       It generally requires at least as much courage to retreat as
       to advance. Indeed, few men have the courage and the ready
       wisdom to retreat in time. But Cortez, once convinced that his
       position in Mexico was no longer tenable, wasted no time or
       energy in parleying with danger. Terror had lost its influence
       with the Mexicans, and superior strategy was of little avail
       against such overpowering numbers. … Cortez resolved to quit
       the city that night [July 1, 1520]. … A little before
       midnight the stealthy march began. The Spaniards succeeded in
       laying down the pontoon over the first bridge-way, and the
       vanguard with Sandoval passed over; but, while the rest were
       passing, the Mexicans gave the alarm with loud shouts and
       blowing of horns. … Almost immediately upon this alarm the
       lake was covered with canoes. It rained, and the misfortunes
       of the night commenced by two horses slipping from the pontoon
       into the water. Then the Mexicans attacked the pontoon-bearers
       so furiously that it was impossible for them to raise it up
       again." After that, all seems to have been a confused struggle
       in the darkness, where even Cortez could do little for the
       unfortunate rear-guard of his troops. "This memorable night
       has ever been celebrated in American history as 'la noche
       triste.' In this flight from Mexico all the artillery was
       lost, and there perished 450 Spaniards, … 4,000 of the
       Indian allies, 46 horses, and most of the Mexican prisoners,
       including one son and two daughters of Montezuma, and his
       nephew the King of Tezcuco. A loss which posterity will ever
       regret was that of the books and accounts, memorials and
       writings, of which there were some, it is said, that contained
       a narrative of all that had happened since Cortez left Cuba.
       … In the annals of retreats there has seldom been one
       recorded which proved more entirely disastrous."

          Sir A. Helps,
          Spanish Conquest in America,
          book 10, chapters 7-8 (volume 2).

    MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.
       The retreat to Tlascala.
       Reinforcements and recovery.
       Cortes in the field again.
       Preparations to attack Mexico.

       "After the disasters and fatigues of the 'noche triste,' the
       melancholy and broken band of Cortez rested for a day at
       Tacuba, whilst the Mexicans returned to their capital,
       probably to bury the dead and purify their city. It is
       singular, yet it is certain, that they did not follow up their
       successes by a death blow at the disarmed Spaniards. But this
       momentary paralysis of their efforts was not to be trusted,
       and accordingly Cortez began to retreat eastwardly, under the
       guidance of the Tlascalans, by a circuitous route around the
       northern limits of lake Zumpango. The flying forces and their
       auxiliaries were soon in a famishing condition, subsisting
       alone on corn or on wild cherries gathered in the forest, with
       occasional refreshment and support from the carcase of a horse
       that perished by the way. For six days these fragments of the
       Spanish army continued their weary pilgrimage, and, on the
       seventh, reached Otumba." At Otumba their progress was barred
       by a vast army of the Aztecs, which had marched by a shorter
       road to intercept them; but after a desperate battle the
       natives fled and the Spaniards were troubled no more until
       they reached the friendly shelter of Tlascala. The Tlascalans
       held faithfully to their alliance and received the flying
       strangers with helpful hands and encouraging words. But many
       of Cortez' men demanded permission to continue their retreat
       to Vera Cruz. "Just at this moment, too, Cuitlahua, who
       mounted the throne of Mexico on the death of Montezuma,
       despatched a mission to the Tlascalans, proposing to bury the
       hatchet, and to unite in sweeping the Spaniards from the
       realm." A hot discussion ensued in the council of the
       Tlascalan chiefs, which resulted in the rejection of the
       Mexican proposal, and the confidence of Cortez was restored.
       He succeeded in pacifying his men, and gave them employment by
       expeditions against tribes and towns within reach which
       adhered to the Mexican king. After some time he obtained
       reinforcements, by an arrival of vessels at Vera Cruz bringing
       men and supplies, and he began to make serious preparations
       for the reconquest of the Aztec capital. He "constructed new
       arms and caused old ones to be repaired; made powder with
       sulphur obtained from the volcano of Popocatopetl; and, under
       the direction of his builder, Lopez, prepared the timber for
       brigantines, which he designed to carry, in pieces, and launch
       on the lake at the town of Tezcoco. At that port, he resolved
       to prepare himself fully for the final attack, and, this time,
       he determined to assault the enemy's capital by water as well
       as by land." The last day of December found him once more on
       the shores of the Mexican lake, encamped at Tezcoco, with a
       Spanish force restored to 600 men in strength, having 40
       horses, 80 arquebuses and nine small cannon. Of Indian allies
       he is said to have had many thousands. Meantime, Cuitlahua had
       died of smallpox—which came to the country with the
       Spaniards—and had been succeeded by Guatemozin, his nephew, a
       vigorous young man of twenty-five. "At Tezcoco, Cortéz was
       firmly planted on the eastern edge of the valley of Mexico, in
       full sight of the capital which lay across the lake, near its
       western shore, at the distance of about twelve miles. Behind
       him, towards the sea-coast, he commanded the country, …
       while, by passes through lower spurs of the mountains, he
       might easily communicate with the valleys of which the
       Tlascalans and Cholulans were masters." One by one he reduced
       and destroyed or occupied the neighboring towns, and overran
       the surrounding country, in expeditions which made the
       complete circle of the valley and gave him a complete
       knowledge of it, while they re-established the prestige of the
       Spaniards and the terror of their arms. On the 28th of April
       the newly built brigantines, 12 in number, were launched upon
       the lake, and all was in readiness for an attack upon the
       city, with forces now increased by fresh arrivals to 87 horse
       and 818 Spanish infantry, with three iron field pieces and 15
       brass falconets.

          B. Mayer,
          Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican,
          book 1, chapters 6-8 (volume 1).

    MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (May-July).
       The siege of the Aztec capital begun.

       "The observations which
       Cortes had made in his late tour of reconnaissance
       had determined him to begin the siege by
       distributing his forces into three separate camps,
       which he proposed to establish at the extremities
       of the principal causeways," under three of his
       captains, Alvarado, Olid and Sandoval. The
       movement of forces from Tezcuco began on the
       10th of May, 1521.
    {2166}
       Alvarado and Olid occupied Tacuba,
       cut the aqueduct which conveyed water
       from Chapoltepec to the capital, and made an
       unsuccessful attempt to get possession of the
       fatal causeway of "the noche triste." Holding
       Tacuba, however, Alvarado commanded that
       important passage, while Sandoval, seizing the
       city of Iztapalapan, at the southern extremity
       of the lake, and Olid, establishing himself near the
       latter, at Cojohuacan, were planted at the two
       outlets, it would seem, of another of the causeways,
       which branched to attain the shore at
       those two points. When so much had been accomplished,
       Cortés, in person, set sail with his
       fleet of brigantines and speedily cleared the lake
       of all the swarm of light canoes and little vessels
       with which the unfortunate Mexicans tried vainly
       though valorously to dispute it with him. "This
       victory, more complete than even the sanguine
       temper of Cortés had prognosticated, proved the
       superiority of the Spaniards, and left them,
       henceforth, undisputed masters of the Aztec sea.
       It was nearly dusk when the squadron, coasting
       along the great southern causeway, anchored off
       the point of junction, called Xoloc, where the
       branch from Cojohuacan meets the principal dike.
       The avenue widened at this point, so as to afford
       room for two towers, or turreted temples, built
       of stone, and surrounded by walls of the same
       material, which presented altogether a position
       of some strength, and, at the present moment,
       was garrisoned by a body of Aztecs. They were
       not numerous; and Cortés, landing with his soldiers,
       succeeded without much difficulty in dislodging
       the enemy, and in getting possession of
       the works." Here, in a most advantageous
       position on the great causeway, the Spanish
       commander fortified himself and established his
       headquarters, summoning Olid with half of his
       force to join him and transferring Sandoval to
       Olid's post at Cojohuacan. "The two principal
       avenues to Mexico, those on the south and the
       west, were now occupied by the Christians.
       There still remained a third, the great dike of
       Tepejacac, on the north, which, indeed, taking
       up the principal street, that passed in a direct
       line through the heart of the city, might be
       regarded as a continuation of the dike of Iztapalapan.
       By this northern route a means of escape
       was still left open to the besieged, and they
       availed themselves of it, at present, to maintain
       their communications with the country, and to
       supply themselves with provisions. Alvarado,
       who observed this from his station at Tacuba,
       advised his commander of it, and the latter
       instructed Sandoval to take up his position on the
       causeway. That officer, though suffering at the
       time from a severe wound, … hastened to
       obey; and thus, by shutting up its only
       communication with the surrounding country,
       completed the blockade of the capital. But Cortés
       was not content to wait patiently the effects of a
       dilatory blockade." He arranged with his
       subordinate captains the plan of a simultaneous
       advance along each of the causeways toward the
       city. From his own post he pushed forward with
       great success, assisted by the brigantines which
       sailed along side, and which, by the flanking fire
       of their artillery, drove the Aztecs from one
       barricade after another, which they had erected
       at every dismantled bridge. Fighting their way
       steadily, the Spaniards traversed the whole
       length of the dike and entered the city;
       penetrated to the great square; saw once more their
       old quarters; scaled again the sides of the
       pyramid-temple, to slay the bloody priests and to
       strip the idols of their jewels and gold. But the
       Aztecs were frenzied by this sacrilege, as they
       had been frenzied by the same deed before, and
       renewed the battle with so much fury that the
       Spaniards were driven back in thorough panic
       and disarray. "All seemed to be lost;—when
       suddenly sounds were heard in an adjoining
       street, like the distant tramp of horses galloping
       rapidly over the pavement. They drew nearer
       and nearer, and a body of cavalry soon emerged
       on the great square. Though but a handful in
       number, they plunged boldly into the thick of
       the enemy," who speedily broke and fled, enabling
       Cortés to withdraw his troops in safety. Neither
       Alvarado nor Sandoval, who had greater difficulties
       to overcome, and who had no help from
       the brigantines, reached the suburbs of the city;
       but their assault had been vigorously made, and
       had been of great help to that of Cortés. The
       success of the demonstration spread consternation
       among the Mexicans and their vassals, and
       brought a number of the latter over to the
       Spanish side. Among these latter was the prince
       of Tezcuco, who joined Cortés, with a large
       force, in the next assault which the latter made
       presently upon the city. Again penetrating to
       the great square, the Spaniards on this occasion
       destroyed the palaces there by fire. But the
       spirit of the Mexicans remained unbroken, and
       they were found in every encounter opposing as
       obstinate a resistance as ever. They contrived,
       too, for a remarkable length of time, to run the
       blockade of the brigantines on the lake and to
       bring supplies into the city by their canoes. But,
       at length, when most of the great towns of the
       neighborhood had deserted their cause, the
       supplies failed and starvation began to do its work
       in the fated city. At the same time, the Spaniards
       were amply provisioned, and their new
       allies built barracks and huts for their shelter.
       Cortés "would gladly have spared the town and
       its inhabitants. … He intimated more than
       once, by means of the prisoners whom he released,
       his willingness to grant them fair terms of
       capitulation. Day after day, he fully expected
       his proffers would be accepted. But day after
       day he was disappointed. He had yet to learn
       how tenacious was the memory of the Aztecs."

          W. H. Prescott,
         History of the Conquest of Mexico,
         book 6, chapters 4-5.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (July).
       Disastrous repulse of the Spaniards.

       "The impatience of the soldiers grew to a great height, and
       was supported in an official quarter—by no less a person than
       Alderete, the king's treasurer. Cortez gave way, against his
       own judgment, to their importunities" and another general
       attack was ordered. "On the appointed day Cortez moved from
       his camp, supported by seven brigantines, and by more than
       3,000 canoes filled with his Indian allies. When his soldiers
       reached the entrance of the city, he divided them in the
       following manner. There were three streets which led to the
       market-place from the position which the Spaniards had already
       gained. Along, the principal street, the king's treasurer,
       with 70 Spaniards and 15,000 or 20,000 allies, was to make his
       way. His rear was to be protected by a small guard of
       horsemen. The other two streets were smaller, and led from the
       street of Tlacuba to the market-place.
    {2167}
       Along the broader of these two streets Cortez sent two of his
       principal captains, with 80 Spaniards and 10,000 Indians; he
       himself, with eight horsemen, 75 foot-soldiers, 25 musketeers,
       and an 'infinite number' of allies, was to enter the narrower
       street. At the entrance to the street of Tlacuba he left two
       large cannon, with eight horsemen to guard them, and at the
       entrance of his own street he also left eight horsemen to
       protect the rear. … The Spaniards and their allies made
       their entrance into the city with even more success and less
       embarrassment than on previous occasions. Bridges and
       barricades were gained, and the three main bodies of the army
       moved forward into the heart of the city." But in the
       excitement of their advance they left unrepaired behind them a
       great breach in the causeway, ten or twelve paces wide,
       although Cortez had repeatedly enjoined upon his captains that
       no such dangerous death-trap should be left to catch them in
       the event of a retreat. The neglect in this case was most
       disastrous. Being presently repulsed and driven back, the
       division which had allowed this chasm to yawn behind it was
       engulfed. Cortez, whose distrust had been excited in some way,
       discovered the danger, but too late. He made his way to the
       spot, only to find "the whole aperture so full of Spaniards
       and Indians that, as he says, there was not room for a straw
       to float upon the surface of the water. The peril was so
       imminent that Cortez not only thought that the Conquest of
       Mexico was gone, but that the term of his life as well as of
       his victories had come, and he resolved to die there fighting.
       All that he could do at first was to help his men out of the
       water; and, meanwhile, the Mexicans charged upon them in such
       numbers that he and his little party were entirely surrounded.
       The enemy seized upon his person, and would have carried him
       off but for the resolute bravery of some of his guard, one of
       whom lost his life there in succouring his master. … At last
       he and a few of his men succeeded in fighting their way to the
       broad street of Tlacuba, where, like a brave captain, instead
       of continuing his flight, he and the few horsemen who were
       with him turned round and formed a rear guard to protect his
       retreating troops. He also sent immediate orders to the king's
       treasurer and the other commanders to make good their
       retreat."

          Sir A. Helps,
          The Spanish Conquest in America,
          book 11, book 1 (volume 2).

       "As we were thus retreating, we continually heard the large
       drum beating from the summit of the chief temple of the city.
       Its tone was mournful indeed, and sounded like the very
       instrument of Satan. This drum was so vast in its dimensions
       that it could be heard from eight to twelve miles distance.
       Every time we heard its mournful sound, the Mexicans, as we
       subsequently learnt, offered to their idols the bleeding
       hearts of our unfortunate countrymen. … After we had at
       last, with excessive toil, crossed a deep opening, and had
       arrived at our encampment, … the large drum of
       Huitzilopochtli again resounded from the summit of the temple,
       accompanied by all the hellish music of shell trumpets, horns,
       and other instruments. … We could plainly see the platform,
       with the chapel in which those cursed idols stood; how the
       Mexicans had adorned the heads of the Spaniards with feathers,
       and compelled their victims to dance round the god
       Huitzilopochtli; we saw how they stretched them out at full
       length on a large stone, ripped open their breasts with flint
       knives, tore out the palpitating heart and offered it to their
       idols. Alas! we were forced to be spectators of all this, and
       how they then seized hold of the dead bodies by the legs and
       threw them headlong down the steps of the temple, at the
       bottom of which other executioners stood ready to receive
       them, who severed the arms, legs, and heads from the bodies,
       drew the skin off the faces, which were tanned with the beards
       still adhering to them, and produced as spectacles of mockery
       and derision at their feasts; the legs, arms, and other parts
       of the body being cut up and devoured. … On that terrible
       day the loss of the three divisions amounted to 60 men and 7
       horses."

          Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 152 (volume 2).

    MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (August).
       The last days of the Siege.
       The taking of the ruined city.
       The end of the Aztec dominion.

       "Guatemozin's victory diffused immense enthusiasm among the
       Aztecs and those who remained united to them. The priests
       proclaimed that the gods, satiated by the sacrifice of the
       Spanish prisoners, had promised to rid the country of the
       foreigners, and that the promise would be fulfilled within
       eight days. This intelligence spread alarm among the allies of
       the Spaniards. They deserted in great numbers—not to go over
       to the Aztecs, whose anger they dreaded, but to return to
       their homes. Cortez had good watch kept in the camp. The
       sorties of the besieged were repulsed; the eight days passed
       without the Spaniards having lost more than a few marauders.
       The allies, seeing that the oracle was wrong, came back to
       their former friends. The aggressive ardour of the besieged
       grew cooler, and they soon found themselves assailed by the
       plagues that ordinarily attack troops massed in a city—not
       only famine, but epidemic diseases, the result of want and
       overcrowding. … Famine pinched them more cruelly day after
       day. Lizards and such rats as they could find were their
       richest nourishment; reptiles and insects were eagerly looked
       for, trees stripped of their bark, and roots stealthily sought
       after by night. Meanwhile, Cortez, seeing that there was no
       other means of bringing them to submission, pursued the work
       of destruction he had resolved on with so much regret. …
       Heaps of bodies were found in every street that was won from
       them; this people, so punctilious in their customs of
       sepulture, had ceased to bury their dead. … Soon there was
       left to the besieged but one quarter, and that the most
       incommodious of all, forming barely an eighth of the city,
       where there were not houses enough to give them shelter. …
       The 13th August, 1521, had now arrived, and that was to be the
       last day of this once flourishing empire. Before making a
       final assault, Cortez once more invited the emperor to his
       presence. His envoys came back with the 'cihuacoatl,' a
       magistrate of the first rank, who declared, with an air of
       consternation, that Guatemozin knew how to die, but that he
       would not come to treat. Then, turning towards Cortez, he
       added: 'Do now whatever you please.' 'Be it so,' replied
       Cortez; 'go and tell your friends to prepare; they are going
       to die.' In fact, the troops advanced; there was a last mêlée,
       a last carnage, on land and on the lake. …
    {2168}
       Guatemozin, driven to the shore of the lake, threw himself
       into a canoe with a few warriors, and endeavoured to escape by
       dint of rowing; but he was pursued by a brigantine of the
       Spanish fleet, taken and brought to Cortez, who received him
       with the respect due to a crowned head. … The Aztec empire
       had ceased to exist; Spanish sway was established in Mexico.
       The Cross was triumphant in that fine country, and there was
       no sharer in its reign. The number of persons that perished in
       the siege has been differently estimated. The most moderate
       calculation puts it at 120,000 on the side of the Aztecs. Very
       many Indians fell on the side of the besiegers. The historian
       Ixtlixochitl says there were 30,000 dead of the warriors of
       Tezcuco alone. All that were left alive of the Aztecs were, at
       the request of Guatemozin, allowed to leave the city in
       freedom, on the morning after it was taken. … They dispersed
       in all directions, everywhere spreading a terror of the
       Spaniards, and the feeling that to resist them was impossible.
       That conviction must have been established speedily and
       firmly, for there was no further attempt at resistance, unless
       it were at one point, in the territory of Panuco, near the
       Atlantic Ocean."

          M. Chevalier,
          Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
          part 2, chapters 8-9 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Cortes,
          Despatches [Letters] MEXICO,
          translated by G. Folsom,
          letter 3, chapter 5.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.
       The rebuilding of the capital.
       The completion and settlement of the Conquest.

       "The first ebullition of triumph was succeeded in the army by
       very different feelings, as they beheld the scanty spoil
       gleaned from the conquered city;" and Cortés was driven, by
       the clamors and suspicions of his soldiers, to subject his
       heroic captive, Guatemozin, to torture, in the hope of
       wringing from him a disclosure of some concealment of his
       imagined treasures. Its only result was to add another infamy
       to the name and memory of the conquerors. "The
       commander-in-chief, with his little band of Spaniards, now
       daily recruited by reinforcements from the Islands, still
       occupied the quarters of Cojohuacan, which they had taken up
       at the termination of the siege. Cortés did not immediately
       decide in what quarter of the Valley to establish the new
       capital which was to take the place of the ancient
       Tenochtitlan. … At length he decided on retaining the site
       of the ancient city, … and he made preparations for the
       reconstruction of the capital on a scale of magnificence which
       should, in his own language, 'raise her to the rank of Queen
       of the surrounding provinces, in the same manner as she had
       been of yore.' The labor was to be performed by the Indian
       population, drawn from all quarters of the Valley, and
       including the Mexicans themselves, great numbers of whom still
       lingered in the neighborhood of their ancient residence. …
       In less than four years from the destruction of Mexico, a new
       city had risen on its ruins, which, if inferior to the ancient
       capital in extent, surpassed it in magnificence and strength.
       It occupied so exactly the same site as its predecessor that
       the 'plaza mayor,' or great square, was the same spot which
       had been covered by the huge 'teocalli' and the palace of
       Montezuma; while the principal streets took their departure as
       before from this central point, and, passing through the whole
       length of the city, terminated at the principal causeways.
       Great alterations, however, took place in the fashion of the
       architecture." Meantime, Cortés had been brought into much
       danger at the Spanish court, by the machinations of his
       enemies, encouraged by Bishop Fonseca, the same minister who
       pursued Columbus with hostility. His friends in Spain rallied,
       however, to his support, and the result of an investigation,
       undertaken by a board to which the Emperor Charles V. referred
       all the charges against him, was the confirmation of his acts
       in Mexico to their full extent. "He was constituted Governor,
       Captain-General, and Chief Justice of New Spain, with power to
       appoint to all offices, civil and military, and to order any
       person to leave the country whose residence there he might
       deem prejudicial to the interests of the Crown. This judgment
       of the council was ratified by Charles V., and the commission
       investing Cortés with these ample powers was signed by the
       emperor at Valladolid, October 15th, 1522. … The attention
       of Cortés was not confined to the capital. He was careful to
       establish settlements in every part of the country which
       afforded a favourable position for them. … While thus
       occupied with the internal economy of the country, Cortés was
       still bent on his great schemes of discovery and conquest." He
       fitted out a fleet to explore the shores of the Pacific, and
       another in the Gulf of Mexico—the prime object of both being
       the discovery of some strait that would open one ocean to the
       other. He also sent Olid in command of an expedition by sea to
       occupy and colonize Honduras, and Alvarado, by land, at the
       head of a large force, to subdue Guatemala. The former, having
       partly accomplished his mission, attempted to establish for
       himself an independent jurisdiction, and his conduct induced
       Cortés to proceed to Honduras in person. It was in the course
       of this expedition that Guatemozin, the dethroned Mexican
       chief, who had been forced to accompany his conqueror, was
       accused of a plot against the Spaniards and was hung to a
       tree. 'We have the testimony of Bernal Diaz, one of the
       Spaniards on the spot, that the execution "was most unjust,
       and was thought wrong by all of us." "Within three short years
       after the Conquest [Cortés] had reduced under the dominion of
       Castile an extent of country more than 400 leagues in length,
       as he affirms, on the Atlantic coast, and more than 500 on the
       Pacific; and, with the exception of a few interior provinces
       of no great importance, had brought them to a condition of
       entire tranquillity."

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Conquest of Mexico,
          book 7, chapters 1-3.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 5 (Mexico, volume 2), chapters 1-8.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1540.
       Introduction of Printing.

          See PRINTING, &C: A. D. 1535—1709.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.
       Under the Spanish viceroys.

       "Antonio de Mendoza, Conde de Tendilla, was the first viceroy
       sent by Charles V. to New Spain. He arrived in the autumn of
       1535. … He had a well-balanced and moderate character, and
       governed the country with justice and generosity combined. He
       … set himself to reform the abuses which had already
       appeared, protected the Indians from the humiliations which
       the newly arrived Spaniards were disposed to put upon them; he
       stimulated all branches of agriculture, and finding the
       natives were already well informed in the cultivation of land,
       he encouraged them in this pursuit by all possible efforts. …
    {2169}
       To the religious orders in Mexico is due in great measure the
       firm base upon which the government of Spain was established
       there. The new viceroy fully recognized this, and encouraged
       the foundations of colleges and schools already undertaken by
       them. In every way he promoted the prosperity and growth of
       the country, and had the satisfaction in the course of his
       government, which lasted 15 years, to see everything bear the
       marks of his judgment and enterprise. It was he who founded
       two cities [Guadalajara and Valladolid] which have reached
       great importance. … Cortés was away when the Viceroy Mendoza
       arrived in Mexico. He still retained his title as governor,
       with the same powers always conferred upon him; but his long
       absences from the capital made it necessary, as he fully
       recognized, that some other strong authority should be
       established there. Nevertheless, he never got on very well
       with such other authorities, and on his return soon became at
       odds with Mendoza, who, in his opinion, interfered with his
       prerogatives. It was then that Cortés bade farewell to his
       family, and taking with him his eldest son and heir, Don
       Martin, then eight years old, he embarked for Spain, leaving
       Mendoza undisturbed in the execution of his office. … In
       1536 was issued the first book printed in Mexico, on a press
       imported by Mendoza, and put into the hands of one Juan
       Pablos. … In 1550 this good ruler [Mendoza] sailed away from
       Mexico. … He passed on to take charge of the government of
       Peru, by a practice which came to be quite common—a sort of
       diplomatic succession by which the viceroys of New Spain were
       promoted to the post at Peru. Don Luis de Velasco, second
       viceroy of New Spain, made his entrance into the capital with
       great pomp, at the end of the year 1550. He, like his
       predecessor, had been selected with care by the orders of
       Charles V. … His first decree was one liberating 150 Indians
       from slavery, who were working chiefly in the mines. … He
       established in Mexico, for the security of travellers upon the
       highway, the tribunal of the Holy Brotherhood, instituted in
       Spain for the same purpose in the time of Isabella. He founded
       the Royal University of Mexico, and the Royal Hospital for the
       exclusive use of the natives. … The good Viceroy Velasco
       died in 1564, having governed the country for 14 years. …
       During the government of this ruler and his predecessor all
       the administration of New Spain, political, civil, and
       religious was established upon so firm a foundation that it
       could go on in daily action like a well regulated machine." In
       the meantime, Charles V. had resigned the burden of his great
       sovereignty, transferring all his crowns to his narrow-souled
       son, Philip II., who cared nothing for the New World except as
       a source of gold and silver supply and a field for religious
       bigotry. Under Philip "the character of the viceroys was
       lowered from the high standard adhered to when Charles the
       Emperor selected them himself. To follow the long list of them
       would be most tedious and useless, as they passed in rotation,
       governing according to the best of their lights for several
       years in Mexico, and then passing on, either by death or by
       promotion to Peru. In 1571 the Inquisition was fully
       established … and the next year the Jesuits arrived. … The
       first 'auto-da-fé' was celebrated in the year 1574, when, as
       its chronicler mentions cheerfully, 'there perished 21
       pestilent Lutherans.' From this time such ceremonies were of
       frequent occurrence, but the Inquisition never reached the
       point it did in Old Spain. … The viceroys of New Spain under
       Philip III. [1578-1621] were, for the most part, men of
       judgment and moderation. While the government at home, in the
       hands of profligate favorites, was growing weaker and weaker,
       that of Mexico was becoming more firmly established." It was
       not shaken nor disturbed by the War of the Spanish Succession,
       during the early years of the eighteenth century; but the
       Revolution in France, which convulsed Europe before that
       century closed, wrought changes which were lasting in the New
       World as well as the Old. "There were in all 64 viceroys,
       beginning with Don Antonio de Mendoza, 1535, and ending with
       Juan O'Donoju in 1822."

          S. Hale,
          The Story of Mexico,
          chapters 20-22.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volumes 5-6 (Mexico, volumes 2-3).

    MEXICO: A. D. 1539-1586.
       Expeditions of Niza, Coronado, and others to the North.
       Search for the Seven Cities of Cibola.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
       The first Revolutionary movement.
       Hidalgo.
       Allende.
       Morelos.

       "The causes of the coming revolution were not hidden. The law
       that excluded Spaniards born in America from equal rights with
       those who were immigrants was a natural, not to say necessary,
       source of discontent among people whose good-will was much
       needed by any viceroy. There was inevitably not a little
       mutual repugnance between the Mexican and Spanish stocks, and
       the home government did nothing to mollify such asperities.
       There were commercial monopolies militant against public
       interests. The clergy were alienated, and since they were not
       thus so serviceable as formerly in the part of mediators in
       enforcing governmental aims, it was found necessary to use
       force where the people were not accustomed to it. The Viceroy
       Jose de Iturrigaray practised a seeming condescension that
       deceived no one, and he pursued his exactions partly by reason
       of self-interest, and partly in order to supply Madrid with
       means to meet the financial troubles that the Napoleonic era
       was creating. After some years of these conditions in New
       Spain, a conspiracy, resulting from a reaction, sent the
       viceroy back to Spain a prisoner. This gave strength to
       revolutionary sentiments, and a few trials for treason
       increased the discontent. The men who were now put
       successively in the vice-regal place had few qualities for the
       times, and a certain timidity of policy was not conducive to
       strength of government. … The outbreak, when it came,
       brought to the front a curate of Dolores, a native priest,
       Miguel Hidalgo, who commanded the confidence of the
       disaffected, and was relied upon to guide the priesthood.
       Ignacio de Allende had some of the soldierly qualities needed
       for a generalissimo. The purpose of these men and their
       allies, before they should openly proclaim a revolt, was to
       seize some of the leading Spaniards; but their plot being
       discovered, they hastily assembled at Dolores and raised the
       standard of revolt (1810). Thus banded together, but badly
       organized and poorly armed, a body of 5,000 insurgents marched
       from Dolores, headed by Hidalgo and Allende, and approached
       Guanajuato, where the intendente Riaña had intrenched himself
       in a fortified alhondiga, or granary.
    {2170}
       The attack of the rebels was headlong and bloody. The gates
       were fired with flaming rubbish, and through the glowing way
       the mad throng rushed, and after a hand-to-hand conflict
       (September 28, 1810) the fortress fell. The royalist leader
       had been killed, and scenes of pillage and riot followed.
       Meanwhile the viceroy in Mexico prepared to receive the
       insurgents, and his ally, the church, excommunicated their
       leaders. The military force of the royalists was
       inconsiderable, and what there was, it was feared, might prove
       not as loyal as was desirable. As Hidalgo marched towards the
       capital, he tried to seduce to his side a young lieutenant,
       Augustin Iturbide, who was in command of a small outlying
       force. The future emperor declined the offer, and, making his
       way to the city, was at once sent to join Trujillo, who
       commanded a corps of observation which confronted the
       insurgents, and who finally ran the chances of a battle at Las
       Cruces. … The insurgents soon surrounded him, and he was
       only able to reach the city by breaking with a part of his
       force through the enveloping line. Hidalgo had lost 2,000 men,
       but he had gained the day. He soon intercepted a despatch and
       learned from it that General Calleja had been put in motion
       from San Luis Potosi, and it seemed more prudent to Hidalgo
       that, instead of approaching Mexico, he should retreat to be
       nearer his recruiting ground. The retrograde movement brought
       the usual result to an undisciplined force, and he was already
       weakened by desertions when Calleja struck his line of march
       at Aculco. Hidalgo felt it important for the revolution to
       have time enough to spread into other parts of the province,
       and so he merely fought Calleja to cover his further retreat.
       The rebel leader soon gathered his forces at Celaya, while
       Allende, his colleague, posted himself at Guanajuato. Here the
       latter was attacked by Calleja and routed, and the royal
       forces made bloody work in the town. Hidalgo, moving to
       Valladolid, reorganized his army, and then, proceeding to
       Guadalajara, he set up a form of government, with Ignacio
       Lopez Rayon as Secretary-general. At this time the insurgents
       held completely the provinces of Nueva Galicia, Zacatecas, and
       San Luis Potosi, a belt of country stretching from sea to sea
       in the latitude of Tampico. … In January, 1811, the signs
       were not very propitious for the royalists. … At this
       juncture … Hidalgo moved out from Guadalajara with his
       entire force, which was large enough, consisting of 60,000
       foot, 20,000 horse, and 100 cannon; but it was poorly armed,
       and without effective discipline; while Calleja commanded a
       well-equipped and well-organized force, but in extent it only
       counted 3,000 foot, with as many horse, and ten guns. At the
       bridge of Calderon, 10 or 11 leagues from the city, Hidalgo
       prepared to stand. Here Calleja attacked him," and won the
       day, entering Guadalajara as a victor on the 21st of January,
       1811. "Hidalgo fled with his broken army, and soon resigned
       the command to Allende. This general had scarcely 4,000 or
       5,000 men left when he reached Saltillo, where he joined
       Jimenes. The disheartenment of defeat was spreading through
       the country. Town after town was heard from as yielding to the
       victors. The leaders, counselling together at Saltillo,
       resolved to escape to the United States; but, as they were
       marching,—about 2,000 in all, with 24 guns and a
       money-chest,—they fell into an ambush planned in the interest
       of a counter-revolution by one Elizondo, and, with nothing
       more than a show of resistance, the party was captured, one
       and all. The judgment of death upon Hidalgo, Allende, and
       Jimenes soon followed. The main force of the insurgents had
       thus disappeared, but a small body still remained in arms
       under the lead of Jose Maria Morelos." Morelos was uneducated,
       but capable and energetic, and he kept life in the rebellion
       for two years. He captured Orizaba in October, 1812, Oajaca in
       the following month, and Acapulco in the spring of 1813. In
       November of that year he appeared before Valladolid, the
       capital of Michoacan, but was attacked there by Iturbide and
       routed. "In January, 1814, Morelos made a final stand at
       Puruaran, but Iturbide still drove him on. Disaster followed
       upon disaster, till finally Morelos was deposed by his own
       congress. This body had adherents enough to make it necessary
       for Calleja to appeal to the home government for a
       reinforcement of 8,000 troops. … Morelos, meanwhile,
       commanding an escort which was protecting the migratory
       congress, was intercepted and captured by a force of
       royalists, and, after the forms of a trial, he was executed
       December 22, 1815. The campaign of 1816 was sustained by the
       insurgents against a force of 80,000 men which Calleja had
       collected. … Neither side had much success, and the war was
       simply tedious. At last, in August, a new viceroy, Juan Riaz
       de Apodaca, succeeded to Calleja, and uniting a more humane
       policy with vigor in disposing his forces, the leading rebel
       officers … surrendered in January, 1817. … A certain
       quixotic interest is lent to the closing months of the
       revolution by the adventurous exploits of Espoz y Mina. He had
       fitted out a small expedition in the United States, which,
       landing on the Gulf coast, for a while swept victoriously
       inland. … But Mina was finally surprised and executed. Other
       vagrant rebel leaders fell one by one into the hands of the
       royalists; but Guadalupe Victoria held out, and concealed
       himself in the wilds for two years."

          J. Winsor,
          Spanish North America
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 8, chapter 4).

          ALSO IN:
          W. D. Robinson,
          Memoirs of the Mexican Revolution.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1819.
       Texas occupied as a province.

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
       Independence of Spain.
       The brief empire of Iturbide and its fall.
       Constitution of the Republic of the United Mexican States.

       "The establishment of a constitutional government in Spain, in
       1820, produced upon Mexico an effect very different from what
       was anticipated. As the constitution provided for a more
       liberal administration of government in Mexico than had
       prevailed since 1812, the increased freedom of the elections
       again threw the minds of the people into a ferment, and the
       spirit of independence, which had been only smothered, broke
       forth anew. Moreover, divisions were created among the old
       Spaniards themselves; some being in favor of the old system,
       while others were sincerely attached to the constitution. Some
       formidable inroads on the property and prerogatives of the
       church alienated the clergy from the new government, and
       induced them to desire a return to the old system.
    {2171}
       The Viceroy, Apodaca, encouraged by the hopes held out by the
       Royalists in Spain, although he had at first taken the oath to
       support the constitution, secretly favored the party opposed
       to it, and arranged his plans for its overthrow. Don Augustin
       Iturbide, the person selected by the Viceroy to make the first
       open demonstration against the existing government, was
       offered the command of a body of troops on the western coast,
       at the head of which he was to proclaim the re-establishment
       of the absolute authority of the king. Iturbide, accepting the
       commission, departed from the capital to take command of the
       troops, but with intentions very different from those which
       the Viceroy supposed him to entertain. Reflecting upon the
       state of the country, and convinced of the facility with which
       the authority of Spain might be shaken off,—by bringing the
       Creole troops to act in concert with the old insurgents,
       —Iturbide resolved to proclaim Mexico wholly independent of
       the Spanish nation. Having his head quarters at the little
       town of Iguala, on the road to Acapulco, Iturbide, on the 24th
       of February, 1821, there proclaimed his project, known as the
       'Plan of Iguala,' and induced his soldiers to take an oath to
       support it. This 'Plan' declared that Mexico should be an
       independent nation, its religion Catholic, and its government
       a constitutional monarchy. The crown was offered to Ferdinand
       VII, of Spain, provided he would consent to occupy the throne
       in person; and, in case of his refusal, to his infant
       brothers, Don Carlos and Don Francisco. A constitution was to
       be formed by a Mexican Congress; … all distinctions of caste
       were to be abolished. … The Viceroy, astonished by this
       unexpected movement of Iturbide, and remaining irresolute and
       inactive at the capital, was deposed, and Don Francisco
       Novello, a military officer, was placed at the head of the
       government; but his authority was not generally recognized,
       and Iturbide was left to pursue his plans in the interior
       without interruption. Being joined by Generals Guerrero and
       Victoria as soon as they knew that the independence of their
       country was the object of Iturbide, not only all the survivors
       of the first insurgents, but whole detachments of Creole
       troops flocked to his standard, and his success was soon
       rendered certain. The clergy and the people were equally
       decided in favor of independence; … and, before the month of
       July, the whole country recognized the authority of Iturbide,
       with the exception of the capital, in which Novello had shut
       himself up with the European troops. Iturbide had already
       reached Queretaro with his troops, on his road to Mexico, when
       he was informed of the arrival, at Vera Cruz, of a new
       Viceroy. … At Cordova, whither the Viceroy had been allowed
       to proceed, for the purpose of an interview with Iturbide, the
       latter induced him to accept by treaty the Plan of Iguala, as
       the only means of securing the lives and property of the
       Spaniards then in Mexico, and of establishing the right to the
       throne in the house of Bourbon. By this agreement, called the
       'Treaty of Cordova,' the Viceroy, in the name of the king, his
       master, recognized the independence of Mexico, and gave up the
       capital to the army of the insurgents, which took possession
       of it, without effusion of blood, on the 27th of September,
       1821. All opposition being ended, and the capital occupied, in
       accordance with a provision of the Plan of Iguala a
       provisional junta was established, the principal business of
       which was to call a congress for the formation of a
       constitution suitable to the country. At the same time a
       regency, consisting of five individuals, was elected, at the
       head of which was placed Iturbide. … When the congress
       assembled [February 24, 1822], three distinct parties were
       found amongst the members. The Bourbonists, adhering to the
       Plan of Iguala altogether, wished a constitutional monarchy,
       with a prince of the house of Bourbon at its head; the
       Republican, setting aside the Plan of Iguala, desired a
       federal republic; while a third party, the Iturbidists,
       adopting the Plan of Iguala with the exception of the article
       in favor of the Bourbons, wished to place Iturbide himself
       upon the throne. As it was soon learned that the Spanish
       government had declared the treaty of Cordova null and void,
       the Bourbonists ceased to exist as a party, and the struggle
       was confined to the Iturbidists and the Republicans." By the
       aid of a mob demonstration in the city of Mexico, on the night
       of May 18, 1822, the former triumphed, and Iturbide was
       declared emperor, under the title of Augustin the First. "The
       choice was ratified by the provinces without opposition, and
       Iturbide found himself in peaceable possession of a throne to
       which his own abilities and a concurrence of favorable
       circumstances had raised him. Had the monarch elect been
       guided by counsels of prudence, and allowed his authority to
       be confined within constitutional limits, he might perhaps
       have continued to maintain a modified authority; but
       forgetting the unstable foundation of his throne, he began his
       reign with all the airs of hereditary royalty. On his
       accession a struggle for power immediately commenced between
       him and the congress." After arbitrarily imprisoning the most
       distinguished members of that body, Iturbide, at last,
       proclaimed its dissolution and substituted a junta of his own
       nomination. "Before the end of November an insurrection broke
       out in the northern provinces, but this was speedily quelled
       by the imperial troops." It was followed in December by a more
       formidable revolt, led off by Santa Anna (or Santana), a young
       general who had supported Iturbide, but who had been haughtily
       dismissed from the government of Vera Cruz. Santa Anna was
       joined by Victoria and other old Republican leaders, and the
       power of Iturbide crumbled so rapidly that he resigned his
       crown on the 19th of March, 1823, promising to quit the
       country, on being assured a yearly allowance of $25,000 for
       his support. "With his family and suite he embarked for
       Leghorn on the 11th of May. … From Italy he proceeded to
       London, and made preparations for returning to Mexico; in
       consequence of which, congress, on the 28th of April, 1824,
       passed a decree of outlawry against him. He landed in disguise
       at Soto la Marina, July 14th, 1824; was arrested by General
       Garza, and shot at Padillo by order of the provincial congress
       of Tamaulipas, on the 19th of that month. … On the departure
       of Iturbide, a temporary executive was appointed, consisting
       of Generals Victoria, Bravo, and Negrete, by whom the
       government was administered until the meeting of a new
       congress, which assembled at the capital in August, 1823.
    {2172}
       This body immediately entered on the duties of preparing a new
       constitution, which was submitted on the 31st of January,
       1824, and definitively sanctioned on the 4th of October
       following. By this instrument, modeled somewhat after the
       constitution of the United States, the absolute independence
       of the country was declared, and the several Mexican Provinces
       were united in a Federal Republic. The legislative power was
       vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of
       Representatives. … The supreme executive authority was
       vested in one individual, styled the 'President of the United
       Mexican States.' … The third article in the constitution
       declared that 'The Religion of the Mexican Nation is, and will
       be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will
       protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of
       any other whatever.' … On the 1st of January, 1825, the
       first congress under the federal constitution assembled in the
       city of Mexico; and, at the same time, General Guadalupe
       Victoria was installed as president of the republic, and
       General Nicholas Bravo as vice-president. The years 1825 and
       1826 passed with few disturbances; the administration of
       Victoria was generally popular; and the country enjoyed a
       higher degree of prosperity than at any former or subsequent
       period."

          M. Willson,
          American History,
          book 3, part 2, chapters 4-5.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 7 (Mexico, volume 3), chapters 29-33,
          and volume 8, chapters 1-2.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
       Free-Masonry in politics.
       The rival branches of the order.
       The Escocés and the Yorkinos.

       For some years a furious contest raged between two political
       societies, "known as the 'Escocés' and 'Yorkinos'—or, as we
       should call them, Scotch Free-Masons and York
       Free-Masons—whose secret organizations were employed for
       political purposes by two rival political parties. At the time
       of the restoration of the Constitutional Government of Spain
       in 1820, Free-Masonry was introduced into Mexico; and as it
       was derived from the Scotch branch of that order, it was
       called, after the name of the people of Scotland, 'Escocés.'
       Into this institution were initiated many of the old Spaniards
       still remaining in the country, the Creole aristocracy, and
       the privileged classes—parties that could ill endure the
       elevation of a Creole colonel, Iturbide, to the Imperial
       throne. When Mr. Poinsett was sent out as Embassador to Mexico
       [1822], he carried with him the charter for a Grand Lodge from
       the American, or York order of Free-Masons in the United
       States. Into this new order the leaders of the Democratic
       party were initiated. The bitter rivalry that sprung up
       between these two branches of the Masonic body kept the
       country in a ferment for ten years, and resulted finally in
       the formation of a party whose motto was opposition to all
       secret societies, and who derived their name of Anti-Masons
       from the party of the same name then flourishing in the United
       States. When the Escocés had so far lost ground in popular
       favor as to be in the greatest apprehension from their
       prosperous but imbittered rivals, the Yorkinos, as a last
       resort, to save themselves, and to ruin the hated
       organization, they pronounced against all secret societies.
       … 'General Bravo,' Vice-President of Mexico, and leader of
       the Escocés, having issued his proclamation declaring that, as
       a last resort, he appealed to arms to rid the republic of that
       pest, secret societies, and that he would not give up the
       contest until he had rooted them out, root and branch, took up
       his position at Tulansingo—a village about 30 miles north of
       the City of Mexico. Here, at about daylight on the morning of
       the 7th January, 1828, he was assailed by General Guerrero,
       the leader of the Yorkinos, and commander of the forces of
       government.' After a slight skirmish, in which eight men were
       killed and six wounded, General Bravo and his party were made
       prisoners; and thus perished forever the party of the Escocés.
       This victory was so complete as to prove a real disaster to
       the Yorkinos. The want of outside pressure led to internal
       dissensions; so that when two of its own members, Guerrero and
       Pedraza, became rival candidates for the presidency, the
       election was determined by a resort to arms."

          R. A. Wilson,
          Mexico: its Peasants and its Priests,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 2.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.
       The rise of Santa Anna.
       Dissolution of the Federal System.
       The Unitary Republic established.
       Recognition by Spain.
       The Pastry War.
       Retrogradation and decline.

       "After the death of Iturbide, by far the most powerful person
       in the nation was the Creole general Santa Anna, who, at the
       age of 24, had already destroyed the military empire of his
       chief. Santa Anna at first interested himself in the visionary
       project of Bolivar for framing a general confederation of the
       new nations of South America.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

       This project … failed completely; and for several years he
       settled down as governor of Vera Cruz, reconciled himself to
       the Federal Republic, and took no part in public life. In
       1828, however, the Presidential election led to a civil war in
       which Santa Anna and his favourite Veracrusanos first found
       out their capabilities; and they had an opportunity of testing
       them again in the next year, when the feeble force of
       Barrados, the last military attempt made by Spain to reduce
       Mexico, was cut to pieces at Tampico. From that movement Santa
       Anna became the sole controller of the destinies of the
       country: and in 1833 he was elected President. Forty years ago
       all Europe knew the picture of Santa Anna, with his tall spare
       figure, sunburnt face, and black hair curling over his
       forehead; how he lived on his hacienda of Manga de Clavo,
       cockfighting, gambling, and horse-racing, occasionally putting
       himself at the head of his bronzed troops, and either making a
       dash at an insurrection, or making a pronunciamento on his own
       account. Mexican histories tell how gallantly he defended Vera
       Cruz in 1839, against the French invasion under Prince de
       Joinville [called 'the Pastry War,' because consequent on the
       non-payment of French claims, among which there was prominence
       given to a certain pastry-cook's claim for goods destroyed in
       the riot of a revolution at the capital in 1828]; how his leg,
       having been shattered by a ball, was buried with a solemn
       service and a funeral oration in the cemetery of Santa Paula
       in Mexico; and how, in a few years, when Santa Anna was in
       disgrace with the people, they destroyed the tomb, and kicked
       Santa Anna's limb about the streets with every mark of hatred
       and contempt. …
    {2173}
       The manifold difficulties of government in Mexico sufficiently
       attested the weakness of the Federal constitution; and in
       1835, after a trial of eleven years, the state governments
       were dissolved, and the Republic, one and indivisible, set up
       for a time in their place. There was now to be a President,
       elected by an indirect vote for eight years, a Senate, and a
       House of Deputies, both elected by a direct popular vote, and
       an elective Supreme Court. Santa Anna, who was identified with
       the Unitary principle, was re-elected three times; so that
       with some intermission he governed Mexico for 20 years. The
       dissolution of the Federal government naturally strengthened
       the hands of Santa Anna; and in 1836 Mexico was for the first
       time recognized by Spain. But the unitary republic was a time
       of disaster and disgrace; and from the point of view of
       progress it was a period of reaction. … Europe looked
       forward, almost without jealousy, to the time when the great
       nation of North America would absorb this people of
       half-civilized Indians mixed with degenerate Spaniards. Events
       which now happened greatly strengthened this impression."

          E. J. Payne,
          History of European Colonies,
          chapter 20, sections 6-7.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.
       The Abolition of Slavery.

       "The general affairs of the country in the second half of 1829
       were in a chaotic state. Disorganization fettered every branch
       of the government. … And yet, amidst its constant struggle,
       Guerrero's administration decreed several progressive
       measures, the most important of which was the abolition of
       slavery. African slavery had indeed been reduced to narrow
       limits. The Dominican provincial of Chiapas, Father Matias
       Cordoba, gave freedom to the slaves on the estates of his
       order. On the 16th of September, 1825, President Victoria had
       liberated in the country's name the slaves purchased with a
       certain fund collected for that purpose, as well as those
       given up by their owners to the patriotic junta. The general
       abolition, however, was not actually carried out for some
       time, certain difficulties having arisen; and several states,
       among which was Zacatecas, had decreed the freedom of slaves
       before the general government arrived at a final conclusion on
       the subject. As a matter of fact, the few remaining slaves
       were in domestic service, and treated more like members of
       families than as actual chattels. At last Deputy Tornel,
       taking advantage of the time when Guerrero was invested with
       extraordinary powers, drew up and laid before him a decree for
       total abolition. It was signed September 15, 1829, and
       proclaimed the next day, the national anniversary. The law met
       with no demur save from Coahuila and Texas, in which state
       were about 1,000 slaves, whose manumission would cost heavily,
       as the owners held them at a high valuation. It seems that the
       law was not fully enforced; for on the 5th of April, 1837,
       another was promulgated, declaring slavery abolished without
       exception and with compensation to the owners."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 4.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1845.
       The Annexation of Texas to the United States.

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
       The American aggression which precipitated war.

       "Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as her western limit, though
       she had never exercised actual control over either New Mexico
       or the country lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.
       The groundless character of the claims of Texas to the Rio
       Grande as its western boundary was even admitted by some
       friends of the measure. … Silas Wright, … referring to the
       boundaries of Texas, declared that 'they embraced a country to
       which Texas had no claims, over which she had never asserted
       jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede.' Mr. Benton
       denounced the treaty [of annexation and cession of territory]
       as an attempt to seize 2,000 square miles of Mexican territory
       by the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte,
       which would be an act of direct aggression. … In ordering,
       therefore, General Taylor to pass a portion of his forces
       westward of the river Nueces, which was done before annexation
       was accomplished, President Polk put in peril the peace and
       the good name of the country. In his Annual Message of
       December of that year [1845] he stated that American troops
       were in position on the Nueces, 'to defend our own and the
       rights of Texas.' But, not content with occupying ground on
       and westward of the Nueces, he issued, on the 13th of January,
       1846, the fatal order to General Taylor to advance and 'occupy
       positions on or near the left bank of the Rio del Norte.' That
       movement of the army from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, a
       distance of more than 100 miles, was an invasion of Mexican
       territory,—an act of war for which the President was and must
       ever be held responsible by the general judgment of mankind."

          H. Wilson,
          History of the Rise and Fall
          of the Slave Power in America,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          T. H. Benton,
          Thirty Years' View,
          volume 2, chapter 149.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
       The American conquest of California.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
       War with the United States.
       The first movements of American invasion.
       Palo Alto.
       Resaca de la Palma.
       Monterey.
       Buena Vista.
       Fremont in California.

       "The annexation of Texas accomplished [see TEXAS: A. D.
       1824-1836, and 1836-1845], General Taylor, the United States
       commander in the Southwest, received orders to advance to the
       Rio Grande. Such was the impoverished and distracted condition
       of Mexico that she apparently contemplated no retaliation for
       the injury she had sustained, and, had the American army
       remained at the Nueces, a conflict might perhaps have been
       avoided. But, on Taylor's approaching the Rio Grande, a combat
       ensued [May 8, 1846] at Palo Alto with Arista, the Mexican
       commander, who crossed over that stream. It ended in the
       defeat of the Mexicans, and the next day another engagement
       took place at Resaca de la Palma, with the same result. These
       actions eventually assumed considerable political importance.
       They were among the causes of General Taylor's subsequent
       elevation to the Presidency. As soon as intelligence of what
       had occurred reached Washington, President Polk, forgetting
       that the author of a war is not he who begins it, but he who
       has made it necessary, addressed a special message to Congress
       announcing that the Mexicans 'had at last invaded our
       territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our
       own soil.' Congress at once (May 13th, 1846) passed an act
       providing money and men.
    {2174}
       Its preamble stated, 'Whereas, by the act of the Republic of
       Mexico, a state of war exists between that country and the
       United States, be it enacted,' etc. As long previously as
       1843, Mr. Bocanegra, the Mexican Minister of Foreign
       Relations, had formally notified the American government that
       the annexation of Texas would inevitably lead to war. General
       Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, in a note to Mr.
       Upshur, the Secretary of State, said that, 'in the name of his
       nation, and now for them, he protests, in the most solemn
       manner, against such an aggression; and he moreover declares,
       by express order of his government, that, on sanction being
       given by the executive of the Union to the incorporation of
       Texas into the United States, he will consider his mission
       ended, seeing that, as the Secretary of State will have
       learned, the Mexican government is resolved to declare war as
       soon as it receives intimation of such an act.' War being thus
       provoked by the American government, General Scott received
       orders (November 18th, 1846) to take command of the expedition
       intended for the invasion of Mexico."

          J. W. Draper,
          History of the American Civil War,
          chapter 23 (volume 1).

       After his defeat at Resaca de la Palma, the Mexican general
       Arista "retreated in the direction of San Luis Potosi, and was
       superseded by General Pedro Ampudia. General Taylor marched
       his forces across the Rio Grande on the 17th of May and the
       invasion of Mexico was begun in earnest. From the 21st to the
       24th of September, he was engaged with 7,000 men in the attack
       upon Monterey, the capital of Nueva Leon, garrisoned by a
       force of 9,000. He met with the same success which had
       attended his former engagements. General Ampudia was also
       forced to retire to San Luis Potosi. The brilliant features of
       this attack were the assault upon Obispado Viejo by General
       Worth on the first day of the fight, and the storming of the
       heights above on the following day. … Upon the defeat of
       Ampudia, Santa Anna, having then just attained to the chief
       magistracy of Mexico [the American blockading squadron at Vera
       Cruz had permitted him to return to the country, expecting
       that his presence would be advantageous to the invaders], and
       left it in the hands of his Vice-President, Gomez Farias, took
       the command of the Mexican forces and set out to check the
       advance of General Taylor. On the 23d of February, 1847, the
       bloody battle of Angostura, as it is called by the Mexicans
       (known to the Americans as the battle of Buena Vista), was
       fought, and lost by the Mexican army. Santa Anna returned to
       San Luis Potosi, whence he was called to the capital to head
       off the insurrection against Gomez Farias, by the party called
       derisively the Polkos, because their insurrection at that time
       was clearly favorable to the movements of the American army,
       and because James K. Polk was then the President of the United
       States and head of the American party favorable to the war. It
       was at this time that the army of Taylor was reduced to about
       5,000 men in order to supply General Winfield Scott with
       forces to carry out his military operations, and the field of
       war was transferred to the region between Vera Cruz and the
       capital. While these events were in progress an expedition
       under General John C. Fremont had been made over-land through
       New Mexico and into California [see CALIFORNIA: A. D.
       1846-1847; and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], and under the
       directions of the United States government the Mexicans of
       California had been incited to revolt."

           A. H. Noll,
           Short History of Mexico,
           chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Von Holst,
          Constitutional and Political History of the U. S.,
          volume 3, chapters 4-9.

          H. O. Ladd,
          History of the War with Mexico,
          chapters 4-8.

          E. D. Mansfield,
          History of the Mexican War,
          chapters 2-4 and 8.

          O. O. Howard,
          General Taylor,
          chapters 8-19.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (March-September).
       General Scott's campaign.
       From Vera Cruz to the capital.
       Cerro Gordo.
       Contreras.
       Churubusco.
       Molino del Rey.
       Chapultepec.
       The conquest complete.

       "General Winfield Scott was ordered to Mexico, to take chief
       command and conduct the war according to his own plan. This
       was, in brief, to carry an expedition against Vera Cruz,
       reduce its defences, and then march on the city of Mexico by
       the shortest route. … On the 7th of March [1847], the fleet
       with Scott's army came to anchor a few miles south of Vera
       Cruz, and two days later he landed his whole force—nearly
       12,000 men—by means of surf-boats. Vera Cruz was a city of
       7,000 inhabitants, strongly fortified. … On the 22d the
       investment was complete. A summons to surrender being refused,
       the batteries opened, and the bombardment was kept up for four
       days, the small war vessels joining in it. The Mexican
       batteries and the castle [of San Juan de Ulloa, on a reef in
       the harbor] replied with spirit, and with some little effect;
       but the city and castle were surrendered on the 27th. The want
       of draught animals and wagons delayed till the middle of April
       the march upon the capital of the country, 200 miles distant.
       The first obstacle was found at Cerro Gordo, 50 miles
       northwest of Vera Cruz, where the Mexicans had taken position
       on the heights around a rugged mountain pass, with a battery
       commanding every turn of the road. A way was found to flank
       the position on the extreme left, and on the morning of April
       18th the Americans attacked in three columns. … The
       divisions of Twiggs and Worth … attacked the height of Cerro
       Gordo, where the Mexicans were most strongly intrenched, and
       where Santa Anna commanded in person. This being carried by
       storm, its guns were turned first upon the retreating
       Mexicans, and then upon the advanced position that Pillow was
       assaulting in front. The Mexicans, finding themselves
       surrounded, soon surrendered. Santa Anna, with the remainder
       of his troops, fled toward Jalapa, where Scott followed him
       and took the place."

          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          Popular History of the United States,
          volume 4, chapter 14.

       "Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the
       American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at
       Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and
       drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out
       for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000
       troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on
       the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras,
       Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one
       general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with
       stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were
       completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached
       almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas
       P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with
       the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on
       the 23d of August.
    {2175}
       The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake,
       the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and
       20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to
       recover from the demoralization which had followed their
       defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the
       enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements
       and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which
       barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and
       Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of
       September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had
       failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining
       works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th
       Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up
       with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del
       Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the
       Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the
       field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the
       final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made
       of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the
       12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a
       simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops
       storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the
       works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army
       followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé,
       fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle
       continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate
       defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city
       council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of
       capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth
       and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up
       for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured
       possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the
       occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The
       principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties
       collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took
       place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a
       guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General
       Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been
       already completed."

          J. R. Soley,
          The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 7, chapter 6).

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20.

          General W. Scott,
          Memoirs, by himself,
          chapters 27-32 (volume 2.)

          President's Message and Documents,
          December 7, 1847
          (Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session).

    MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
       The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
       Territory ceded to the United States.

       "The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies
       of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was
       favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused
       this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General
       Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the
       Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the
       constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride
       … bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies
       assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of
       a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with
       Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to
       assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the
       United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The
       lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented
       immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the
       8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected
       Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under
       the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a
       spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy
       issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the
       boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not
       longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the
       right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous
       offer of money by the United States for the cession of New
       Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d
       of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and
       signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
       … The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the
       United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United
       States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000
       for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed
       the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United
       States against Mexico for damages, which the United States
       agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line
       was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf
       of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del
       Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where
       it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward
       along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to
       its western termination; thence northward along the western
       line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the
       river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it
       empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line
       between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one
       marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of
       June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of
       Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's
       administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with
       Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of
       indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were
       equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico,
       embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The
       area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United
       States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of
       Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also
       yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520
       square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591
       square miles of territory was one of the direct results of
       this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to
       conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region
       of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order
       adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the
       United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has
       been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of
       New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees
       of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio
       Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of
       sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States.
       … The mineral resources of the conquered territory,
       including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado,
       Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that
       their value is beyond computation."

          H. O. Ladd,
          History of the War with Mexico,
          chapters 30-31.

          ALSO IN:
          Treaties and Conventions between the United States
          and other Countries (edition of 1889),
          pages 681-694.

    {2176}

    MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
       The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform.
       The new Constitution.
       The government of Juarez and
       the Nationalization of Church property.

       "For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American
       army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed
       only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In
       June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the
       opening of the war with the United States) took possession of
       the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory
       of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without
       disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly
       reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for
       the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano
       Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession
       of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and
       economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could
       not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet
       merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some
       military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the
       government. They commenced again the old system of
       'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province
       distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining
       such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they
       were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into
       the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office
       and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years
       later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of
       Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in
       power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than
       General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the
       successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America,
       Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced
       at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench
       himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December,
       1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him
       perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the
       country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary
       centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful
       leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after
       repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the
       capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly
       left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera
       Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St.
       Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing
       for a return to power in Mexico."

          F. A. Ober,
          Young Folks' History of Mexico,
          chapter 33.

       "Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the
       capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution
       assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega
       acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. …
       By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was
       elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of
       August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month,
       when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo
       Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort,
       known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and
       under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the
       country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and
       order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in
       Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad
       interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named
       Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he
       transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the
       12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon
       the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made
       actual president by a large majority in the popular election
       held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of
       December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable
       rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning
       of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun
       his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again
       broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was
       occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them
       joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of
       16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla
       and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in
       October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by
       Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in
       suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis
       Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas
       Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between
       the Church and the government, so long threatened, was
       precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the
       sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at
       its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds,
       but the land was to become thereby freed from all
       ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy
       centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the
       president sent troops to take possession of the place, and
       finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked
       an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the
       Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present
       Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as
       Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its
       provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days
       after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the
       oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing
       that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and
       claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution
       impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution
       aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the
       President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the
       supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution
       upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort
       fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were
       seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a
       half recognized government.
    {2177}
       "Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in
       connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the
       presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the
       President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was
       held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became
       president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of
       the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which
       gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies
       and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the
       Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to
       say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching
       power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion
       of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform'
       had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is
       thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man
       Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of
       Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not
       a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the
       flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or
       means to establish his government. Being driven out of the
       capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of
       the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz.
       There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional
       government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected
       at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the
       knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the
       Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859,
       Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing
       his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or
       more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was
       enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival
       governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at
       Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of
       December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave
       the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of
       Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of
       his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the
       27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be
       executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were
       closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious
       orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that
       from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured
       $20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving
       any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate
       another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country
       was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from
       Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church,
       was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years
       payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time
       amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements,
       and was divided up between England, Spain, and France.
       England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was
       comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been
       founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French
       claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the
       decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three
       creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with
       Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a
       plan which had for some time occupied his mind."

          A. H. Noll,
          Short History of Mexico,
          chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,
          and volume 9 (6), chapter 1.

          See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1853.
       Sale of Arizona to the United States.
       The Gadsden Treaty.

          See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
       The French intervention.
       Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.

       The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint
       undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed
       object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on
       October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican
       authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and
       properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well
       as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their
       Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who
       had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this
       time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in
       exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the
       extent to which the intervention of England would go. England
       would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of
       seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the
       foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would
       have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or
       imposing any European system on the Mexican people.
       Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the
       contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition
       of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in
       the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to
       prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to
       constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of
       the French, however, had already made up his mind that he
       would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had
       long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind
       concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of
       Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the
       very time when he signed the convention with the pledge
       contained in its second article, he had already been making
       arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have
       ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its
       head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been
       too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke
       Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the
       crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The
       Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently
       wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some
       hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint
       expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle
       ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first
       instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced
       immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the
       command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to
       find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much
       suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims
       set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims
       were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule
       as our own Pacifico claims had been.
    {2178}
       A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former
       Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that
       Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.
       The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez
       came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for
       $15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He
       offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest,
       but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the
       sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a
       subject of France, and the French Government took up his
       claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had
       resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the
       French Government became evident to the English and Spanish
       Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the
       Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild
       road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of
       Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and
       desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th
       of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the
       capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as
       Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire.
       Against all this the United States Government protested from
       time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing
       just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied
       that the United States were going to pieces, and that the
       Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received
       the protests of the American Government with unveiled
       indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The
       Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee
       surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United
       States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American
       Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be
       inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw
       his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American
       troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success,
       was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was
       nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. …
       The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last
       of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian
       endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself
       against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all
       the courage which might have been expected from his race, and
       from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for
       himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a
       French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted
       his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this
       monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army,
       taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the
       invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The
       Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done
       to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn,
       was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned
       and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of
       this Mexican failure."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 44.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14.

          H. M. Flint,
          Mexico under Maximilian.

          F. Salm-Balm,
          My Diary in Mexico (1867).

          S. Schroeder,
          The Fall of Maximilian's Empire.

          Count E. de Keratry,
          The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian.

          J. M. Taylor,
          Maximilian and Carlotta.

          U. R. Burke,
          Life of Benito Juarez.

    MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892.
       The restored Republic.

       "On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into
       the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched
       gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now
       emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of
       their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine
       acclamations by the populace, while high society remained
       within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took
       pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the
       Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general
       election established Juarez as President, and order and
       progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of
       the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt
       to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without
       difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many
       opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of
       election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply
       divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly
       contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of
       Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of
       the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military
       glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who
       had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the
       Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,
       minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,
       a man of great strength of character and capacity for
       government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the
       country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were
       triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was
       re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the
       ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties
       combined, and civil war began again. Government defended
       itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the
       popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during
       a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still
       undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for
       the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don
       Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme
       Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the
       late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace
       reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards
       the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …
       Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those
       fatal propositions for change which have always spread like
       wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the
       Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had
       apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio
       Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.
       … During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,
       in the midst of which the election took place for the choice
       of President for another term of four years.
    {2179}
       The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so
       unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,
       on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a
       few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,
       Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended
       the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the
       expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General
       Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was
       proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of
       fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,
       1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until
       November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate
       his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although
       this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of
       his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on
       the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in
       the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over
       his office to his legally elected successor. … The
       administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years
       without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term
       General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,
       1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic
       without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his
       government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done
       much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

          S. Hale,
          The Story of Mexico,
          chapter 41-42.

       "At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one
       railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running
       in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers
       (about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines
       in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000
       kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which
       aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his …
       message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is
       gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the
       financial situation of the republic continues to improve. …
       Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect
       $9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The
       revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past
       twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are
       estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of
       President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one
       of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations
       are being made in favor of another term."

          W. Butler,
          Mexico in Transition,
          pages 284-287.

       President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began
       December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19.

       ----------MEXICO: End----------

    MIAMIS, The.
       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
       ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

    MICESLAUS I.,
       King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.

       Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.

       Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.

    MICHAEL
       The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.

       Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.

       Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.

       Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.

       Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.

       Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.

       Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.

       Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.

       Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;
       Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

       Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.

       ----------MICHIGAN: Start----------

    MICHIGAN:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680.
       Traversed by La Salle.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701.
       The founding of the French post at Detroit.

          See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760.
       The surrender to the English.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
       Cession to Great Britain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
       The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764.
       Pontiac's War.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774.
       Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.
       Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.
       Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786.
       Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
       and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.
       The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
       Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805.
       Detached from Indiana Territory and
       distinctly named and organized.

          See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811.
       Tecumseh and his League.
       Battle of Tippecanoe.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812.
       The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory
       to the British arms by General Hull.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813.
       Recovery by the Americans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813,
          HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817.
       The founding of the University of Michigan.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836.
       Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi,
       and then beyond.

          See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
       Admission into the Union as a State.
       Settlement of Boundaries.

       A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which
       the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the
       Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of
       Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the
       two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,
       but primarily upon the great
       Ordinance of 1787.
    {2180}
       It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of
       territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,
       embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of
       Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan
       began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an
       enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,
       1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,
       demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth
       article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries
       sought being those established by the article in question.
       That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed
       territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,
       President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special
       message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the
       quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering
       Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is
       to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the
       supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,
       protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an
       outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with
       the north peninsula, and was separated from it by
       insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,
       while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed
       out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in
       making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions
       precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In
       September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole
       purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on
       the ground that congress had no right to annex such a
       condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second
       convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December
       following, and congress at once accepted this decision as
       final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,
       January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she
       possesses to-day."

          R. G. Thwaites,
          The Boundaries of Wisconsin
          (Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
          volume 11, pages 456-460).

          ALSO IN:
          B. A. Hinsdale,
          The Old Northwest,
          chapter 17.

    MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854.
       Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

       ----------MICHIGAN: End----------

       ----------MICHIGAN, Lake: Start----------

    MICHIGAN, Lake:
       The Discovery.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    MICHIGAN, Lake:
       Navigated by La Salle.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

       ----------MICHIGAN, Lake: End----------

    MICHIGANIA,
        The proposed State of.

           See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

    MICHILLIMACKINAC.

        See MACKINAW.

    MICHMASH, War of.

       One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this
       name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash
       and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

          I. Samuel XIV.

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 21 (volume 2).

    MICKLEGARTH.

       "Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of
       Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits,
       to Byzantium, the New Rome.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

       The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE]
       which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was,
       when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian
       world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town
       of towns,' of the northern legends."

          R. W. Church,
          The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 6.

    MICMACS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.

    MIDDLE AGES.

       "The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed
       between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the
       great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion
       of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era
       [see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the
       Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

          V. Duruy,
          History of the Middle Ages, author's preface.

       "It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages;
       … though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in
       a general point of view, to constitute that period."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages, preface to first edition.

       "We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476
       A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the
       beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman
       Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the
       whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select
       any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best
       for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval
       history we find no such general agreement as to the specific
       date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one
       author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
       through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for
       another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,
       the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is
       in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the
       extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end
       at different dates in the different lines of
       advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than
       upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,
       as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an
       especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself
       primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient
       or modern history, the additions which were made during the
       middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and
       unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the
       most important of them fall within the last part of the
       period, and they are really indications that the age is
       drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.
       Progress, however much there may have been, is not its
       distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of
       this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very
       barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark
       ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are
       a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or
       to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,
       unless there can be found running through all its confusion
       some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and
       organization. … Most certainly there must be some such
       general meaning of the age.
    {2181}
       The orderly and regular progress of history makes it
       impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning
       can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is
       the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem
       so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general
       meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work
       which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who
       had taken possession of the ancient world and become
       everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment
       and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of
       civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and
       go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of
       the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be
       added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the
       enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and
       vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this
       union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous
       Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of
       time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

          G. B. Adams,
          Civilization During the Middle Ages,
          introduction.

       "We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of
       the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must
       deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity
       when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building
       age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era.
       Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the
       happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of
       1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles,
       reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all
       men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful
       buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In
       presence of this manifestation of free and productive
       intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and
       utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the
       expressive and constructive force of the spirit of
       Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we
       examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the
       conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a
       sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient
       Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of
       our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its
       flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom
       the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the
       Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the
       first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen
       masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor
       in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a
       third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their
       territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of
       intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a
       universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world.
       Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain
       after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the
       term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects
       the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the
       Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is
       perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these
       questions, that the instinct of our physical science and
       naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and
       democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is
       essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages,
       regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the
       Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine
       though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in
       Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

          B. Bosanquet,
          The Civilization of Christendom,
          chapter 3.

       "'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really
       forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I
       have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he
       came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages
       of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody
       allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what
       do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally
       used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in
       a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I
       could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I
       was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the
       sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to
       remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. …
       Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark
       to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind
       the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from
       shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that
       we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see
       what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree
       of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as
       to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in
       them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal
       exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what
       are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew
       nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we
       deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence;
       but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they
       were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

          S. R. Maitland,
          The Dark Ages,
          introduction.

       "In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that
       which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay
       dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was
       woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through
       which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues.
       Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race,
       people, party, family, or corporation—only through some
       general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an
       objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all
       the things of this world became possible. The subjective side
       at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis;
       man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as
       such."

          J. Burckhardt,
          The Renaissance in Italy,
          part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          See, also,
          EUROPE (page 1010-1048):
          EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;
          LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;
          MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;
          MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

    MIDDLEBURG:
       Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

    MIDDLESEX, Origin of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

    {2182}

    MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.

    MIDIANITES, The.

       "The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the
       tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was
       extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the
       Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 15 (volume 1).

    MIGDOL.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

    MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

    MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

    MIKADO.

       "Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows
       the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan
       itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese
       have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such
       alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or
       Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.'
       His designation in the official translations of modern public
       documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the
       word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the
       current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a
       'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. …
       The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's
       Court as well as the monarch himself."

          B. H. Chamberlain,
          Things Japanese,
          page 229.

    MIKASUKIS, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    MILAN, King, Abdication of.

       See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

       ----------MILAN: Start--------

    MILAN: B. C. 223-222.
       The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).
       Taken by the Romans.

          See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    MILAN: A. D. 268.
       Aureolus besieged.

       During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor
       Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader,
       Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to
       place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle
       fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that
       city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege
       a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and
       he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier
       Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted
       it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was
       forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 11.

    MILAN: A. D. 286.
       The Roman imperial court.

       "Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who
       fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the
       provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian]
       was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation,
       at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than
       that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the
       motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the
       splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as
       numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished
       and liberal."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 13.

    MILAN: A. D. 313.
       Constantine's Edict of Toleration.

          See ROME: A. D. 313.

    MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
       The Ambrosian Church.

       The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly
       originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their
       Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner
       constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and
       splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and
       his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and
       pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by
       St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief
       aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from
       all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to
       397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as
       a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such
       was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior
       dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the
       Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose
       a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated
       by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those
       which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To
       the singing in divine service, which was then artless and
       rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies
       still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation
       of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the
       Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the
       grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of
       worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards
       becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through
       the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was
       brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint.
       … St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and
       hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most
       sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar
       and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that
       his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion
       prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes,
       ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

          G. B. Testa,
          History of the War of Frederick I.
          against the Communes of Lombardy,
          pages 23-24.

    MILAN: A. D. 404.
       Removal of the Imperial Court.

          See ROME: A. D.404-408.

    MILAN: A. D. 452.
       Capture by the Huns.

          See HUNS: A. D. 452.

    MILAN: A. D. 539.
       Destroyed by the Goths.

       When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of
       Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D.
       538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city,
       hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It
       was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to
       the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths
       appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians
       who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius
       despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals
       in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly
       resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of
       starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance
       was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if
       the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to
       300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the
       Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services.
       The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time
       that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of
       Lombardy."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and her Invaders,
          book 5, chapter 11.

          See, also, ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    {2183}

       "The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the
       destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and
       opulence."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 41.

    MILAN: 11th Century.
       Acquisition of Republican independence.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

    MILAN: A. D. 1162.
       Total destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

    MILAN: A. D. 1167.
       The rebuilding of the city.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

    MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
       The rise and the reign of the Visconti.
       Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy.
       The downfall of their House.

       "The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of
       the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General
       of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop
       of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of
       his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his
       relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his
       nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and
       by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed
       the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent
       Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded
       in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A.
       D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son
       Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft,
       and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a
       general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more
       cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as
       became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce
       enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less
       fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The
       Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion
       of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330],
       and only released him at the intercession of his friend
       Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing
       tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office
       delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo]
       bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar,
       from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was
       thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to
       fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which
       he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he
       consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in
       1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in
       1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was
       poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a
       general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and
       made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left
       sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was
       succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande
       and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was
       one of the most notable characters of the 14th century.
       Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to
       the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong
       enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to
       the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having
       established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the
       north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona,
       Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop
       Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti.
       They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della
       Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made
       sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide
       extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on
       force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged;
       and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal
       houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons
       were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left
       three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of
       the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo.
       Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of
       Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be
       ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way
       by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at
       Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter
       married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward
       III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France.
       "Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion
       of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was
       able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of
       treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of
       his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with
       this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter
       in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the
       Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of
       Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino,
       the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona,
       the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi,
       the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled
       at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while
       the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian
       Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala
       dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial
       authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline
       general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of
       the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished
       the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before
       approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house
       began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest;
       of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in
       1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of
       these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards
       fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of
       Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara
       family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the
       Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall.
    {2184}
       He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation
       of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his
       territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year
       possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was
       then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had
       committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the
       Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of
       Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian
       Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues
       of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of
       Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their
       ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole
       of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His
       next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa
       had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish
       policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would
       profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the
       Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their
       head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and
       then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the
       Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague
       came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of
       Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he
       was now able to take possession of those cities. There
       remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence
       and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to
       withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D.
       1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed
       to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole
       of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of
       independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with
       fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged
       55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The
       generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such
       portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily
       acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to
       pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see
       ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained
       (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the
       death of the last of them, in 1447.

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
          chapter 2.

       "At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's]
       informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor
       Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged
       duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually
       gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all
       the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had
       formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia
       indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate
       being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy
       granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both
       sides of the lake of Garda."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 4.

          G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym),
          History of Italy,
          chapters 4-5 (volume 1).

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2).

    MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391.
       Wars with Florence and with the Pope.
       Dealings with the Free Companies.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

    MILAN: A. D. 1422.
       The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the Duke.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

    MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
       Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti.
       The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza.
       War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples,
       Savoy, and other states.

       John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a
       daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of
       the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke
       of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage
       contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that,
       upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the
       duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine
       and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year
       1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of
       Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession.
       Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on
       the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti.
       Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will
       made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that,
       upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti,
       the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be
       re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with
       the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the
       Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master,
       and established a republican form of government. But during
       the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which
       they contended was seized by one from whom none of them
       apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of
       Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated
       from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and
       powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his
       father in the command of the adventurers who followed his
       standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of
       Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a
       title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he
       supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on
       the ducal throne."

          W. Robertson,
          History of Charles the Fifth:
          View of the Progress of Society,
          section 3.

       "Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by
       treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century
       the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny,
       was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered
       its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the
       formation of a political system which, however great its
       weakness, was the most reasonable under existing
       circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de'
       Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had
       recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a
       close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose
       between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative:
       either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the
       Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy.
       In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally
       on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote
       in Sforza's favour. …
    {2185}
       Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to
       maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan,
       which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against
       the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed.
       And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city
       which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself
       with Florentine money till he had established his position and
       re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and
       Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to
       one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and
       defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and
       Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and,
       four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the
       Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V.,
       successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to
       prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than
       all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453,
       Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened,
       more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy
       possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent
       Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9,
       1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with
       Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence,
       Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The
       king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not
       ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The
       States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an
       alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."

          A. von Reumont,
          Lorenzo de' Medici,
          book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. P. Urquhart,
          Life and Times of Francesco Sforza.

          A. M. F. Robinson,
          The End of the Middle Ages: Valentine Visconti.

          The French Claim to Milan.

    MILAN: A. D. 1464.
       Renewed surrender of Genoa to the Duke.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

    MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496.
       The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor.
       His invitation to Charles VIII. of France.
       The French invasion of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

    MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500.
       Conquest by Louis XII. of France.
       His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

    MILAN: A. D. 1501.
       Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke,
       by the Emperor Maximilian.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

    MILAN: A. D. 1512.
       Expulsion of the French and restoration of the Sforzas.

       Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their
       struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope
       Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold
       their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France,
       and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem
       possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile
       state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time
       grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the
       proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano
       Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project
       the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the
       cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining
       in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword.
       The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely
       galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest
       difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved
       none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of
       Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the
       year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan,
       with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part
       of the people."

          Sir R. Comyn,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapter 37 (volume 2).

    MILAN: A. D. 1515.
       French reconquest by Francis I.
       Final overthrow of the Sforzas.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

    MILAN: A. D. 1517.
       Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

    MILAN: A. D. 1521-1522.
       The French again expelled.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

    MILAN: A. D. 1524-1525.
       Recaptured and lost again by Francis I. of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

    MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529.
       Renewed attack of the French king.
       Its disastrous end.
       Renunciation of the French claim.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    MILAN: A. D. 1544.
       Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.
       The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    MILAN: A. D. 1635-1638.
       Invasion of the duchy by French and Italian armies.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

    MILAN: A. D. 1713.
       Cession of the duchy to Austria.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    MILAN: A. D. 1745.
       Occupied by the Spaniards and French.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

    MILAN: A. D. 1746.
       Recovered by the Austrians.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

    MILAN: A. D. 1749-1792.
       Under Austrian rule after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

    MILAN: A. D. 1796.
       Occupation by the French.
       Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    MILAN: A. D. 1799.
       Evacuation by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

    MILAN: A. D. 1800.
       Recovery by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    MILAN: A. D. 1805.
       Coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    MILAN: A. D. 1807-1808.
       Napoleon's adornment of the city and its cathedral.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

    MILAN: A. D. 1814-1815.
       Restored to Austria.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
          and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Insurrection.
       Expulsion of the Austrians.
       Failure of the struggle.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    MILAN: A. D. 1859.
       Liberation from the Austrians.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

       ----------MILAN: End----------

    MILAN DECREE, The.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
       also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

    MILANESE,
    MILANESS, The.

       The district or duchy of Milan.

    MILESIANS, Irish.

       In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came
       from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races
       which colonized Ireland.

          T. Wright,
          History of Ireland,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

       ----------MILETUS: Start----------

    {2186}

    MILETUS.

       Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern
       extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest
       anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and
       Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic
       families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city
       anew.

          See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

       True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her
       rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other
       rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished.
       Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of
       wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated
       tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large
       multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in
       an increasing measure to demand importation from without of
       all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.

          See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

       In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary
       to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade
       even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the
       so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book. 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

       Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian
       enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the
       Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the
       Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at
       Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the
       Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they
       were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when
       that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt
       failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.

          See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

       Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by
       Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was
       destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not
       been identified with certainty;

    MILETUS: B. C. 412.
       Revolt from Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

       ----------MILETUS: End----------

    MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

       See HOSPITALLERS;
       TEMPLARS;
       TEUTONIC KNIGHTS;
       and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.

    MILL SPRING, Battle of.

        See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
        A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

    MILLENIAL YEAR, The.

       "It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was
       a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in
       the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been
       subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi,
       and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be
       still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the
       tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world,
       however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle
       age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of
       Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of
       Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."

          R. Flint,
          History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
          pages 101-102.

    MILOSCH OBRENOVITCH, The career of.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

    MILTIADES:
       Victory at Marathon.
       Condemnation and death.

          See GREECE: B. C. 490;
          also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490, and B. C. 489-480.

    MILVIAN BRIDGE, Battle of the (B. C. 78).

          See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

    MIMS, Fort, The massacre at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    MINA.

          See TALENT;
          also, SHEKEL.

    MINCIO, Battle of the.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

    MINDEN, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

    MINE RUN MOVEMENT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    MING DYNASTY, The.

          See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE, &c.;
          and 1294-1882.

    MINGELSHEIM, Battle of (1622).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

    MINGOES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MINGOES.

    MINIMS.

       "Of the orders which arose in the 15th century, the most
       remarkable was that of Eremites [Hermits] of St. Francis, or
       Minims, founded … by St. Francis of Paola, and approved by
       Sixtus IV. in 1474." St. Francis, a Minorite friar of
       Calabria, was one of the devotees whom Louis XI. of France
       gathered about himself during his last days, in the hope that
       their intercessions might prolong his life. To propitiate him,
       Louis "founded convents at Plessis and at Amboise for the new
       religious society, the members of which, not content with the
       name of Minorites, desired to signify their profession of
       utter insignificance by styling themselves Minims."

          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 8, pages 369 and 224.

    MINISTRY.
    MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT, The English.

          See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

    MINNE.

          See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

       ----------MINNESOTA: Start--------

    MINNESOTA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    MINNESOTA: A. D. 1803.
       Part of the state, west of the Mississippi,
       acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    MINNESOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
       Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then to Iowa.

          See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

    MINNESOTA: A. D. 1849-1858.
       Territorial and State organizations.

       Minnesota was organized as a Territory in 1849, and admitted
       to the Union as a State in 1858.

       ----------MINNESOTA: End--------

    MINNETAREES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

       ----------MINORCA: Start----------

    MINORCA: 13th Century.
       Conquest by King James of Aragon.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

    {2187}

    MINORCA: A. D. 1708.
       Acquisition by England.

       In 1708, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Port Mahon,
       and the whole island of Minorca, were taken by an English
       expedition from Barcelona, under General Stanhope, who
       afterwards received a title from his conquest, becoming
       Viscount Stanhope of Mahon. Port Mahon was then considered the
       best harbor in the Mediterranean and its importance to England
       was rated above that of Gibraltar.

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 10.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

       At the Peace of Utrecht Minorca was ceded to Great Britain and
       remained under the British flag during the greater part of the
       18th century.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
       Taken by the French.

       At the outbreak of the Seven Years War, in 1756, there was
       great dread in England of an immediate French invasion; and
       "the Government so thoroughly lost heart as to request the
       King to garrison England with Hanoverian troops. This dread
       was kept alive by a simulated collection of French troops in
       the north. But, under cover of this threat, a fleet was being
       collected at Toulon, with the real design of capturing
       Minorca. The ministry were at last roused to this danger, and
       Byng was despatched with ten sail of the line to prevent it.
       Three days after he set sail the Duke de Richelieu, with
       16,000 men, slipped across into the island, and compelled
       General Blakeney, who was somewhat old and infirm, to withdraw
       into the castle of St. Philip, which was at once besieged. On
       the 19th of May—much too late to prevent the landing of
       Richelieu—Byng arrived within view of St. Philip, which was
       still in the possession of the English. The French Admiral, La
       Galissonnière, sailed out to cover the siege, and Byng, who
       apparently felt himself unequally matched—although West, his
       second in command, behaved with gallantry and success—called
       a council of war, and withdrew. Blakeney, who had defended his
       position with great bravery, had to surrender. The failure of
       Byng, and the general weakness and incapacity of the ministry,
       roused the temper of the people to rage; and Newcastle,
       trembling for himself, threw all the blame upon the Admiral,
       hoping by this means to satisfy the popular cry. … A court
       martial held upon that officer had been bound by strict
       instructions, and had found itself obliged to bring in a
       verdict of guilty, though without casting any imputation on
       the personal courage of the Admiral. On his accession to power
       Pitt was courageous enough, although he rested on the popular
       favour, to do his best to get Byng pardoned, and urged on the
       King that the House of Commons seemed to wish the sentence to
       be mitigated. The King is said to have answered in words that
       fairly describe Pitt's position, 'Sir, you have taught me to
       look for the sense of my subjects in another place than the
       House of Commons.' The sentence was carried out, and Byng was
       shot on the quarter-deck of the 'Monarque' at Portsmouth
       (March 14, 1757)."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 3, pages 1021-1022.

    MINORCA: A. D. 1763.
       Restored to England by the Treaty of Paris.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    MINORCA: A. D. 1782.
       Captured by the Spaniards.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

    MINORCA: A. D. 1802.
       Ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Amiens.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

       ----------MINORCA: End----------

    MINORITES, The.

       The Franciscan friars, called by their founder "Fratri
       Minori," bore very commonly the name of the Minorites.

          See MENDICANT ORDERS.

    MINQUAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SUSQUEHANNAS.

    MINSIS,
    MUNSEES,
    MINISINKS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES;
          and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

    MINTO, Lord, The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    MINUTE-MEN.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

    MINYI, The.

       "The race [among the Greeks] which … first issues forth with
       a history of its own from the dark background of the Pelasgian
       people is that of the Minyi. The cycle of their heroes
       includes Iason and Euneus, his son, who trades with Phœnicians
       and with Greeks. … The myths of the Argo were developed in
       the greatest completeness on the Pagasæan gulf, in the seats
       of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
       movement of the Pelasgean tribes beyond the sea—in other
       words, a Greek history in Europe—begins. The Minyi spread
       both by land and sea. They migrated southwards into the
       fertile fields of Bœotia, and settled on the southern side of
       the Copæic valley by the sea. … After leaving the low
       southern coast they founded a new city at the western
       extremity of the Bœotian valley. There a long mountain ridge
       juts out from the direction of Parnassus, and round its
       farthest projection flows in a semicircle the Cephissus. At
       the lower edge of the height lies the village of Skripu.
       Ascending from its huts, one passes over primitive lines of
       wall to the peak of the mountain, only approachable by a rocky
       staircase of a hundred steps, and forming the summit of a
       castle. This is the second city of the Minyi in Bœotia, called
       Orchomenus: like the first, the most ancient walled royal seat
       which can be proved to have existed in Hellas, occupying a
       proud and commanding position over the valley by the sea. Only
       a little above the dirty huts of clay rises out of the depths
       of the soil the mighty block of marble, more than twenty feet
       high, which covered the entrance of a round building. The
       ancients called it the treasury of Minyas, in the vaults of
       which the ancient kings were believed to have hoarded the
       superfluity of their treasures of gold and silver, and in
       these remains endeavoured to recall to themselves the glory of
       Orchomenus sung by Homer."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          See, also, BŒOTIA;
          and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

    MIR, The Russian.

       "The 'mir' is a commune, whose bond is unity of autonomy and
       of possession of land. Sometimes the mir is a single village.
       In this case the economic administration adapts itself exactly
       to the civil. Again, it may happen that a large village is
       divided into many rural communes. Then each commune has its
       special economic administration, whilst the civil and police
       administration is common to all. Sometimes, lastly, a number
       of villages only have one mir. Thus the size of the mir may
       vary from 20 or 30 to some thousands of 'dvors.' … The
       'dvor,' or court, is the economic unit: it contains one or
       several houses, and one or several married couples lodge in
       it. The 'dvor' has only one hedge and one gate in common for
       its inmates. … With the Great Russians the mir regulates
       even the ground that the houses stand on; the mir has the
       right to shift about the 'dvors.' …
    {2188}
       Besides land, the communes have property of another kind:
       fish-lakes, communal mills, a communal herd for the
       improvement of oxen and horses; finally, storehouses, intended
       for the distribution to the peasants of seeds for their fields
       or food for their families. The enjoyment of all these various
       things must be distributed among the members of the commune,
       must be distributed regularly, equally, equitably. Thus, a
       fair distribution today will not be fair five or six years
       hence, because in some families the number of members will
       have increased, in others diminished. A new distribution,
       therefore, will be necessary to make the shares equal. For a
       long time this equalization can be brought about by partial
       sharings-up, by exchange of lots of ground between the private
       persons concerned, without upsetting everybody by a general
       redistribution. … The Russian mir is not an elementary unit.
       It is made up of several primordial cells—of small circles
       that form in perfect freedom. The mir only asks that the
       circles (osmaks) are equal as to labour-power. This condition
       fulfilled, I am free to choose my companions in accordance
       with my friendships or my interests. When the village has any
       work to do, any property to distribute, the administration or
       the assembly of the commune generally does not concern itself
       with individuals, but with the 'osmak' … Each village has an
       administration; it is represented by a mayor (selskï
       starosta), chosen by the mir. But this administration has to
       do only with affairs determined upon in principle by the
       communal assembly. The starosta has no right of initiating any
       measures of importance. Such questions (partition of the land,
       new taxes, leases of communal property, etc.) are only
       adjudicated and decided by the assembly of the mir. All the
       peasants living in the village come to the assembly, even the
       women. If, for example, the wife, by the death of her husband,
       is the head of the family, at the assembly she has the right
       to vote. … The peasants meet very frequently. … The
       assemblies are very lively, … courageous, independent."

          L. Tikhomirov,
          Russia, Political and Social,
          book 3, chapter 2, with foot-note,
          chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          D. M. Wallace,
          Russia,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

          W. T. Stead,
          The Truth about Russia,
          book 4, chapter 2.

          A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
          The Empire of the Tsars,
          part 1, book 8.

    MIRABEAU, and the French Revolution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY). to 1790-1791.

    MIRACULOUS VICTORY, The.

          See THUNDERING LEGION.

    MIRAFLORES, Battle of (1881).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

    MIRANDA, Revolutionary undertakings of.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800;
          and COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

    MIRANHA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

    MIRISZLO, Battle of (1600).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES.

    MISCHIANZA, The.

          See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

    MISCHNA, The.

       Rabbi Jehuda, the Patriarch at Tiberius, was the author (about
       A. D. 194) of "a new constitution to the Jewish people. He
       embodied in the celebrated Mischna, or Code of Traditional
       Law, all the authorized interpretations of the Mosaic Law, the
       traditions, the decisions of the learned, and the precedents
       of the courts or schools. … The sources from which the
       Mischna was derived may give a fair view of the nature of the
       Rabbinical authority, and the manner in which it had
       superseded the original Mosaic Constitution. The Mischna was
       grounded,
          1. On the Written Law of Moses.
          2. On the Oral Law, received by Moses on Mount Sinai,
          and handed down, it was said, by uninterrupted tradition.
          3. The decisions or maxims of the Wise Men.
          4. Opinions of particular individuals, on which the
          schools were divided, and which still remained open.
          5. Ancient usages and customs.

       The distribution of the Mischna affords a curious
       exemplification of the intimate manner in which the religious
       and civil duties of the Jews were interwoven, and of the
       authority assumed by the Law over every transaction of life.
       The Mischna commenced with rules for prayer, thanksgiving,
       ablutions; it is impossible to conceive the minuteness or
       subtlety of these rules, and the fine distinctions drawn by
       the Rabbins. It was a question whether a man who ate figs,
       grapes, and pomegranates, was to say one or three graces; …
       whether he should sweep the house and then wash his hands, or
       wash his hands and then sweep the house. But there are nobler
       words."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 19.

          See, also, TALMUD.

    MISE OF AMIENS, The.

          See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

    MISE OF LEWES, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

    MISENUM, Treaty of.

       The arrangement by which Sextus Pompeius was virtually
       admitted (B. C. 40) for a time into partnership with the
       triumvirate of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus, was so called.

          See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

    MISR.

          See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

    MISSI DOMINICI.

       "Nothing was more novel or peculiar in the legislation of Karl
       [Charlemagne] than his institution of imperial deputies,
       called Missi Dominici, who were regularly sent forth from the
       palace to oversee and inspect the various local
       administrations. Consisting of a body of two or three officers
       each, one of whom was always a prelate, they visited the
       counties every three months, and held there the local assizes,
       or 'placita minores.' … Even religion and morals were not
       exempted from this scrutiny."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 17.

          See, also, PALATINE, COUNTS.

    MISSIONARY RIDGE:
       Its position, and the battle fought on it.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
          and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

       ----------MISSISSIPPI: Start--------

    MISSISSIPPI:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, and CHEROKEES.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1629.
       Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1663.
       Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Chesterfield, and others.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1732.
       Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1763.
       Partly embraced in West Florida, ceded to Great Britain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
          FLORIDA: A. D. 1763;
          and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1779-1781.
       Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

    {2189}

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783.
       Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783-1787.
       Partly in dispute with Spain.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
          The Territory constituted and organized.

       "The territory heretofore surrendered by the Spanish
       authorities, and lying north of the 31st degree of latitude,
       with the consent and approbation of the State of Georgia, was
       erected into a territory of the United States by act of
       Congress, approved April 7th, 1798, entitled 'an act for the
       amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, and
       authorizing the establishment of a government in the
       Mississippi Territory. The territory comprised in the new
       organization, or the original Mississippi Territory, embraced
       that portion of country between the Spanish line of
       demarkation and a line drawn due east from the mouth of the
       Yazoo to the Chattahoochy River. The Mississippi River was its
       western limit and the Chattahoochy its eastern. The
       organization of a territorial government by the United States
       was in no wise to impair the rights of Georgia to the soil,
       which was left open for future negotiation between the State
       of Georgia and the United States." In 1802 the State of
       Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to lands
       south of the State of Tennessee, stipulating to receive
       $1,250,000" out of the first nett proceeds of lands lying in
       said ceded territory." In 1804 "the whole of the extensive
       territory ceded by Georgia, lying north of the Mississippi
       Territory, and south of Tennessee, was … annexed to the
       Mississippi Territory, and was subsequently included within
       its limits and jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Mississippi
       Territory, consequently, were the 31st degree on the south,
       and the 35th degree on the north, extending from the
       Mississippi River to the western limits of Georgia, and
       comprised the whole territory now embraced in the States of
       Alabama and Mississippi, excepting the small Florida District
       between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. Four fifths of this
       extensive territory were in the possession of the four great
       southern Indian confederacies, the Choctâs, the Chickasâs, the
       Creeks, and the Cherokees, comprising an aggregate of about
       75,000 souls, and at least 10,000 warriors. The only portions
       of this territory to which the Indian title had been
       extinguished was a narrow strip from 15 to 50 miles in width,
       on the east side of the Mississippi, and about 70 miles in
       length, and a small district on the Tombigby."

          J. W. Monette,
          Discovery and Settlement of the
          Valley of the Mississippi,
          book 5, chapter 13 (volume 2).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1803.
       Portion acquired by the Louisiana Purchase.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1812-1813.
       Spanish West Florida annexed to Mississippi Territory
       and possession taken.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1813-1814.
       The Creek War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.
       Constitution as a State and admission into the Union.

       The sixth and seventh of the new States added to the original
       Union of thirteen were Indiana and Mississippi. "These last
       almost simultaneously found representation in the Fifteenth
       Congress; and of them Indiana, not without an internal
       struggle, held steadfastly to the fundamental Ordinance of
       1787 under which it was settled, having adopted its free State
       constitution in June, 1816; Mississippi, which followed on the
       slave side, agreeing upon a constitution, in August, 1817,
       which the new Congress, at its earliest opportunity [December
       10, 1817] after assembling, pronounced republican in form, and
       satisfactory."

             J. Schouler,
             History of the United States,
             volume 3, page 100.

       At the same time, the part of Mississippi Territory which
       forms the present State of Alabama was detached and erected
       into the Territory of Alabama.

          See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1861 (January).
       Secession from the Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
       The taking of Corinth by the Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (May-July).
       First Union attempts against Vicksburg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (September-October).
       The battles of Iuka and Corinth.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-May).
       Grierson's raid.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-July).
       Federal siege and capture of Vicksburg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (July).
       Capture and destruction of Jackson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1864 (February).
       Sherman's raid to Meridian.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE—MISSISSIPPI).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
       Wilson's raid.
       The end of the Rebellion.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (June).
       Provisional government set up under
       President Johnson's plan of Reconstruction.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

    MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865-1870.
       State reconstruction.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

       ----------MISSISSIPPI: End--------

       ----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Start--------

    MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1519.
       Discovery of the mouth by Pineda, for Garay.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

    MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1528-1542.
       Crossed by Cabeça de Vaca, and by Hernando de Soto.
       Descended by the survivors of De Soto's company.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

    MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1673.
       Discovery by Joliet and Marquette.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1682.
       Exploration to the mouth by La Salle.
       See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1712.
       Called the River St. Louis by the French.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

    MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1783-1803.
       The question of the Right of Navigation
       disputed between Spain and the United States.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
          and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800, and 1798-1803.

    MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1861-1863.
       Battles and Sieges of the Civil War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), Belmont;
          1862 (MARCH-APRIL), NEW

       Madrid and Island No. 10;
       1862 (APRIL), New Orleans;
       1862 (MAY-JULY), First Vicksburg attack;
       1862 (JUNE), Memphis;
       1862 (DECEMBER), Second Vicksburg attack;
       1863 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (APRIL-JULY),

       Siege and capture of Vicksburg;
       1863 (MAY-JULY), Port Hudson and the clear opening of the River.

       ----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: End--------

    {2190}

    MISSISSIPPI SCHEME, John Law's.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
          and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

       ----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: Start--------

    MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1763.
       Cession of the eastern side of the river to Great Britain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1803.
       Purchase of the western side by the United States.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

       ----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: End--------

    MISSOLONGHI, Siege and capture of (1825-1826).

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

       ----------MISSOURI: Start--------

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1719-1732.
       First development of lead mines by the French.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1763-1765.
       French withdrawal to the West of the Mississippi.
       The founding of St. Louis.

          See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1803.
       Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1804-1812.
       Upper Louisiana organized as the Territory of Louisiana.
       The changing of its name to Missouri.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1819.
       Arkansas detached.

          See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1821.
       Admission to the Union.
       The Compromise concerning Slavery.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1854-1859.
       The Kansas Struggle.

          See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (February-July).
       The baffling of the Secessionists.
       Blair, Lyon and the Home Guards of St. Louis.
       The capture of Camp Jackson.
       Battle of Boonville.
       A loyal State Government organized.

       The seizure of arsenals and arms by the secessionists of the
       Atlantic and Gulf States "naturally, directed the attention of
       the leaders of the different political parties in Missouri to
       the arsenal in St. Louis, and set them to work planning how
       they might get control of the 40,000 muskets and other
       munitions of war which it was known to contain. …
       Satisfied that movements were on foot among irresponsible
       parties, Unionist as well as Secessionist, to take possession
       of this post, General D. M. Frost, of the Missouri state
       militia, a graduate of West Point and a thorough soldier, is
       said to have called Governor Jackson's attention to the
       necessity of 'looking after' it. … Jackson, however, needed
       no prompting. … He did not hesitate to give Frost authority
       to seize the arsenal, whenever in his judgment it might become
       necessary to do so. Meanwhile he was to assist in protecting
       it against mob violence of any kind or from any source. …
       Frost, however, was not the only person in St. Louis who had
       his eyes fixed upon the arsenal and its contents. Frank Blair
       was looking longingly in the same direction, and was already
       busily engaged in organizing the bands which, supplied with
       guns from this very storehouse, enabled him, some four months
       later, to lay such a heavy hand upon Missouri. Just then, it
       is true, he could not arm them, … but he did not permit this
       to interfere with the work of recruiting and drilling. That
       went on steadily, and as a consequence, when the moment came
       for action, Blair was able to appear at the decisive point
       with a well-armed force, ten times as numerous as that which
       his opponents could bring against him. In the mean time,
       whilst these two, or rather three, parties (for Frost can
       hardly be termed a secessionist, though as an officer in the
       service of the State he was willing to obey the orders of his
       commander) were watching each other, the federal government
       awoke from its lethargy, and began to concentrate troops in
       St. Louis for the protection of its property. … By the 18th
       of February, the day of the election of delegates to the
       convention which pronounced so decidedly against secession,
       there were between four and five hundred men behind the
       arsenal walls. … General Harney, who was in command of the
       department and presumably familiar with its condition, under
       date of February 19, notified the authorities at Washington
       that there was no danger of an attack, and never had been. …
       Such was not the opinion of Captain Nathaniel Lyon, who had
       arrived at the arsenal on the 6th of February, and who was
       destined, in the short space of the coming six months, to
       write his name indelibly in the history of the State. …
       Under the stimulating influence of two such spirits as Blair
       and … [Lyon] the work of preparation went bravely on. By the
       middle of April, four regiments had been enlisted, and Lyon,
       who was now in command of the arsenal, though not of the
       department, proceeded to arm them in accordance with an order
       which Blair had procured from Washington. Backed by this
       force, Blair felt strong enough to set up an opposition to the
       state government, and accordingly, when Jackson refused to
       furnish the quota of troops assigned to Missouri under
       President Lincoln's call of April 15, 1861 [see UNITED STATES
       OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)], he telegraphed to Washington
       that if an order to muster the men into the service was sent
       to Captain Lyon 'the requisition would be filled in two days.'
       The order was duly forwarded, and five regiments having been
       sworn in instead of four, as called for, Blair was offered the
       command. This he declined, and, on his recommendation, Lyon
       was elected in his place. On the 7th and 8th of May another
       brigade was organized. … This made ten regiments of
       volunteers, besides several companies of regulars and a
       battery of artillery, that were now ready for service; and as
       General Harney, whose relatives and associates were suspected
       of disloyalty, had been ordered to Washington to explain his
       position, Lyon was virtually in command of the department. …
       Jackson, … though possessed of but little actual power, was
       unwilling to give up the contest without an effort. He did not
       accept the decision of the February election as final. …
       Repairing to St. Louis, as soon as the adjournment of the
       General Assembly had left him free, he began at once, in
       conjunction with certain leading secessionists, to concert
       measures for arming the militia of the State. …
    {2191}
       To this end, the seizure of the arsenal was held to be a
       prerequisite, and General Frost was preparing a memorial
       showing how this could best be done, when the surrender of
       Fort Sumter and the President's consequent call for troops
       hurried Jackson into a position of antagonism to the federal
       government. … He sent messengers to the Confederate
       authorities at Montgomery, Alabama, asking them to supply him
       with the guns that were needed for the proposed attack on the
       arsenal; and he summoned the General Assembly to meet at
       Jefferson City on the 2d of May, to deliberate upon such
       measures as might be deemed necessary for placing the State in
       a position to defend herself. He also ordered, as he was
       authorized to do under the law, the commanders of the several
       military districts to hold the regular yearly encampments for
       the purpose of instructing their men in drill and discipline.
       … Practically its effect was limited to the first or Frost's
       brigade, as that was the only one that had been organized
       under the law. On the 3d of May, this little band, numbering
       less than 700 men, pitched their tents in a wooded valley in
       the outskirts of the city of St. Louis, and named it Camp
       Jackson, in honor of the governor. It is described as being
       surrounded on all sides, at short range, by commanding hills;
       it was, moreover, open to a charge of cavalry in any and every
       direction, and the men were supplied with but five rounds of
       ammunition each, hardly enough for guard purposes. In a word,
       it was defenseless, and this fact is believed to be conclusive
       in regard to the peaceful character of the camp as it was
       organized. … Lyon … announced his intention of seizing the
       entire force at the camp, without any ceremony other than a
       demand for its surrender. … Putting his troops in motion
       early in the morning of the 10th of May; he surrounded Camp
       Jackson and demanded its surrender. As Frost could make no
       defense against the overwhelming odds brought against him, he
       was of course obliged to comply; and his men, having been
       disarmed, were marched to the arsenal, where they were
       paroled. … After the surrender, and whilst the prisoners
       were standing in line, waiting for the order to march, a crowd
       of men, women and children collected and began to abuse the
       home guards, attacking them with stones and other missiles. It
       is even said that several shots were fired at them, but this
       lacks confirmation. According to Frost, who was at the head of
       the column of prisoners, the first intimation of firing was
       given by a single shot, followed almost immediately by volley
       firing, which is said to have been executed with precision
       considering the rawness of the troops. When the fusillade was
       checked, it was found that 28 persons had been killed or
       mortally wounded, among whom were three of the prisoners, two
       women, and one child. … Judging this action by the reasons
       assigned for it, and by its effect throughout the State, it
       must be pronounced a blunder. So far from intimidating the
       secessionists, it served only to exasperate them; and it drove
       not a few Union men, among them General Sterling Price, into
       the ranks of the opposition and ultimately into the
       Confederate army."

          L. Carr,
          Missouri,
          chapter 14.

       When news of the capture of Camp Jackson reached Jefferson
       City, where the legislature was in session, Governor Jackson
       at once ordered a bridge on the railroad from St. Louis to be
       destroyed, and the legislature made haste to pass several
       bills in the interest of the rebellion, including one which
       placed the whole military power of the State in the hands of
       the Governor. Armed with this authority, Jackson proceeded to
       organize the Militia of Missouri as a secession army. Meantime
       Captain Lyon had been superseded in command by the arrival at
       St. Louis of General Harney, and the latter introduced a total
       change of policy at once. He was trapped into an agreement
       with Governor Jackson and Sterling Price, now general-in-chief
       of the Missouri forces, which tied his hands, while the
       cunning rebel leaders were rapidly placing the State in active
       insurrection. But the eyes of the authorities at Washington
       were opened by Blair; Harney was soon displaced and Lyon
       restored to command. This occurred May 30th. On the 15th of
       June Lyon took possession of the capital of the State,
       Jefferson City, the Governor and other State officers taking
       flight to Boonville, where their forces were being gathered.
       Lyon promptly followed, routing and dispersing them at
       Boonville on the 17th. The State Convention which had taken a
       recess in March was now called together by a committee that
       had been empowered to do so before the convention separated,
       and a provisional State government was organized (July 31)
       with a loyal governor, Hamilton R. Gamble, at its head.

          J. G. Nicolay,
          The Outbreak of the Rebellion,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          T. L. Snead,
          The Fight for Missouri.

          J. Peckham,
          General Nathaniel Lyon and Missouri in 1861.

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (July-September).
       Sigel's retreat from Carthage.
       Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.
       Siege of Lexington.
       Fremont in command.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

    A. D. 1861 (August-October).
       Fremont in command.
       His premature proclamation of freedom to the Slaves of rebels.
       His quarrel with Frank P. Blair.
       The change in command.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
       Price and the Rebel forces driven into Arkansas.
       Battle of Pea Ridge.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
       Organization of the loyal Militia of the state.
       Warfare with Rebel guerrillas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (September-December).
       Social effects of the Civil War.
       The Battle of Prairie Grove.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (August).
       Quantrell's guerrilla raid to Lawrence, Kansas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (October).
       Cabell's invasion.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

    MISSOURI: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
       Price's raid.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

       ----------MISSOURI: End--------

    MISSOURI COMPROMISE, The.
       Its Repeal, and the decision of the Supreme Court against it.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1818-1821; 1854; and 1857.

    {2192}

    MISSOURI RIVER:
       Called the River St. Philip by the French (1712).

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

    MISSOURIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    MITCHELL, General Ormsby M.:
       Expedition into Alabama.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862(APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA);
          and (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

    MITHRIDATIC WARS, The.

       A somewhat vaguely defined part of eastern Asia Minor, between
       Armenia, Phrygia, Cilicia and the Euxine, was called
       Cappadocia in times anterior to 363 B. C. Like its neighbors,
       it had fallen under the rule of the Persians and formed a
       province of their empire, ruled by hereditary satraps. In the
       year above named, the then reigning satrap, Ariobarzanes,
       rebelled and made himself king of the northern coast district
       of Cappadocia, while the southern and inland part was retained
       under Persian rule. The kingdom founded by Ariobarzanes took
       the name of Pontus, from the sea on which it bordered. It was
       reduced to submission by Alexander the Great, but regained
       independence during the wars between Alexander's successors
       (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301; and SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224),
       and extended its limits towards the west and south. The
       kingdom of Pontus, however, only rose to importance in history
       under the powerful sovereignty of Mithridates V. who took the
       title of Eupator and is often called Mithridates the Great. He
       ascended the throne while a child, B. C. 120, but received,
       notwithstanding, a wonderful education and training. At the
       age of twenty (B. C. 112) he entered upon a career of
       conquest, which was intended to strengthen his power for the
       struggle with Rome, which he saw to be inevitable. Within a
       period of about seven years he extended his dominions around
       the nearly complete circuit of the Euxine, through Armenia,
       Colchis, and along the northern coasts westward to the Crimea
       and the Dniester; while at the same time he formed alliances
       with the barbarous tribes on the Danube, with which he hoped
       to threaten Italy.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          book 4, period 3, part 4.

       "He [Mithridates] rivalled Hannibal in his unquenchable hatred
       to Rome. This hatred had its origin in the revocation of a
       district of Phrygia which the Senate had granted to his
       father. … To his banner clustered a quarter of a million of
       the fierce warriors of the Caucasus and the Scythian steppes
       and of his own Hellenized Pontic soldiers; Greek captains, in
       whom he had a confidence unshaken by disaster—Archelaus,
       Neoptolemus, Dorilaus—gave tactical strength to his forces.
       He was allied, too, with the Armenian king, Tigranes; and he
       now turned his thoughts to Numidia, Syria, and Egypt with the
       intention of forming a coalition against his foe on the Tiber.
       A coin has been found which commemorated an alliance proposed
       between the Pontic king and the Italian rebels. … The
       imperious folly of M'. Aquillius, the Roman envoy in the East,
       precipitated the intentions of the king; instead of contending
       for the princedom of Bithynia and Cappadocia, he suddenly
       appealed to the disaffected in the Roman province. The fierce
       white fire of Asiatic hate shot out simultaneously through the
       length and breadth of the country [B. C. 88]; and the awful
       news came to distracted Rome that 80,000 Italians had fallen
       victims to the vengeance of the provincials. Terror-stricken
       publicani were chased from Adramyttium and Ephesus into the
       sea, their only refuge, and there cut down by their pursuers;
       the Mæander was rolling along the corpses of the Italians of
       Tralles; in Caria the refined cruelty of the oppressed people
       was butchering the children before the eyes of father and
       mother, then the mother before the eyes of her husband, and
       giving to the man death as the crown and the relief of his
       torture. … Asia was lost to Rome; only Rhodes, which had
       retained her independence, remained faithful to her great
       ally. The Pontic fleet, under Archelaus, appeared at Delos,
       and carried thence 2,000 talents to Athens, offering to that
       imperial city the government of her ancient tributary. This
       politic measure awaked hopes of independence in Greece.
       Aristion, an Epicurean philosopher, seized the reins of power
       in Athens, and Archelaus repaired the crumbling battlements of
       the Piræus. The wave of eastern conquest was rolling on
       towards Italy itself. The proconsul Sulla marched to
       Brundisium, and, undeterred by the ominous news that his
       consular colleague, Q. Rufus, had been murdered in Picenum, or
       by the sinister attitude of the new consul Cinna, he crossed
       over to Greece with five legions to stem the advancing wave.
       History knows no more magnificent illustration of cool,
       self-restrained determination than the action of Sulla during
       these three years." He left Rome to his enemies, the fierce
       faction of Marius, who were prompt to seize the city and to
       fill it with "wailing for the dead, or with the more terrible
       silence which followed a complete massacre" [see ROME: B. C.
       88-78]. "The news of this carnival of democracy reached the
       camp of Sulla along with innumerable noble fugitives who had
       escaped the Marian terror. The proconsul was unmoved; with
       unexampled self-confidence he began to assume that he and his
       constituted Rome, while the Forum and Curia were filled with
       lawless anarchists, who would soon have to be dealt with. He
       carried Athens by assault, and slew the whole population, with
       their tyrant Aristion [see ATHENS: B. C. 87-86], but he
       counted it among the favours of the goddess of Fortune that
       he, man of culture as he was, was able to save the immemorial
       buildings of the city from the fate of Syracuse or Corinth.
       Archelaus, in Piræus, offered the most heroic resistance. …
       With the spring Sulla heard of the approach of the main army
       from Pontus, under the command of Taxiles. 120,000 men, and
       ninety scythed chariots, were pouring over Mount Œta to
       overwhelm him. With wonderful rapidity he marched northwards
       through friendly Thebes, and drew up his little army on a
       slope near Chæronea, digging trenches on his left and right to
       save his flank from being turned. He showed himself every inch
       a general, he compelled the enemy to meet him on this ground
       of his own choice, and the day did not close before 110,000 of
       the enemy were captured or slain, and the camp of Archelaus,
       who had hastened from Athens to take the command, was carried
       by assault. We have before us still, in the pages of Plutarch,
       Sulla's own memoirs. If we may believe him, he lost only
       fifteen men in the battle. By this brilliant engagement he had
       restored Greece to her allegiance, and, what was even better,
       the disaster aroused an the savagery of Mithradates, the Greek
       vanished in the oriental despot.
    {2193}
       Suspicious and ruthless, he ordered his nearest friends to be
       assassinated; he transported all the population of Chios to
       the mainland, and by his violence and exaction stirred
       Ephesus, Sardes, Tralles, and many other cities, to renounce
       his control, and to return to the Roman government. Still, he
       did not suspect Archelaus, but appointed him, together with
       Dorilaus, to lead a new army into Greece. The new army
       appeared in Bœotia, and encamped by the Copaic Lake, near
       Orchomenos. Before the raw levies could become familiar with
       the sight of the legions, Sulla assaulted the camp [B. C. 85],
       and rallied his wavering men by leading them in person with
       the cry, 'Go, tell them in Rome that you left your general in
       the trenches of Orchomenos;' the self-consciousness was
       sublime, for nothing would have pleased the people in Rome
       better; his victory was complete, and Archelaus escaped alone
       in a boat to Calchis. As the conqueror returned from the
       battle-field to reorganize Greece, he learnt that the Senate
       had deposed him from command, declared him an outlaw, and
       appointed as his successor the consul L. Valerius Flaccus. The
       disorganization of the republic seemed to have reached a
       climax. Flaccus conducted his army straight to the Bosphorus
       without venturing to approach the rebel proconsul Sulla; while
       Mithradates, who began to wish for peace, preferred to
       negotiate with his conqueror rather than with the consul of
       the republic. To complete this complication of anarchy,
       Flaccus was murdered, and superseded in the command by his own
       legate, C. Flavius Fimbria; this choice of their general by
       the legions themselves might seem significant if anything
       could be significant or connected in such a chaos. But Sulla
       now crossed into Asia, and concluded peace with Mithradates on
       these conditions: The king was to relinquish all his
       conquests, surrender deserters, restore the people of Chios,
       pay 2,000 talents, and give up seventy of his ships. Fimbria
       … remained to be dealt with. It was not a difficult matter:
       the two Roman armies confronted one another at Thyatira, and
       the Fimbrians streamed over to Sulla. After all, the
       legionaries, who had long ceased to be citizens, were soldiers
       first and politicians after; they worshipped the felicity of
       the great general; and the democratic general had not yet
       appeared who could bind his men to him by a spell stronger
       than Sulla's. Fimbria persuaded a slave to thrust him through
       with his sword. His enemies were vanquished in Asia, but in
       Rome Cinna was again consul (85 B. C.), and his colleague, Cn.
       Papirius Carbo, out-Cinnaed Cinna. Yet Sulla was in no hurry.
       He spent more than a year in reorganizing the disordered
       province. … He even allowed Cinna and Carbo, who began to
       prepare for war with him (84 B. C.), to be re-elected to the
       consulship; but when the more cautious party in the Senate
       entered into negotiations with him, and offered him a safe
       conduct to Italy, he showed in a word what he took to be the
       nature of the situation by saying that he was not in need of
       their safe conduct, but he was coming to secure them."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 26.

          Plutarch,
          Sulla.

       After a second and a third war with Rome (see ROME: B. C.
       78-68, and 69-63), Mithridates was finally (B. C. 65) driven
       from his old dominions into the Crimean kingdom of Bosporus,
       where he ended his life in despair two years later. The
       kingdom of Pontus was absorbed in the Roman empire. The
       southern part of Cappadocia held some rank as an independent
       kingdom until A. D. 17, when it was likewise reduced to the
       state of a Roman province.

    MITLA, The Ruins of.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

       ----------MITYLENE: Start--------

    MITYLENE.

       The chief city in ancient times of the island of Lesbos, to
       which it ultimately gave its name.

          See LESBOS.

    MITYLENE: B. C. 428-427.
       Revolt from Athenian rule.
       Siege and surrender.
       The tender mercies of Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

    MITYLENE: B. C. 406.
       Blockade of the Athenian fleet.
       Battle of Arginusæ.

          See GREECE: B. C. 406.

       ----------MITYLENE: End--------

    MIXES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

    MIXTECS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

    MIZRAIM.

       See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

    MOABITES, The.
       The Moabite Stone.

       As related in the Bible (Genesis xix. 37), Moab was the son of
       Lot's eldest daughter and the ancient people called Moabites
       were descended from him. They occupied at an early time the
       rich tableland or highlands on the east side of the Dead Sea;
       but the Amorites drove them out of the richer northern part of
       this territory into its southern half, where they occupied a
       very narrow domain, but one easily defended. This occurred
       shortly before the coming of the Israelites into Canaan.
       Between the Moabites and the Israelites, after the settlement
       of the latter, there was frequent war, but sometimes relations
       both peaceful and friendly. David finally subjugated their
       nation, in a war of peculiar atrocity. After the division of
       the kingdoms, Moab was subject to Israel, but revolted on the
       death of Ahab and was nearly destroyed in the horrible war
       which followed. The Biblical account of this war is given in 2
       Kings III. It is strangely supplemented and filled out by a
       Moabite record—the famous Moabite Stone—found and deciphered
       within quite recent times, under the following circumstance.
       Dr. Klein, a German missionary, travelling in 1869 in what was
       formerly the "Land of Moab," discovered a stone of black
       basalt bearing a long inscription in Phœnician characters. He
       copied a small part of it and made his discovery known. The
       Prussian government opened negotiations for the purchase of
       the stone, and M. Clermont-Ganneau, of the French consulate at
       Jerusalem, made efforts likewise to secure it for his own
       country. Meantime, very fortunately, the latter sent men to
       take impressions—squeezes, as they are called—of the
       inscription, which was imperfectly done. But these imperfect
       squeezes proved invaluable; for the Arabs, finding the stone
       to be a covetable thing, and fearing that it was to be taken
       from them, crumbled it into fragments with the aid of fire and
       water. Most of the pieces were subsequently recovered, and
       were put together by the help of M. Clermont-Ganneau's
       squeezes, so that an important part of the inscription was
       deciphered in the end. It was found to be a record by Mesha,
       king of Moab, of the war with Israel referred to above.

          A. H. Sayce,
          Fresh Light from the
          Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 4.

    {2194}

       The Moabites appear to have recovered from the blow, but not
       much of their subsequent history is known.

          G. Grove,
          Dictionary of the Bible.

          ALSO IN:
          J. King,
          Moab's Patriarchal Stone.

          See, also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,
          and JEWS: UNDER THE JUDGES.

    MOAWIYAH,
       Caliph (founder of the Omeyyad dynasty), A. D. 661-679.

       Moawiyah II., Caliph, A. D. 683.

       ----------MOBILE: Start--------

    MOBILE: A. D. 1702-1711.
       The founding of the city by the French.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

    MOBILE: A. D. 1763.
       Surrendered to the English.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (JULY).

    MOBILE: A. D. 1781.
       Retaken by the Spaniards.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

    MOBILE: A. D. 1813.
       Possession taken from the Spaniards by the United States.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

    MOBILE: A. D. 1864.
       The Battle in the Bay.
       Farragut's naval victory.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: ALABAMA).

    MOBILE: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
       Siege and capture by the National forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

       ----------MOBILE: End--------

    MOBILIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    MOCOVIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

       ----------MODENA: Start--------

    MODENA, Founding of.

       See MUTINA.

    MODENA: A. D. 1288-1453.
       Acquired by the Marquess of Este.
       Created a Duchy.

          See ESTE, THE HOUSE OF.

    MODENA: A. D. 1767.
       Expulsion of the Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

    MODENA: A. D. 1796.
       Dethronement of the Duke by Bonaparte.
       Formation of the Cispadane Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    MODENA: A. D. 1801.
       Annexation to the Cisalpine Republic.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    MODENA: A. D. 1803.
       The duchy acquired by the House of Austria.

          See ESTE, HOUSE OF.

    MODENA: A. D. 1815.
       Given to an Austrian Prince.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    MODENA: A. D. 1831.
       Revolt and expulsion of the Duke.
       His restoration by Austrian troops.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

    MODENA: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Abortive revolution.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    MODENA: A. D. 1859-1861.
       End of the dukedom.
       Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

       ----------MODENA: End--------

    MODIUS, The.

          See AMPHORA.

    MODOCS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

    MOERIS, Lake.

       "On the west of Egypt there is an oasis of cultivable land,
       the Fayum, buried in the midst of the desert, and attached by
       a sort of isthmus to the country watered by the Nile. In the
       centre of this oasis is a large plateau about the same level
       as the valley of the Nile; to the west, however, a
       considerable depression of the land produces a valley occupied
       by a natural lake more than ten leagues in length, the 'Birket
       Kerun.' In the centre of this plateau Amenemhe [twelfth
       dynasty] undertook the formation of an artificial lake with an
       area of ten millions of square metres. If the rise of the Nile
       was insufficient, the water was led into the lake and stored
       up for use, not only in the Fayum, but over the whole of the
       left bank of the Nile as far as the sea. If too large an
       inundation threatened the dykes, the vast reservoir of the
       artificial lake remained open, and when the lake itself
       overflowed, the surplus waters were led by a canal into the
       Birket Kerun. The two names given in Egypt to this admirable
       work of Amenemhe III. deserve to be recorded. Of one, Meri,
       that is 'the Lake,' par excellence, the Greeks have made
       Moeris, a name erroneously applied by them to a king; whilst
       the other, P-iom, 'the Sea,' has become, in the mouth of the
       Arabs, the name of the entire province,
       Fayum."

          M. Mariette,
          quoted in Lenormant's
          Manual of Ancient History of the East,
          book 3, chapter 2.

    MŒSIA,
    MÆSIA.

       "After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss
       [Theiss] and the Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks,
       the name of Ister. It formerly divided Mœsia and Dacia, the
       latter of which, as we have already seen, was a conquest of
       Trajan, and the only province beyond the river. … On the
       right hand of the Danube, Mœsia, … during the middle ages,
       was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and
       Bulgaria."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 1.

       Mœsia was occupied by the Goths in the 4th century.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381; and 376.

    MOESKIRCH, Battle of (1800).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    MŒSO-GOTHIC.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.

    MOGONTIACUM.

       "The two headquarters of the [Roman] army of the Rhine were
       always Vetera, near Wesel, and Mogontiacum, the modern Mentz.
       … Mogontiacum or Mentz, [was] from the time of Drusus down
       to the end of Rome the stronghold out of which the Romans
       sallied to attack Germany from Gaul, as it is at the present
       day the true barrier of Germany against France. Here the
       Romans, even after they had abandoned their rule in the region
       of the upper Rhine generally, retained not merely the
       tête-de-pont on the other bank, the 'castellum Mogontiacense'
       (Castel), but also that plain of the Main itself, in their
       possession; and in this region a Roman civilisation might
       establish itself. The land originally belonged to the Chatti,
       and a Chattan tribe, the Mattiaci, remained settled here even
       under Roman rule."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 4 (The Provinces, volume 1).

    MOGUL EMPIRE.
    THE GREAT MOGUL.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

    MOHACS, Battle of (1526).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

    MOHACS, Second Battle of (1687).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

    MOHAMMED, The Prophet of Islam.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

       Mohammed, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1104-1116.

       Mohammed I., Turkish Sultan, 1413-1421.

       Mohammed II., Turkish Sultan, 1451-1481.

       Mohammed III., Turkish Sultan, 1595-1603.

       Mohammed IV., Turkish Sultan, 1649-1687.

       Mohammed Mirza, Shah of Persia, 1577-1582.

       Mohammed Shah, sovereign of Persia, 1834-1848.

    MOHARRAM FESTIVAL, The.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

    MOHAVES,
    MOJAVES, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

    {2195}

    MOHAWKS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

    MOHAWKS, The, of Boston and New York.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1773;
          and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

    MOHAWKS,
    MOHOCKS, of London.

          See MOHOCKS. [Third item below.]

    MOHEGANS,
    MAHICANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
          HORIKANS, and STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
          also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

    MOHILEF, Battle of.

           See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    MOHOCKS, The.

       "This nocturnal fraternity met in the days of Queen Anne:
       [1707] but it had been for many previous years the favourite
       amusement of dissolute young men to form themselves into Clubs
       and Associations for committing all sorts of excesses in the
       public streets, and alike attacking orderly pedestrians, and
       even defenceless women. These Clubs took various slang
       designations. At the Restoration they were 'Mums,' and
       'Tityre-tus.' They were succeeded by the 'Hectors' and
       'Scourers,' when, says Shadwell, 'a man could not go from the
       Rose Tavern to the Piazza once, but he must venture his life
       twice.' Then came the 'Nickers,' whose delight it was to smash
       windows with showers of halfpence; next were the 'Hawkabites';
       and lastly the 'Mohocks.' These last are described in the
       'Spectator,' No. 324, as a set of men who have borrowed their
       name from a sort of cannibals, in India, who subsist by
       plundering and devouring all the nations about them. … Their
       avowed design was mischief, and upon this foundation all their
       rules and orders were framed. They took care to drink
       themselves to a pitch beyond reason or humanity, and then made
       a general sally, and attacked all who were in the streets.
       Some were knocked down, others stabbed, and others cut and
       carbonadoed. … They had special barbarities which they
       executed upon their prisoners. 'Tipping the lion' was
       squeezing the nose flat to the face and boring out the eyes
       with their fingers. 'Dancing-masters' were those who taught
       their scholars to cut capers by running swords through their
       legs. The 'Tumblers' set women on their heads. The 'Sweaters'
       worked in parties of half-a-dozen, surrounding their victims
       with the points of their swords. … Another savage diversion
       of the Mohocks was their thrusting women into barrels, and
       rolling them down Snow or Ludgate Hill. … At length the
       villanies of the Mohocks were attempted to be put down by a
       Royal proclamation, issued on the 18th of March, 1712: this,
       however, had very little effect, for we soon find Swift
       exclaiming: 'They go on still and cut people's faces every
       night!' … The Mohocks held together until nearly the end of
       the reign of George I." [1727]

          J. Timbs,
          Clubs and Club Life in London,
          pages 33-38.

    MOIRA, Lord (Marquis of Hastings), The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    MOJOS,
    MOXOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS;
          also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    MÖKERN, Battle of (1813).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

    MOLAI, Jacques de, and the fall of the Templars.

          See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.

    MOLASSES ACT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

    MOLDAVIA.
    MOLDO-WALLACHIA.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

    MOLEMES, The Abbey of.

          See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

    MOLINISTS, The.

          See MYSTICISM.

    MOLINO DEL REY, Battle of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    MOLINOS DEL REY, Battle of (1808).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

    MOLLWITZ, Battle of (1741).

       See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

    MOLOSSIANS, The.

          See HELLAS;
          and EPIRUS.

    MOLTKE'S CAMPAIGNS.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1866;
          FRANCE: A. D. 1870, and 1870-1871.

    MOLUCCAS: Secured by Spain (1524).

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

    MONA.

       The ancient name of the island of Anglesea. It was the final
       seat of the Druidical religion in Britain. Taken by the Romans
       under Suetonius, A. D. 61, the priests were slain, the sacred
       groves destroyed and Druidism practically exterminated.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 51.

          See MONAPIA.

    MONACANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,
          and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

    MONAPIA.

       "The name of Monapia first occurs in Pliny, and must be
       unquestionably identified with the Isle of Man; though the
       name of the latter would dispose us at first to consider it as
       representing Mona. But the Mona of the Romans, which was
       attacked by Suetonius Paulinus and Agricola, was certainly
       Anglesea."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography.,
          chapter 24, section 2, foot-note.

    MONASTERY.
    MONASTICISM.
    CONVENT.
    ABBEY.
    PRIORY.

       "Monasticism was not the product of Christianity; it was the
       inheritance of the Church, not its invention; not the
       offspring, but the adopted child. The old antagonism between
       mind and matter, flesh and spirit, self and the world has
       asserted itself in all ages, especially among the nations of
       the East. The Essenes, the Therapeutæ, and other Oriental
       mystics, were as truly the precursors of Christian asceticism
       in the desert or in the cloister, as Elijah and St. John the
       Baptist. The Neoplatonism of Alexandria, extolling the
       passionless man above him who regulates his passions,
       sanctioned and systematized this craving after a life of utter
       abstraction from external things, this abhorrence of all
       contact with what is material as a defilement. Doubtless the
       cherished remembrance of the martyrs and confessors, who in
       the preceding centuries of the Christian era had triumphed
       over many a sanguinary persecution, gave a fresh impulse in
       the fourth century to this propensity to asceticism,
       stimulating the devout to vie with their forefathers in the
       faith by their voluntary endurance of self-inflicted
       austerities. … The terms monastery, originally the cell or
       eave of a solitary, laura, an irregular cluster of cells, and
       cœnobium, an association of monks, few or many, under one roof
       and under one control, mark the three earliest stages in the
       development of monasticism.
    {2196}
       In Syria and Palestine each monk originally had a separate
       cell; in Lower Egypt two were together in one cell, whence the
       term 'syncellita,' or sharer of the cell, came to express this
       sort of comradeship; in the Thebaid, under Pachomius of
       Tabenna, each cell contained three monks. At a later period
       the monks arrogated to themselves by general consent the title
       of 'the religious,' and admission into a monastery was termed
       'conversion' to God. … The history of monasticism, like the
       history of states and institutions in general, divides itself
       broadly into three great periods, of growth, of glory, and of
       decay. … From the beginning of the fourth century to the
       close of the fifth, from Antony the hermit to Benedict of
       Monte Casino, is the age of undisciplined impulse of
       enthusiasm not as yet regulated by experience. … Everything
       is on a scale of illogical exaggeration, is wanting in
       balance, in proportion, in symmetry. Because purity,
       unworldliness, charity, are virtues, therefore a woman is to
       be regarded as a venomous reptile, gold as a worthless pebble;
       the deadliest foe and the dearest friend are to be esteemed
       just alike. Because it is right to be humble, therefore the
       monk cuts off hand, ear, or tongue, to avoid being made
       bishop, and feigns idiocy, in order not to be accounted wise.
       Because it is well to teach people to be patient, therefore a
       sick monk never speaks a kind word for years to the brother
       monk who nursed him. Because it is right to keep the lips from
       idle words, therefore a monk holds a large stone in his mouth
       for three years. Every precept is to be taken literally, and
       obeyed unreasoningly. Therefore monks who have been plundered
       by a robber run after him to give him a something which has
       escaped his notice. Self-denial is enjoined in the gospel.
       Therefore the austerities of asceticism are to be simply
       endless. One ascetic makes his dwelling in a hollow tree,
       another in a cave, another in a tomb, another on the top of a
       pillar, another has so lost the very appearance of a man, that
       he is shot at by shepherds, who mistake him for a wolf. The
       natural instincts, instead of being trained and cultivated,
       are to be killed outright, in this abhorrence of things
       material. … The period which follows, from the first
       Benedict to Charlemagne, exhibits monasticism in a more mature
       stage of activity. The social intercourse of the monastery,
       duly harmonized by a traditional routine, with its
       subordination of rank and offices, its division of duties, its
       mutual dependence of all on each other, and on their head,
       civilized the monastic life; and, as the monk himself became
       subject to the refining influences of civilization, he went
       forth into the world to civilize others. … Had it not been
       for monks and monasteries, the barbarian deluge might have
       swept away utterly the traces of Roman civilization. The
       Benedictine monk was the pioneer of civilization and
       Christianity in England, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Sweden,
       Denmark. The schools attached to the Lerinensian monasteries
       were the precursors of the Benedictine seminaries in France
       and of the professional chairs filled by learned Benedictines
       in the universities of mediæval Christendom. With the
       incessant din of arms around him, it was the monk in his
       cloister, even in regions beyond the immediate sphere of
       Benedict's legislation, even in the remote fastnesses, for
       instance of Mount Athos, who, by preserving and transcribing
       ancient manuscripts, both Christian and pagan, as well as by
       recording his observations of contemporaneous events, was
       handing down the torch of knowledge unquenched to future
       generations, and hoarding up stores of erudition for the
       researches of a more enlightened age. The first musicians,
       painters, farmers, statesmen, in Europe, after the downfall of
       Imperial Rome under the onslaught of the barbarians, were
       monks."

          I. Gregory Smith,
          Christian Monasticism,
          introduction.

       "The monastic stream, which had been born in the deserts of
       Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The one spread in
       the East, at first inundated everything, then concentrated and
       lost itself there. The other escaped into the West, and spread
       itself by a thousand channels over an entire world which had
       to be covered and fertilised." Athanasius, who was driven
       twice by persecution to take refuge among the hermits in the
       Thebaid, Egypt, and who was three times exiled by an imperial
       order to the West, "became thus the natural link between the
       Fathers of the desert and those vast regions which their
       successors were to conquer and transform. … It was in 340
       that he came for the first time to Rome, in order to escape
       the violence of the Arians, and invoke the protection of Pope
       Julius. … He spread in Rome the first report of the life led
       by the monks in the Thebaid, of the marvellous exploits of
       Anthony, who was still alive, of the immense foundations which
       Pacome was at that time forming upon the banks of the higher
       Nile. He had brought with him two of the most austere of these
       monks. … The narratives of Athanasius … roused the hearts
       and imaginations of the Romans, and especially of the Roman
       women. The name of monk, to which popular prejudice seems
       already to have attached a kind of ignominy, became
       immediately an honoured and envied title. The impression
       produced at first by the exhortations of the illustrious
       exile, was extended and strengthened during the two other
       visits which he made to the Eternal City. Some time
       afterwards, on the death of St. Anthony, Athanasius, at the
       request of his disciples, wrote the life of the patriarch of
       the Thebaid; and this biography, circulating through all the
       West, immediately acquired there the popularity of a legend,
       and the authority of a confession of faith. … Under this
       narrative form, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, he promulgated
       the laws of monastic life. The town and environs of Rome were
       soon full of monasteries, rapidly occupied by men
       distinguished alike by birth, fortune and knowledge, who lived
       there in charity, sanctity, and freedom. From Rome the new
       institution, already distinguished by the name of religion, or
       religious life, par excellence, extended itself over all
       Italy. It was planted at the foot of the Alps by the influence
       of a great bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli. … From the
       continent the new institution rapidly gained the isles of the
       Mediterranean, and even the rugged rocks of the Gargon and of
       Capraja, where the monks, voluntarily exiled from the world,
       went to take the place of the criminals and political victims
       whom the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither. …
       Most of the great leaders of the cenobitical institution had,
       since St. Pacome, made out, under the name of Rule,
       instructions and constitutions for the use of their immediate
       disciples; but none of these works had acquired an extensive
       or lasting sway. In the East, it is true, the rule of St.
       Basil had prevailed in a multitude of monasteries, yet
       notwithstanding Cassianus, in visiting Egypt, Palestine, and
       Mesopotamia, found there almost as many different rules as
       there were monasteries.
    {2197}
       In the West the diversity was still more strange. Each man
       made for himself his own rule and discipline, taking his
       authority from the writings or example of the Eastern Fathers.
       The Gauls especially exclaimed against the extreme rigour of
       the fasts and abstinences, which might be suitable under a
       fervid sky like that of Egypt or Syria, but which could not be
       endured by what they already called Gallican weakness; and
       even in the initial fervour of the monasteries of the Jura,
       they had succeeded in imposing a necessary medium upon their
       chiefs. Here it was the changing will of an abbot; there a
       written rule; elsewhere, the traditions of the elders, which
       determined the order of conventual life. In some houses
       various rules were practised at the same time, according to
       the inclination of the inhabitants of each cell, and were
       changed according to the times and places. They passed thus
       from excessive austerity to laxness, and conversely, according
       to the liking of each. Uncertainty and instability were
       everywhere. … A general arrangement was precisely what was
       most wanting in monastic life. There were an immense number of
       monks; there had been among them saints and illustrious men;
       but to speak truly, the monastic order had still no existence.
       Even where the rule of St. Basil had acquired the necessary
       degree of establishment and authority—that is to say, in a
       considerable portion of the East—the gift of fertility was
       denied to it. … In the West also, towards the end of the
       fifth century, the cenobitical institution seemed to have
       fallen into the torpor and sterility of the East. After St.
       Jerome, who died in 420, and St. Augustine, who died in 430,
       after the Fathers of Lerins, whose splendour paled towards
       450, there was a kind of eclipse. … Except in Ireland and
       Gaul, where, in most of the provinces, some new foundations
       rose, a general interruption was observable in the extension
       of the institution. … If this eclipse had lasted, the
       history of the monks of the West would only have been, like
       that of the Eastern monks, a sublime but brief passage in the
       annals of the Church, instead of being their longest and
       best-filled page. This was not to be: but to keep the promises
       which the monastic order had made to the Church and to the
       new-born Christendom, it needed, at the beginning of the sixth
       century, a new and energetic impulse, such as would
       concentrate and discipline so many scattered, irregular, and
       intermittent forces; a uniform and universally accepted rule;
       a legislator inspired by the fertile and glorious past, to
       establish and govern the future. God provided for that
       necessity by sending St. Benedict into the world."

          Count de Montalembert,
          The Monks of the West,
          volume 1, pages 381-387 and 512-515.

       "The very word monastery is a misnomer: the word is a Greek
       word, and means the dwelling-place of a solitary person,
       living in seclusion. … In the 13th century … a monastery
       meant what we now understand it to mean—viz., the abode of a
       society of men or women who lived together in common—who were
       supposed to partake of common meals; to sleep together in one
       common dormitory; to attend certain services together in their
       common church; to transact certain business or pursue certain
       employments in the sight and hearing of each other in the
       common cloister; and, when the end came, to be laid side by
       side in the common graveyard, where in theory none but members
       of the order could find a resting-place for their bones. When
       I say 'societies of men and women' I am again reminded that
       the other term, 'convent,' has somehow got to be used commonly
       in a mistaken sense. People use the word as if it signified a
       religious house tenanted exclusively by women. The truth is
       that a convent is nothing more than a Latin name for an
       association of persons who have come together with a view to
       live for a common object and to submit to certain rules in the
       ordering of their daily lives. The monastery was the common
       dwelling-place; the convent was the society of persons
       inhabiting it; and the ordinary formula used when a body of
       monks or nuns execute any corporate act—such as buying or
       selling land—by any legal instrument is, 'The Prior and
       Convent of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Norwich;' 'the
       Abbot and Convent of the Monastery of St. Peter's,
       Westminster;' 'the Abbess and Convent of the Monastery of St.
       Mary and St. Bernard at Lacock,' and so on. … A monastery in
       theory then was, as it was called, a Religious House. It was
       supposed to be the home of people whose lives were passed in
       the worship of God, and in taking care of their own souls, and
       making themselves fit for a better world than this hereafter.
       … The church of a monastery was the heart of the place. It
       was not that the church was built for the monastery, but the
       monastery existed for the church. … Almost as essential to
       the idea of a monastery as the church was the cloister or
       great quadrangle, inclosed on all sides by the high walls of
       the monastic buildings. … All round this quadrangle ran a
       covered arcade, whose roof, leaning against the high walls,
       was supported on the inner side by an open trellis work in
       stone—often exhibiting great beauty of design and
       workmanship—through which light and air was admitted into
       the arcade. … The cloister was really the living place of
       the monks. Here they pursued their daily avocations, here they
       taught their school. … 'But surely a monk always lived in a
       cell, didn't he?' The sooner we get rid of that delusion the
       better. Be it understood that until Henry II. founded the
       Carthusian Abbey of Witham, in 1178, there was no such thing
       known in England as a monk's cell, as we understand the term.
       It was a peculiarity of the Carthusian order, and when it was
       first introduced it was regarded as a startling novelty for
       any privacy or anything approaching solitude to be tolerated
       in a monastery. The Carthusian system never found much favour
       in England. … At the time of the Norman Conquest it may be
       said that all English monks were professedly under one and the
       same Rule—the famous Benedictine Rule. The Rule of a
       monastery was the constitution or code of laws, which
       regulated the discipline of the house, and the Rule of St.
       Benedict dates back as far as the 6th century, though it was
       not introduced into England for more than 100 years after it
       had been adopted elsewhere. … About 150 years before the
       Conquest, a great reformation had been attempted of the French
       monasteries, … the reformers breaking away from the old
       Benedictines and subjecting themselves to a new and improved
       Rule.
    {2198}
       These first reformers were called Cluniac monks, from the
       great Abbey of Clugni, in Burgundy, in which the new order of
       things had begun. The first English house of reformed or
       Cluniac monks was founded at Lewes, in Sussex, 11 years after
       the Conquest. … The constitution of every convent, great or
       small, was monarchical. The head of the house was almost an
       absolute sovereign, and was called the Abbot. His dominions
       often extended, even in England, over a very wide tract of
       country, and sometimes over several minor monasteries which
       were called Cells. … The heads of these cells or subject
       houses were called Priors. An Abbey was a monastery which was
       independent. A priory was a monastery which in theory or in
       fact was subject to an abbey. All the Cluniac monasteries in
       England were thus said to be alien priories, because they were
       mere cells of the great Abbey of Clugni in France, to which
       each priory paid heavy tribute."

          A. Jessopp,
          The Coming of the Friars,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          E. L. Cutts,
          Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 6.

          J. Bingham,
          Antiquity of the Christ. Ch.,
          book 7, chapter 3, sections 11-14.

          I. G. Smith,
          Christian Monasticism, 4-9th Centuries.

          See, also,
          CŒNOBIUM;
          LAURAS;
          MENDICANT ORDERS;
          BENEDICTINE;
          CISTERCIAN;
          CARMELITE,
          and AUSTIN CANONS.

    MONASTERIES, The English, Suppression of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

    MONASTIC LIBRARIES.

       See LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL.

    MONASTIC ORDERS.

       See AUSTIN CANONS;
       BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
       CAPUCHINS;
       CARMELITE FRIARS;
       CARTHUSIAN;
       CISTERCIAN;
       CLAIRVAUX;
       CLUGNY;
       MENDICANT ORDERS;
       RECOLLECTS;
       SERVITES;
       THEATINES;
       TRAPPISTS.

    MONÇON,
    MONZON, Treaty of (1626).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    MONCONTOUR, Battle of (1569).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

       ----------MONEY AND BANKING: Start--------

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Nature and Origin of Money.

       "When the division of labour has been once thoroughly
       established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants
       which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies
       the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part
       of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his
       own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's
       labour us he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by
       exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the
       society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial
       society. But when the division of labour first began to take
       place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very
       much clogged and embarrassed in its operations. One man, we
       shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself
       has occasion for, while another has less. The former
       consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to
       purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter
       should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need
       of, no exchange can be made between them. The butcher has more
       meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer
       and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part
       of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the
       different productions of their respective trades, and the
       butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which
       he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case,
       be made between them. … In order to avoid the inconveniency
       of such situations, every prudent man in every period of
       society, after the first establishment of the division of
       labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs
       in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the
       peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of
       some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people
       would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their
       industry. Many different commodities, it is probable, were
       successively both thought of and employed for this purpose. In
       the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the
       common instrument of commerce; and, though they must have been
       a most inconvenient one, yet in old times we find things were
       frequently valued according to the number of cattle which had
       been given in exchange for them. The armour of Diomede, says
       Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an
       hundred oxen. Salt is said to be the common instrument of
       commerce and exchange in Abyssinia; a species of shells in
       some parts of the coasts of India; dried cod at Newfoundland;
       tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies;
       hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is
       at this day [1775] a village in Scotland where it is not
       uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of
       money to the baker's shop or the alehouse. In all countries,
       however, men seem at last to have been determined by
       irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this
       employment, to metals above every other commodity."

          Adam Smith,
          Wealth of Nations,
          chapter 4, book 1 (volume 1).

       "There is … no machine which has saved as much labor as
       money. … The invention of money has been rightly compared to
       the invention of writing with letters. We may, however, call
       the introduction of money as the universal medium of exchange
       … one of the greatest and most beneficent of advances ever
       made by the race. … Very different kinds of commodities
       have, according to circumstances, been used as money; but
       uniformly only such as possess a universally recognized
       economic value. On the whole, people in a low stage of
       civilization are wont to employ, mainly, only ordinary
       commodities, such as are calculated to satisfy a vulgar and
       urgent want, as an instrument of exchange. As they advance in
       civilization, they, at each step, choose a more and more
       costly object, for this purpose, and one which ministers to
       the more elevated wants. Races of hunters, at least in
       non-tropical countries, usually use skins as money; that is
       the almost exclusive product of their labor, one which can be
       preserved for a long period of time, which constitutes their
       principal article of clothing and their principal export in
       the more highly developed regions. Nomadic races and the lower
       agricultural races, pass, by a natural gradation, to the use of
       cattle as money; which supposes rich pasturages at the
       disposal of all.
    {2199}
       If it were otherwise, there would be a great many to whom
       payments of this kind had been made, who would not know what
       to do with the cattle given them, on account of the charges
       for their maintenance. … That metals were used for the
       purpose of money much later than the commodities above
       mentioned, and the precious metals in turn later than the
       non-precious metals, cannot by any means be shown to be
       universally true. Rather is gold in some countries to be
       obtained by the exercise of so little skill, and both gold and
       silver satisfy a want so live and general, and one so early
       felt, that they are to be met with as an instrument of
       exchange in very early times. In the case of isolated races,
       much depends on the nature of the metals with which the
       geologic constitution of the country has furnished them. In
       general, however, the above law is found to prevail here. The
       higher the development of a people becomes, the more frequent
       is the occurrence of large payments; and to effect these, the
       more costly a metal is, the better, of course, it is adapted
       to effect such payments. Besides, only rich nations are able
       to possess the costly metals in a quantity absolutely great.
       Among the Jews, gold as money dates only from the time of
       David. King Pheidon, of Argos, it is said, introduced silver
       money into Greece, about the middle of the eighth century
       before Christ. Gold came into use at a much later period. The
       Romans struck silver money, for the first time, in 209 before
       Christ, and, in 207, the first gold coins. Among modern
       nations, Venice (1285) and Florence seem to have been the
       first to have coined gold in any quantity."

          W. Roscher,
          Principles of Political Economy,
          book 2, chapter 3, sections 117-119 (volume 1).

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.

       "Money seems to us now so obvious a convenience, and so much a
       necessity of commerce, that it appears almost inconceivable
       that a people who created the Sphinx and the Pyramids, the
       temples of Ipsamboul and Karnac, should have been entirely
       ignorant of coins. Yet it appears from the statements of
       Herodotus, and the evidence of the monuments themselves, that
       this was really the case. As regards the commercial and
       banking systems of ancient Egypt, we are almost entirely
       without information. Their standard of value seems to have
       been the 'outen' or 'ten' of copper (94-96 grammes), which
       circulated like the æs rude of the Romans by weight, and in
       the form of bricks, being measured by the balance. It was
       obtained from the mines of Mount Sinai, which were worked as
       early as the fourth dynasty. Gold and silver appear to have
       been also used, though less frequently. Like copper, they were
       sometimes in the form of bricks, but generally in rings,
       resembling the ring money of the ancient Celts, which is said
       to have been employed in Ireland down to the 12th century, and
       still holds its own in the interior of Africa. This
       approximated very nearly to the possession of money, but it
       wanted what the Roman lawyers called 'the law' and 'the form.'
       Neither the weight nor the pureness was guaranteed by any
       public authority. Such a state of things seems to us very
       inconvenient, but after all It is not very different from that
       which prevails in China even at the present day. The first
       money struck in Egypt, and that for the use rather of the
       Greek and Phœnician merchants than of the natives, was by the
       Satrap Aryandes. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as in
       Egypt, the precious metals, and especially silver, circulated
       as uncoined ingots. They were readily taken indeed, but taken
       by weight and verified by the balance like any other
       merchandise. The excavations in Assyria and Babylon, which
       have thrown so much light upon ancient history, have afforded
       us some interesting information as to the commercial
       arrangements of these countries, and we now possess a
       considerable number of receipts, contracts, and other records
       relating to loans of silver on personal securities at fixed
       rates of interest; loans on landed or house property; sales of
       land, in one case with a plan; sales of slaves, &c. These were
       engraved on tablets of clay, which were then burnt. M.
       Lenormant divides these most interesting documents into five
       principal types:

          1. Simple obligations.
          2. Obligations with a penal clause in case of non-fulfilment.
          One he gives which had 79 days to run.
          3. Obligations with the guarantee of a third party.
          4. Obligations payable to a third person.
          5. Drafts drawn upon one place, payable in another. …

       These Assyrian drafts were negotiable, but from the nature of
       things could not pass by endorsement, because, when the clay
       was once baked, nothing new could be added, and under these
       circumstances the name of the payee was frequently omitted. It
       seems to follow that they must have been regularly advised. It
       is certainly remarkable that such instruments, and especially
       letters of credit, should have preceded the use of coins. The
       earliest banking firm of which we have any account is said to
       be that of Egibi and Company, for our knowledge of whom we are
       indebted to Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Pinches, and Mr. Hilton Price.
       Several documents and records belonging to this family are in
       the British Museum. They are on clay tablets, and were
       discovered in an earthenware jar found in the neighbourhood of
       Hillah, a few miles from Babylon. The house is said to have
       acted as a sort of national bank of Babylon: the founder of
       the house, Egibi, probably lived in the reign of Sennacherib,
       about 700 B. C. This family has been traced during a century
       and a half, and through five generations, down to the reign of
       Darius. At the same time, the tablets hitherto translated
       scarcely seem to me to prove that the firm acted as bankers,
       in our sense of the word."

          Sir J. Lubbock,
          The History of Money
          (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879).

       "We have an enormous number of the documents of this firm,
       beginning with Nebuchadnezzar the Great, and going on for some
       five generations or so to the time of Darius. The tablets are
       dated month after month and year after year, and thus they
       afford us a sure method of fixing the chronology of that very
       uncertain period of history. There is a small contract tablet
       in the Museum at Zürich, discovered by Dr. Oppert, dated in
       the 5th year of Pacorus, king of Persia, who reigned about the
       time of Domitian. There is a little doubt about the reading of
       one of the characters in the name, but if it is correct, it
       will prove that the use of cuneiform did not fall into disuse
       until after the Christian Era. … Some have tried to show
       that Egibi is the Babylonian form of Jacob, which would lead
       one to suspect the family to have been Jews; but this is not
       certain at present."

          E. A. W. Budge,
          Babylonian Life and History,
          page 115.

    {2200}

       "It is in the development of trade, and especially of banking,
       rather than in manufactures, that Babylonia and Chaldæa were
       in advance of all the rest of the world. The most cautious
       Assyriologists are the least confident in their renderings of
       the numerous contract tablets from which, if they were
       accurately interpreted, we should certainly be able to
       reconstruct the laws and usages of the world's first great
       market place. … The following account of Babylonian usages
       is derived from the text of M. Revillout's work. … It is
       confirmed in essentials by the later work of Meissner, who has
       translated over one hundred deeds of the age of Hammurabi and
       his successors. In Chaldæa every kind of commodity, from land
       to money, circulated with a freedom that is unknown to modern
       commerce; every value was negotiable, and there was no limit
       to the number and variety of the agreements that might be
       entered into. … Brick tablets did not lend themselves
       readily to 'bookkeeping,' as no further entry could be made
       after baking, while the first entry was not secure unless
       baked at once. Each brick recorded one transaction, and was
       kept by the party interested till the contract was completed,
       and the destruction of the tablet was equivalent to a receipt.
       Babylonian law allowed debts to be paid by assigning another
       person's debt to the creditor; a debt was property, and could
       be assigned without reference to the debtor, so that any
       formal acknowledgment of indebtedness could be treated like a
       negotiable bill—a fact which speaks volumes for the
       commercial honesty of the people. A separate tablet was, of
       course, required to record the original debt, or rather to say
       that So-and-so's debt to Such-an-one has been by him sold to a
       third party. Such third party could again either assign his
       claim to a bank for a consideration, or if the last debtor had
       a credit at the bank, the creditor could be paid out of that,
       a sort of forecast of the modern clearing-house system. The
       debtor who pays before the term agreed on has to receive a
       formal surrender of the creditor's claim, or a transfer of it
       to himself. The Babylonian regarded money and credit as
       synonymous, and the phrase, 'Money of Such-an-one upon
       So-and-so,' is used as equivalent to A's credit with B. … In
       ancient Babylonia, as in modern China, the normal effect of a
       loan was supposed to be beneficial to the borrower. In Egypt,
       judging from the form of the deeds, the idea was that the
       creditor asserted a claim upon the debtor, or the debtor
       acknowledged a liability to the man from whom he had borrowed.
       In Babylonia the personal question is scarcely considered; one
       person owes money to another—that is the commonest thing in
       the world—such loans are in a chronic state of being incurred
       and paid off; one man's debt is another man's credit, and
       credit being the soul of commerce, the loan is considered
       rather as a part of the floating negotiable capital of the
       country than as a burden on the shoulders of one particular
       debtor."

          E. J. Simcox,
          Primitive Civilizations,
          volume 1, pages 320-322.

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       China.

       "Not only did the Chinese possess coins at a very early
       period, but they were also the inventors of bank notes. Some
       writers regard bank notes as having originated about 119 B.
       C., in the reign of the Emperor Ou-ti. At this time the Court
       was in want of money, and to raise it Klaproth tells us that
       the prime minister hit upon the following device. When any
       princess or courtiers entered the imperial presence, it was
       customary to cover the face with a piece of skin. It was first
       decreed then, that for this purpose the skin of certain white
       deer kept in one of the royal parks should alone be permitted,
       and then these pieces of skin were sold for a high price. But
       although they appear to have passed from one noble to another,
       they do not seem ever to have entered into general
       circulation. It was therefore very different from the Russian
       skin money. In this case the notes were 'used instead of the
       skins from which they were cut, the skins themselves being too
       bulky and heavy to be constantly carried backward and forward.
       Only a little piece was cut off to figure as a token of
       possession of the whole skin. The ownership was proved when
       the piece fitted in the hole.' True bank notes are said to
       have been invented about 800 A. D., in the reign of
       Hiantsoung, of the dynasty of Thang, and were called
       'feytsien,' or flying money. It is curious, however, though
       not surprising, to find that the temptation to over-issue led
       to the same results in China as in the West. The value of the
       notes fell, until at length it took 11,000 min, or £3,000, to
       buy a cake of rice, and the use of notes appears to have been
       abandoned. Subsequently the issue was revived, and Tchang-yang
       (960-990 A. D.) seems to have been the first private person
       who issued notes. Somewhat later, under the Emperor
       'Tching-tsong (997-1022), this invention was largely extended.
       Sixteen of the richest firms united to form a bank of issue
       which emitted paper money in series, some payable every three
       years. The earliest mention, in European literature, of paper,
       or rather cotton, money appears to be by Rubruquis, a monk,
       who was sent by St. Louis, in the year 1252, to the Court of
       the Mongol Prince Mangu-Khan, but he merely mentions the fact
       of its existence. Marco Polo, who resided from 1275 to 1284 at
       the court of Kublai-Khan, … gives us a longer and
       interesting account of the note system, which he greatly
       admired, and he concludes by saying, 'Now you have heard the
       ways and means whereby the great Khan may have, and, in fact,
       has, more treasure than all the kings in the world. You know
       all about it, and the reason why.' But this apparent facility
       of creating money led, in the East, as it has elsewhere, to
       great abuses. Sir John Mandeville, who was in Tartary shortly
       afterwards, in 1322, tells us that the 'Emperour may dispenden
       als moehe as he wile with outen estymacioum. For he despendeth
       not, ne maketh no money, but of lether emprented, or of
       papyre. … For there and beyonde hem thei make no money,
       nouther of gold nor of sylver. And therefore he may despende
       ynow and outrageously.' The great Khan seems to have been
       himself of the same opinion. He appears to have 'despent
       outrageously,' and the value of the paper money again fell to
       a very small fraction of its nominal amount, causing great
       discontent and misery, until about the middle of the sixteenth
       century, under the Mandchu dynasty, it was abolished, and
       appears to have been so completely forgotten, that the Jesuit
       father, Gabriel de Magaillans, who resided at Pekin about
       1668, observes that there is no recollection of paper money
       having ever existed in the manner described by Marco Polo;
       though two centuries later it was again in use. It must be
       observed, however, that these Chinese bank notes differed from
       ours in one essential—namely, they were not payable at sight.
    {2201}
       Western notes, even when not payable at all, have generally
       purported to be exchangeable at the will of the holder, but
       this principle the Chinese did not adopt, and their notes were
       only payable at certain specified periods."

          Sir J. Lubbock,
          The History of Money
          (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Vissering,
          On Chinese Currency.

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Coinage in its Beginnings.

       "Many centuries before the invention of the art of coining,
       gold and silver in the East, and bronze in the West, in
       bullion form, had already supplanted barter, the most
       primitive of all methods of buying and selling, when among
       pastoral peoples the ox and the sheep were the ordinary
       mediums of exchange. The very word 'pecunia' is an evidence of
       this practice in Italy at a period which is probably recent in
       comparison with the time when values were estimated in cattle
       in Greece and the East. 'So far as we have any knowledge,'
       says Herodotus, 'the Lydians were the first nation to
       introduce the use of gold and silver coin.' This statement of
       the father of history must not, however, be accepted as
       finally settling the vexed question as to who were the
       inventors of coined money, for Strabo, Aelian, and the Parian
       Chronicle, all agree in adopting the more commonly received
       tradition, that Pheidon, King of Argos, first struck silver
       coins in the island of Aegina. These two apparently
       contradictory assertions modern research tends to reconcile
       with one another. The one embodies the Asiatic, the other the
       European tradition; and the truth of the matter is that gold
       was first coined by the Lydians in Asia Minor, in the seventh
       century before our era; and that silver was first struck in
       European Greece about the same time. The earliest coins are
       simply bullets of metal, oval or bean-shaped, bearing on one
       side the signet of the state or of the community responsible
       for the purity of the metal and the exactness of the weight.
       Coins were at first stamped on one side only, the reverse
       showing merely the impress of the square-headed spike or anvil
       on which, after being weighed, the bullet of hot metal was
       placed with a pair of tongs and there held while a second
       workman adjusted upon it the engraved die. This done, a third
       man with a heavy hammer would come down upon it with all his
       might, and the coin would be produced, bearing on its face or
       obverse the seal of the issuer, and on the reverse only the
       mark of the anvil spike, an incuse square. This simple process
       was after a time improved upon by adding a second engraved die
       beneath the metal bullet, so that a single blow of the
       sledge-hammer would provide the coin with a type, as it is
       called, in relief on both sides. The presence of the
       unengraved incuse square may therefore be accepted as an
       indication of high antiquity, and nearly all Greek coins which
       are later than the age of the Persian wars bear a type on both
       sides. … Greek coin-types may be divided into two distinct
       classes:

       (a) Mythological or religious representations, and
       (b) portraits of historical persons.

       From the earliest times down to the age of Alexander the Great
       the types of Greek coins are almost exclusively religious.
       However strange this may seem at first, it is not difficult to
       explain. It must be borne in mind that when the enterprising
       and commercial Lydians first lighted upon the happy idea of
       stamping metal for general circulation, a guarantee of just
       weight and purity of metal would be the one condition
       required. … What more binding guarantee could be found than
       the invocation of one or other of those divinities most
       honoured and most dreaded in the district in which the coin
       was intended to circulate. There is even good reason to think
       that the earliest coins were actually struck within the
       precincts of the temples, and under the direct auspices of the
       priests; for in times of general insecurity by sea and land,
       the temples alone remained sacred and inviolate."

          B. V. Head,
          Greek Coins
          Coins and Medals, edited by S. Lane-Poole, chapter 2.

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Early Banking.

       "The banker's calling is both new and old. As a distinct
       branch of commerce, and a separate agent in the advancement of
       civilisation, its history hardly extends over 300 years; but,
       in a rude and undeveloped sort of way, it has existed during
       some dozens of centuries. It began almost with the beginning
       of society. No sooner had men learnt to adopt a portable and
       artificial equivalent for their commodities, and thus to buy
       and sell and get gain more easily, than the more careful of
       them began to gather up their money in little heaps, or in
       great heaps, if they were fortunate enough. These heaps were,
       by the Romans, called montes—mounds, or banks,—and
       henceforth every money-maker was a primitive banker. The
       prudent farmers and shopkeepers in the out-of-the-way
       villages, who now lock up their savings in strong boxes, or
       conceal them in places where they are least likely to be found
       by thieves, show us how the richest and most enterprising men
       of far-off times, whether in Anglo-Saxon or mediæval Britain,
       ancient Greece and Rome, China or Judæa, made banks for
       themselves before the great advantages of joint-stock heaping
       up of money were discovered. When and in what precise way that
       discovery was made antiquarians have yet to decide. …
       Perhaps Jews and Greeks set the example to the modern world.
       Every rich Athenian had his treasurer or money-keeper, and
       whenever any particular treasurer proved himself a good
       accountant and safe banker, it is easy to understand how, from
       having one master, he came to have several, until he was able
       to change his condition of slavery for the humble rank of a
       freedman, and then to use his freedom to such good purpose
       that he became an influential member of the community. Having
       many people's money, entrusted to his care, he received good
       payment for his responsible duty, and he quickly learned to
       increase his wealth by lending out his own savings, if not his
       employers' capital, at the highest rate of interest that he
       could obtain. The Greek bankers were chiefly famous as
       money-lenders, and interest at thirty-six per cent. per annum
       was not considered unusually exorbitant among them. For their
       charges they were often blamed by spendthrifts, satirists, and
       others. 'It is said,' complains Plutarch, 'that hares bring
       forth and nourish their young at the same time that they
       conceive again; but the debts of these scoundrels and savages
       bring forth before they conceive, for they give and
       immediately demand again; they take away their money at the
       same time as they put it out; they place at interest what they
       receive as interest. The Messenians have a proverb: "There is
       a Pylos before Pylos, and yet another Pylos still."
    {2202}
       So of the usurers it may be said, "There is a profit before
       profit, and yet another profit still;" and then, forsooth,
       they laugh at philosophers, who say that nothing can come out
       of nothing!' The Greek bankers and money-lenders, those of
       Delos and Delphi especially, are reported to have used the
       temples as treasure-houses, and to have taken the priests into
       partnership in their money-making. Some arrangement of that
       sort seems to have existed among the Jews, and to have aroused
       the anger of Jesus when he went into the Temple of Jerusalem,
       'and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and said unto
       them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of
       prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.' Bankers' or
       money-changers' tables were famous institutions all over the
       civilised world of the ancients. Livy tells how, in 308 B. C.,
       if not before, they were to be found in the Roman Forum, and
       later Latin authors make frequent allusions to banking
       transactions of all sorts. They talk of deposits and
       securities, bills of exchange and drafts to order, cheques and
       bankers' books, as glibly as a modern merchant. But these
       things were nearly forgotten during the dark ages, until the
       Jews, true to the money-making propensities that characterised
       them while they still had a country of their own, set the
       fashion of money-making and of banking in all the countries of
       Europe through which they were dispersed."

          H. R. Fox Bourne,
          Romance of Trade,
          chapter 4.

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Ancient Greece.

       "Oriental contact first stirred the 'auri sacra fames' in the
       Greek mind. That this was so the Greek language itself tells
       plainly. For 'chrusos,' gold, is a Semitic loan-word, closely
       related to the Hebrew 'charuz,' but taken immediately, there
       can be no reasonable doubt, from the Phœnician. The restless
       treasure-seekers from Tyre were, indeed, as the Græco-Semitic
       term metal intimates, the original subterranean explorers of
       the Balkan peninsula. As early, probably, as the 15th century
       B. C. they 'digged out ribs of gold' on the islands of Thasos
       and Siphnos, and on the Thracian mainland at Mount Pangæum;
       and the fables of the Golden Fleece, and of Arimaspian wars
       with gold-guarding griffins, prove the hold won by the
       'precious bane' over the popular imagination. Asia Minor was,
       however, the chief source of prehistoric supply, the native
       mines lying long neglected after the Phœnicians had been
       driven from the scene. Midas was a typical king in a land
       where the mountains were gold-granulated, and the rivers ran
       over sands of gold. And it was in fact from Phrygia that
       Pelops was traditionally reported to have brought the
       treasures which made Mycenæ the golden city of the Achæan
       world. The Epic affluence in gold was not wholly fictitious.
       From the sepulchres of Mycenæ alone about one hundred pounds
       Troy weight of the metal have been disinterred; freely at
       command even in the lowest stratum of the successive
       habitations at Hissarlik, it was lavishly stored, and highly
       wrought in the picturesquely-named 'treasure of Priam'; and
       has been found, in plates and pearls, beneath twenty metres of
       volcanic debris, in the Cyclatic islands Thera and Therapia.
       This plentifulness contrasts strangely with the extreme
       scarcity of gold in historic Greece. It persisted, however,
       mainly owing to the vicinity of the auriferous Ural Mountains,
       in the Milesian colony of Panticapæum, near Kertch, where
       graves have been opened containing corpses shining 'like
       images' in a complete clothing of gold-leaf, and equipped with
       ample supplies of golden vessels and ornaments. Silver was, at
       the outset, a still rarer substance than gold. Not that there
       is really less of it. … But it occurs less obviously, and is
       less easy to obtain pure. Accordingly, in some very early
       Egyptian inscriptions, silver, by heading the list of metals,
       claims a supremacy over them which proved short-lived. It
       terminated for ever with the scarcity that had produced it,
       when the Phœnicians began to pour the flood of Spanish silver
       into the markets and treasure-chambers of the East. Armenia
       constituted another tolerably copious source of supply; and it
       was in this quarter that Homer located the 'birth-place of
       silver.'"

          A. M. Clerke,
          Familiar Studies in Homer,
          chapter 10.

       "Taken as a whole the Greek money is excellent; pure in metal
       and exact in weight, its real corresponding to its nominal
       value. Nothing better has been done in this way among the most
       civilized and best governed nations of modern times. There is,
       indeed, always a certain recognized limit, which keeps the
       actual weight of the money slightly below its theoretical
       weight; and this fact recurs with such regularity that it may
       be regarded as a rule. We must conclude, therefore, that it
       was under this form that Greek civilization allowed to the
       coiner of money the right of seigniorage, or the benefit
       legitimately due to him to cover the expenses of the coinage,
       and in exchange for the service rendered by him to the public
       in providing them with money, by which they were saved the
       trouble of perpetual weighing. This allowance, however, is
       always kept within very narrow limits, and is never more than
       the excess of the natural value of the coined money over that
       of the metal in ingots. … Of course, the general and
       predominant fact of the excellence of the Greek money in the
       time of Hellenic independence is subject, like all human
       things, to some exceptions. There were a few cities which
       yielded to the delusive bait of an unlawful advantage,
       debasing the quality of their coins without foreseeing that
       the consequences of this unfair operation would react against
       themselves. But these exceptions are very rare."

          F. Lenormant,
          Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
          (Contemporary Review, February; 1879).

       "The quantity, particularly of gold, … was, in the earlier
       historical periods, according to unexceptionable testimony,
       extremely small. In the time of Crœsus, according to
       Theopompus, gold was not to be found for sale in any of the
       Greek States. The Spartans, needing some for a votive
       offering, wished to purchase a quantity from Crœsus;
       manifestly because he was the nearest person from whom it
       could be obtained. … Even during the period from the
       seventieth to the eightieth Olympiads, (B. C. 500-460,) pure
       gold was a rarity. When Hiero of Syracuse wished to send a
       tripod and a statue of the Goddess of Victory, made of pure
       gold, to the Delphian Apollo, he could not procure the
       requisite quantity of metal until his agents applied to the
       Corinthian Architiles, who, as was related by the
       above-mentioned Theopompus and Phanias of Eresus, had long
       been in the practice of purchasing gold in small quantities,
       and hoarding it. Greece proper itself did not possess many
       mines of precious metals. The most important of the few which
       it possessed were the Attic silver mines of Laurion.
    {2203}
       These were at first very productive. … Asia and Africa
       furnished incomparably a larger quantity of the precious
       metals than was procured in Greece and the other European
       countries. … Colchis, Lydia, and Phrygia, were distinguished
       for their abundance of gold. Some derive the tradition of the
       golden fleece from the gold washings in Colchis. Who has not
       heard of the riches of Midas, and Gyges, and Crœsus, the gold
       mines of the mountains Tmolus and Sipylus, the gold-sand of
       the Pactolus? … From the very productive gold mines of
       India, together with its rivers flowing with gold, among which
       in particular the Ganges may be classed, arose the fable of
       the gold-digging ants. From these annual revenues the royal
       treasure was formed. By this a great quantity of precious
       metal was kept from circulation. It was manifestly their
       principle to coin only as much gold and silver as was
       necessary for the purposes of trade, and for the expenditures
       of the State. In Greece, also, great quantities were kept from
       circulation, and accumulated in treasuries. There were locked
       up in the citadel of Athens 9,700 talents of coined silver,
       besides the gold and silver vessels and utensils. The Delphian
       god possessed a great number of the most valuable articles.
       … The magnificent expenditures of Pericles upon public
       edifices and structures, for works of the plastic arts, for
       theatrical exhibitions, and in carrying on wars, distributed
       what Athens had collected, into many hands. The temple-robbing
       Phocians coined from the treasures at Delphi ten thousand
       talents in gold and silver; and this large sum was consumed by
       war. Philip of Macedonia, in fine, carried on his wars as much
       with gold as with arms. Thus a large amount of money came into
       circulation in the period between the commencement of the
       Persian wars and the age of Demosthenes. The precious metals,
       therefore, must of necessity have depreciated in value, as
       they did at a later period, when Constantine the Great caused
       money to be coined from the precious articles found in the
       heathen temples. But what a quantity of gold and silver flowed
       through Alexander's conquest of Asia into the western
       countries! Allowing that his historians exaggerate, the main
       point, however, remains certain. … Alexander's successors
       not only collected immense sums, but by their wars again put
       them into circulation. … The enormous taxes which were
       raised in the Macedonian kingdoms, the revelry and extravagant
       liberality of the kings, which passed all bounds, indicate the
       existence of an immense amount of ready money."

          A. Boeckh,
          The Public Economy of the Athenians,
          book 1, chapter 3.

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Phœnicia.

       "Nearly all the silver in common use for trade throughout the
       East was brought into the market by the Phœnicians. The silver
       mines were few and distant; the trade was thus a monopoly,
       worth keeping so by the most savage treatment of suspected
       rivals, and, as a monopoly, so lucrative that, but for the
       long and costly voyage between Spain and Syria, the merchant
       would have seemed to get his profit for nothing. … The use
       of silver money, though it did not originate with the
       Phœnicians, was no doubt promoted by their widespread
       dealings. The coins were always of known weight, and standing
       in a well-known relation to the bars used for large
       transactions."

          E. J. Simcox,
          Primitive Civilizations,
          volume 1, page 400.

       "It is a curious fact that coinage in Phoenicia, one of the
       most commercial of ancient countries, should have been late in
       origin, and apparently not very plentiful. There are, in fact,
       no coins of earlier period than the third century which we can
       with certainty attribute to the great cities of Tyre and
       Sidon. Some modern writers, however, consider that many of the
       coins generally classed under Persia—notably those bearing
       the types of a chariot, a galley, and an owl respectively—
       were issued by those cities in the 5th and 4th centuries B. C.
       But it is certain, in any case, that the Phoenicians were far
       behind the Greeks in the art of moneying. With the invasion of
       Persia by Alexander the Great came a great change; and all the
       ancient landmarks of Asiatic government and order were swept
       away. During the life of Alexander the Great the coins bearing
       his name and his types circulated throughout Asia; and after
       his death the same range of currency was attained by the money
       of the early Seleucid Kings of Syria—Seleucis I., Antiochus
       I., and Antiochus II., who virtually succeeded to the
       dominions of the Persian Kings, and tried in many respects to
       carry on their policy. Of these monarchs we possess a splendid
       series of coins."

          S. Lane-Poole,
          Coins and Medals,
          chapter 6.

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       The Jews.

       "It would seem that, until the middle of the second century B.
       C., the Jews either weighed out gold and silver for the 'Price
       of goods, or else used the money usually current in Syria,
       that of Persia, Phoenicia, Athens, and the Seleucidae. Simon
       the Maccabee was the first to issue the Jewish shekel as a
       coin, and we learn from the Book of Maccabees that the
       privilege of striking was expressly granted him by King
       Antiochus VII. of Syria. We possess shekels of years 1-5 of
       the deliverance of Zion; the types are a chalice and a triple
       flower. The kings who succeeded Simon, down to Antigonus,
       confined themselves to the issue of copper money, with Hebrew
       legends and with types calculated not to shock the susceptible
       feelings of their people, to whom the representation of a
       living thing was abominable—such types as a lily, a palm, a
       star, or an anchor. When the Herodian family came in, several
       violations of this rule appear."

          S. Lane-Poole,
          Coins and Medals,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          G. C. Williamson,
          The Money of the Bible.

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Rome.

       "In Rome the generic terms for money seem to have been
       successively, pecunia, As, nummns, and moneta. … Moneta …
       is derived from the name of the temple in which, or in a
       building to or next to which the money of Rome was coined
       after the defeat of Pyrrhus, B. a. 275, more probably after
       the capture of Tarentum by the Romans, B. C. 272. It probably
       did not come into use until after the era of Scipio, and then
       was only used occasionally until the period of the Empire,
       when it and its derivatives became more common. Nummus,
       nevertheless, continued to hold its ground until towards the
       decline of the Empire, when it went entirely out of use, and
       moneta and its derivatives usurped its place, which it has
       continued to hold ever since. Moneta is therefore
       substantially a term of the Dark Ages. … The idea associated
       with moneta is coins, whose value was derived mainly from that
       of the material of which they were composed; whilst the idea
       associated with nummus is a system of symbols whose value was
       derived from legal limitation.
    {2204}
       From the fact that our language sprang from the Dark Ages, we
       have no generic word for money other than moneta, which only
       relates to one kind of money. For a similar reason, the
       comparative newness of the English tongue, we have no word for
       a piece of money except coin, which, properly speaking, only
       relates to one kind of piece, namely, that which is struck by
       the cuneus."

          A. Del Mar,
          History of Money in Ancient Countries,
          chapter 28.

       The extent and energy of the Roman traffic, in the great age
       of the Republic, during the third and second centuries before
       Christ, "may be traced most distinctly by means of coins and
       monetary relations. The Roman denarius kept pace with the
       Roman legions. … The Sicilian mints—last of all that of
       Syracuse in 542—were closed or at any rate restricted to
       small money in consequence of the Roman conquest, and … in
       Sicily and Sardinia the denarius obtained legal circulation at
       least side by side with the older silver currency and probably
       very soon became the exclusive legal tender. With equal if not
       greater rapidity the Roman silver coinage penetrated into
       Spain, where the great silver-mines existed and there was
       virtually no earlier national coinage; at a very early period
       the Spanish towns even began to coin after the Roman standard.
       On the whole, as Carthage coined only to a very limited
       extent, there existed not a single important mint in addition
       to that of Rome in the region of the western Mediterranean,
       with the exception of the mint of Massilia and perhaps also of
       those of the Illyrian Greeks at Apollonia and Epidamnus.
       Accordingly, when the Romans began to establish themselves in
       the region of the Po, these mints were about 225 subjected to
       the Roman standard in such a way, that, while they retained
       the right of coining silver, they uniformly—and the
       Massiliots in particular—were led to adjust their drachma to
       the weight of the Roman three-quarter denarius, which the
       Roman government on its part began to coin, primarily for the
       use of upper Italy, under the name of the 'piece of Victory'
       (victoriatus). This new system, based on the Roman, prevailed
       throughout the Massiliot, Upper Italian, and Illyrian
       territories; and these coins even penetrated into the
       barbarian lands on the north, those of Massilia, for instance,
       into the Alpine districts along the whole basin of the Rhone,
       and those of Illyria as far as the modern Transylvania. The
       eastern half of the Mediterranean was not yet reached by the
       Roman money, as it had not yet fallen under the direct
       sovereignty of Rome; but its place was filled by gold, the
       true and natural medium for international and transmarine
       commerce. It is true that the Roman government, in conformity
       with its strictly conservative character, adhered—with the
       exception of a temporary coinage of gold occasioned by the
       financial embarrassment during the Hannibalic war—steadfastly
       to the rule of coining silver only in addition to the
       national-Italian copper; but commerce had already assumed such
       dimensions, that it was able in the absence of money to
       conduct its transactions with gold by weight. Of the sum in
       cash, which lay in the Roman treasury in 597, scarcely a sixth
       was coined or uncoined silver, five-sixths consisted of gold
       in bars, and beyond doubt the precious metals were found in
       all the chests of the larger Roman capitalists in
       substantially similar proportions. Already therefore gold held
       the first place in great transactions; and, as may be inferred
       from this fact, the preponderance of traffic was maintained
       with foreign lands, and particularly with the East, which
       since the times of Philip and Alexander the Great had adopted
       a gold currency. The whole gain from these immense
       transactions of the Roman capitalists flowed in the long run
       to Rome. … The moneyed superiority of Rome as compared with
       the rest of the civilized world was, accordingly, quite as
       decided as its political and military ascendancy. Rome in this
       respect stood towards other countries somewhat as the England
       of the present day stands towards the continent."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 12 (volume 2).

       In the later years of the Roman Republic the coinage became
       debased and uncertain. "Cæsar restored the public credit by
       issuing good money, such as had not been seen in Rome for a
       length of time, money of pure metal and exact weight; with
       scarcely any admixture of plated pieces, money which could
       circulate for its real value, and this measure became one of
       the principal sources of his popularity. Augustus followed his
       example, but at the same time took away from the Senate the
       right of coining gold and silver, reserving this exclusively
       to the imperial authority, which was to exercise it absolutely
       without control. From this time we find the theory that the
       value of money is arbitrary, and depends solely on the will of
       the sovereign who issues it, more and more widely and
       tenaciously held. … The faith placed in the official impress
       fostered the temptation to abuse it. … In less than a
       century the change of the money of the State into imperial
       money, and the theory that its value arose from its bearing
       the effigy of the sovereign, produced a system of adulteration
       of specie, which went on growing to the very close of the
       Empire, and which the successors of Augustus utilized largely
       for the indulgence of their passions and their prodigality."

          F. Lenormant,
          Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
          (Contemporary Review, February, 1879).

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Mediæval Money and Banking.

       As regards the monetary system of the Middle Ages, the
       precious metals, when uncoined, were weighed by the pound and
       half pound or mark, for which different standards were in use,
       the most generally recognised being those of Troyes and
       Cologne. Of coined money there existed a perplexing variety,
       which made it almost impossible to ascertain the relative
       value, not only of different coins, but of the same coin of
       different issues. This resulted from the emperor or king
       conferring the right of coinage upon various lords spiritual
       and temporal, from whom it was ultimately acquired by
       individual towns. The management was in most cases entrusted
       to a company, temporary or permanent, inspected by an
       official, the coin-tester, originally appointed by the
       sovereign, but afterwards by the company, and confirmed by the
       king or bishop. The house where the process of coining was
       performed was called the mint, and the company who held the
       rights of coinage in fee was known as the Mint House Company,
       or simply the House Company. Very generally the office was
       held by the Corporation of Goldsmiths. The want of perfect
       supervision led to great debasement of the currency,
       especially in Germany and France; but in England and Italy the
       standard was tolerably well maintained.
    {2205}
       Payments in silver were much more common than in gold. Before
       the Crusades the only gold coins known in Europe were the
       Byzantine solides, the Italian tari, and Moorish maurabotini.
       The solidi, which were originally of 23 to 23½ carat gold, but
       subsequently very much deteriorated, were reckoned as equal to
       twelve silver denars. They passed current in Southern and
       Eastern Europe, Hungary, Germany, Poland, and Prussia. …
       Solde, sol, and sou are only repeated transformations of the
       name of the coin, which have been accompanied by still greater
       changes in its value. The tari or tarentini derived its name
       from the Italian town where it was originally struck. It was
       less generally known than the solides, and was equal to
       one-fourth the latter in value. The maurabotini or sarazens
       were only of 15 carats gold. The name survives in the Spanish
       maravedi, which, however, like the sou, is now made of copper
       instead of gold. In the thirteenth century augustals,
       florentines, and ducats, or zecchins (sequins), were coined in
       Italy. The first-mentioned, the weight of which was half an
       ounce, were named in honour of Frederick II., who was Roman
       Cæsar and Augustus in 1252. The florentines, also known as
       gigliati, or lilies, from the arms of Florence, which they
       bore on one side, with the effigy of John the Baptist on the
       reverse, were of fine gold and lighter than the solidi, about
       64 being reckoned equal to the mark. The ducats or zecchins
       were of Venetian origin, receiving their first name from the
       Duca or Doge, and the other from the Zecca or Mint House. They
       were somewhat less in value than the florentines, 66 or 67
       being counted to the fine mark. Nearly equivalent in value to
       these Italian coins were the gold guilders coined in the
       fourteenth century in Hungary and the Rhine regions. The
       Rhenish guilder was of 22½ or 23 carats fine, and in weight
       1/66; of a mark of Cologne. The silver guilder was of later
       production, and the name is now used as equivalent to florin.
       … In silver payments, the metal being usually nearly pure,
       it was common to compute by weight, coins and uncoined bullion
       being alike put into the scale, as is still the case in some
       Eastern countries. Hence the origin of the pound, livre, or
       mark. The most widely diffused silver coin was the denarius,
       which was, as in ancient Roman times, the 11/240 of a pound.
       The name pending or pennig, by which the denarius was known
       among the old Teutonic nations, seems to be connected with
       pendere, to weigh out or pay; as the other ancient Teutonic
       coin, the sceat, was with sceoton, to pay, a word which is
       preserved in the modern phrases 'scot free,' 'pay your scot.'
       … Half-pennies and farthings were not known in the earliest
       times, but the penny was deeply indented by two cross lines,
       which enabled it to be broken into quarters or farthings
       (feordings or fourthings). From the indented cross the
       denarius was known in Germany as the kreutzer. … With such a
       diversity of coinage, it was necessary to settle any
       mercantile transaction in the currency of the place. Not only
       would sellers have refused to accept money whose value was
       unknown to them, but in many places they were forbidden to do
       so by law. Merchants attending foreign markets therefore
       brought with them a quantity of fine silver and gold in bars,
       which they exchanged on the spot for the current coin of the
       place, to be used in settling their transactions; the balance
       remaining on hand they re-exchanged for bullion before
       leaving. The business of money-changing, which thus arose, was
       a very lucrative one, and was originally mostly in the hands
       of Italian merchants, chiefly Lombards and Florentines. In
       Italy the money-changers formed a guild, members of which
       settled in the Netherlands, England, Cologne, and the
       Mediterranean ports. In these different towns and countries
       they kept up a close connection with each other and with
       Italy, and at an early period (before the thirteenth century)
       commenced the practice of assignments, i. e., receiving money
       in one place, to be paid by an order upon their correspondents
       in another, thus saving the merchant who travelled from
       country to country the expense and risk of transporting
       specie. In the thirteenth century this branch of business was
       in extensive use at Barcelona, and in 1307 the tribute of
       'Peter's pence' was sent from England to the Pope through the
       Lombard exchangers. From 5 to 6 per cent., or more, was
       charged upon the transaction, and the profitable nature of the
       business soon led many wealthy and even noble Italian families
       to employ their money in this way. They established a member
       of their firm in each of the great centres of trade to receive
       and pay on their account. In Florence alone (about 1350) there
       are said to have been eighty such houses. Among these the
       Frescobaldi, Bardi, and Peruzzi are well-known names; but the
       chief place was taken by the famous Florentine house of the
       Medici, who had banking houses established in sixteen of the
       chief cities of Europe and the Levant. In the north of Europe,
       before long, similar arrangements were established by the
       merchants of the Hanseatic League. … Assignments of this
       kind were drawn out in the form of letters, requesting the
       person by whom the money was due to pay it over to another
       party, named in the bill, on account of the writer, specifying
       also the time within which and the form in which the payment
       was to be made. They were thus known as letters, billets, or
       bills of exchange, and appear in Italy as early as the
       thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Among the earliest
       examples in existence are a letter of exchange, dated at Milan
       in 1325, payable within five months at Lucca; one dated at
       Bruges, 1304, and payable at Barcelona; and another, dated at
       Bologna, 1381, payable in Venice. … 'The first writers who
       treat of bills are Italians: the Italian language furnishes
       the technical terms for drafts, remittances, currency, sight,
       usance, and discount, used in most of the languages of
       Europe.' … Of other branches of banking the germs also
       appeared in the Middle Ages. Venice seems to have been the
       first city to possess something answering to a deposit bank.
       The merchants here united in forming a common treasury, where
       they deposited sums of money, upon which they gave assignments
       or orders for payment to their creditors, and to which similar
       assignments due to themselves were paid and added on to the
       amount at their credit. The taula di cambi (exchange counter)
       of Barcelona was a similar institution, as also the bank of
       St. George, at Genoa."

          J. Yeats,
          Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
          appendix F.

       The name "Lombards" was frequently given, during the Middle
       Ages, to all the Italian merchants and money-lenders—from
       Florence, Venice, Genoa, and elsewhere—who were engaged
       throughout Europe in banking and trade.

    {2206}

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Florentine Banking.

       "The business of money-changing seemed thoroughly at home
       here, and it is not surprising that the invention of bills of
       exchange, which we first meet with in 1199 in the relations
       between England and Italy, should be ascribed to Florence. The
       money trade seems to have flourished as early as the twelfth
       century, towards the end of which a Marquis of Ferrara raised
       money on his lands from the Florentines. In 1204 we find the
       money-changers as one of the corporations. In 1228, and
       probably from the beginning of the century, several
       Florentines were settled in London as changers to King Henry
       III.; and here, as in France, they conducted the money
       transactions of the Papal chair in conjunction with the
       Sienese. Their oldest known statute, which established rules
       for the whole conduct of trade (Statuto dell' Università della
       Mercatanzia) drawn up by a commission consisting of five
       members of the great guilds, is dated 1280. Their guild-hall
       was in the Via Calimaruzza, opposite that of the Calimala, and
       was litter included in the buildings of the post-office, on
       the site of which, after the post-office had been removed to
       what was formerly the mint, a building was lately erected,
       similar in architecture to the Palazzo of the Signoria, which
       stands opposite. Their coat of arms displayed gold coins laid
       one beside another on a red field. At the end of the
       thirteenth century their activity, especially in France and
       England, was extraordinarily great. But if wealth surpassing
       all previous conception was attained, it not seldom involved
       loss of repute, and those who pursued the calling ran the risk
       of immense losses from fiscal measures to the carrying out of
       which they themselves contributed, as well as those which were
       caused by insolvency or dishonesty. … The names of Tuscans
       and Lombards, and that of Cahorsiens in France, no longer
       indicated the origin, but the trade of the money-changers, who
       drew down the ancient hatred upon themselves. … France
       possessed at this time the greatest attraction for the
       Florentine money-makers, although they were sometimes severely
       oppressed, which is sufficient proof that their winnings were
       still greater than their occasional losses. … The Florentine
       money market suffered the severest blow from England. At the
       end of the twelfth century there were already Florentine
       houses of exchange in London, and if Pisans, Genoese, and
       Venetians managed the trade by sea in the times of the
       Crusades, it was the Florentines mostly who looked after
       financial affairs in connection with the Papal chair, as we
       have seen. Numerous banks appeared about the middle of the
       thirteenth century, among which the Frescobaldi, a family of
       ancient nobility, and as such attainted by the prosecutions
       against it, took the lead, and were referred to the
       custom-house of the country for re-imbursement of the loans
       made to the kings Edward I. and II. Later, the two great
       trading companies of the Bardi and Peruzzi came into notice,
       and with their money Edward III. began the French war against
       Philip of Valois. But even in the first year of this war,
       which began with an unsuccessful attack upon Flanders, the
       king suspended the payments to the creditors of the State by a
       decree of May 6, 1339. The advances made by the Bardi amounted
       to 180,000 marks sterling, those of the Peruzzi to above
       135,000, according to Giovanni Villani, who knew only too well
       about these things, since he was ruined by them himself to the
       extent of 'a sum of more than 1,355,000 gold florins,
       equivalent to the value of a kingdom.' Bonifazio Peruzzi, the
       head of the house, hastened to London, where he died of grief
       in the following year. The blow fell on the whole city. …
       Both houses began at once to liquidate, and the prevailing
       disturbance contributed not a little to the early success of
       the ambitious plans of the Duke of Athens. The real bankruptcy
       ensued, however, in January 1346, when new losses had occurred
       in Sicily. … The banks of the Acciaiuoli, Bonuccorsi,
       Cocchi, Antellesi, Corsini, da Uzzano, Perendoli, and many
       smaller ones, as well as numerous private persons, were
       involved in the ruin. 'The immense loans to foreign
       sovereigns,' adds Villani, 'drew down ruin upon our city, the
       like of which it had never known.' There was a complete lack
       of cash. Estates in the city found no purchasers at a third of
       their former value. … The famine and pestilence of 1347 and
       1348, the oppressions of the mercenary bands and the heavy
       expenses caused by them, the cost of the war against Pope
       Gregory XI., and finally the tumult of the Ciompi, left
       Florence no peace for a long time. … At the beginning of the
       fifteenth century industry was again flourishing in all its
       branches in Florence, financial operations were extended, and
       foreign countries filled with Florentine banks and mercantile
       houses. … In London the most important firms had their
       representatives, Bruges was the chief place for Flanders, and
       we shall see how these connections lasted to the time of the
       greatest splendour of the Medici. France is frequently
       mentioned. The official representatives of the Florentine
       nation resided in the capital, while numerous houses
       established themselves in Lyons, in Avignon (since the removal
       of the Papal chair to this town), in Nismes, Narbonne,
       Carcassonne, Marseilles, &c. … The house of the Peruzzi
       alone had sixteen counting-houses in the fourteenth century,
       from London to Cyprus."

          A. van Reumont,
          Lorenzo de' Medici,
          book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

       "The three principal branches of industry which enriched the
       Florentines were—banking, the manufacture of cloth, and the
       dyeing of it, and the manufacture of silk. The three most
       important guilds of the seven 'arti maggiori' were those which
       represented these three industries. Perhaps the most important
       in the amount of its gains, as well as that which first rose
       to a high degree of importance, was the 'Arte del Cambio,' or
       banking. The earliest banking operations seem to have arisen
       from the need of the Roman court to find some means of causing
       the dues to which it laid claim in distant parts of Europe to
       be collected and transmitted to Rome. When the Papal Court was
       removed to Avignon, its residence there occasioned a greatly
       increased sending backwards and forwards of money between
       Italy and that city. And of all this banking business, the
       largest and most profitable portion was in the hands of
       Florentine citizens, whether resident in Florence or in the
       various commercial cities of Europe. We find Florentines
       engaged in lending money at interest to sovereign princes as
       early as the first quarter of the twelfth century."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    {2207}

    MONEY AND BANKING:
       Genoa.
       The Bank of St. George.

       "The Bank of St. George, its constitution, its building, and
       its history, forms one of the most interesting relies of
       mediæval commercial activity. Those old grey walls, as seen
       still in Genoa, begrimed with dirt and fast falling into
       decay, are the cradle of modern commerce, modern banking
       schemes, and modern wealth. … This Bank of St. George is
       indeed a most singular political phenomenon. Elsewhere than in
       Genoa we search in vain for a parallel for the existence of a
       body of citizens distinct from the government—with their own
       laws, magistrates, and independent authority—a state within a
       state, a republic within a republic. All dealings with the
       government were voluntary on the part of the bank. … But,
       far from working without harmony, we always find the greatest
       unanimity of feeling between these two forms of republics
       within the same city walls. The government of Genoa always
       respected the liberties of the bank, and the bank always did
       its best to assist the government when in pecuniary distress.
       … To define an exact origin for the bank is difficult; it
       owed its existence to the natural development of commercial
       enterprise rather than to the genius of anyone man, or the
       shrewdness of any particular period in Genoese history. The
       Crusades, and the necessary preparation of galleys, brought
       into Genoa the idea of advancing capital for a term of years
       as a loan to the government on the security of the taxes and
       public revenues; but in those cases the profits were quickly
       realized, and the debts soon cancelled by the monarchs who
       incurred them. However, the expeditions against the Saracens
       and the Moors were otherwise, and were undertaken at some risk
       to Genoa herself. … Now large sums of money were advanced,
       the profits on which were not spontaneous; it was more an
       investment of capital for a longer term of years, which was
       secured by the public revenues, but the profits of which
       depended on the success of the expedition. In 1148 was the
       first formal debt incurred by the government, and to meet the
       occasion the same system was adopted which continued in vogue,
       subject only to regulations and improvements which were found
       necessary as time went on, until the days of the French
       Revolution. The creditors nominated from amongst themselves a
       council of administration to watch over the common interests,
       and to them the government conceded a certain number of the
       custom duties for a term of years until the debt should be
       extinguished. This council of administration elected their own
       consuls, after the fashion of the Republic governors. Every
       hundred francs was termed a share (luogo) and every creditor a
       shareholder (luogatorio). … Each separate loan was termed a
       'compera,' and these loans were collectively known as the
       'compere of St. George,' which in later years became the
       celebrated bank. Each loan generally took the name of the
       object for which it was raised, or the name of the saint on
       whose day the contract was signed; and when an advance of
       money was required, it was done by public auction in the
       streets, when the auctioneer sold the investment to the ever
       ready merchants, who collected outside the 'loggia,' or other
       prominent position chosen for the sale. In a loud voice was
       proclaimed the name and object of the loan, and the tax which
       was to be handed over to the purchasers to secure its
       repayment. So numerous did these loans become by 1252, that it
       was found necessary to unite them under one head, with a
       chancellor and other minor officials to watch over them. And
       as time went on, so great was the credit of Genoa, and so easy
       was this system found for raising money, that the people began
       to grow alarmed at the extent of the liabilities. So, in 1302,
       commissioners were appointed at a great assembly, two hundred
       and seventy-one articles and regulations were drown up to give
       additional security to investors, and henceforth no future
       loan could be effected without the sanction of the consuls and
       the confirmation of the greater council of the shareholders.
       … During the days of the first doge, Simone Boccanegra,
       great changes were to be effected in the working system of the
       'compere of St. George.' To this date many have assigned the
       origin of the Bank of St. George, but it will be seen only to
       be a further consolidation of the same system, which had
       already been at work two centuries. … In 1339, … at the
       popular revolution, all the old books were burnt, and a new
       commission appointed to regulate the 'compere.' … Instead
       … of being the origin of the bank, it was only another step
       in the growing wish for consolidation, which the expanding
       tendency of the 'compere' rendered necessary; which
       consolidation took final effect in 1407, when the Bank was
       thoroughly organized on the same footing which lasted till the
       end. Every year and every event tended towards this system of
       blending the loans together, to which fact is due the
       extensive power which the directors of the bank eventually
       wielded, when all interests and all petty disputes were merged
       together in one. … As time went on, and the French governor,
       Boucicault, weighed on the treasury the burden of fresh
       fortifications, and an expensive war; when Corsican troubles,
       and the Turks in the East, caused the advance of money to be
       frequent, an assembly of all the shareholders in all the loans
       decided that an entire reorganization of the public debts
       should take place. Nine men were elected to draw up a new
       scheme, in 1407, and by their instrumentality all the shares
       were united; the interest for all was to be seven per cent.,
       and fresh officials were appointed to superintend the now
       thoroughly constituted and re-named 'Bank of St. George.' And
       at length we behold this celebrated bank. Its credit never
       failed, and no anxiety was ever felt by any shareholder about
       his annual income, until the days of the French Revolution.
       … This Bank of St. George was essentially one of the times,
       and not one which could have existed on modern ideas of
       credit; for it was a bank which would only issue paper for the
       coin in its actual possession, and would hardly suit the
       dictates of modern commerce. It was not a bank for borrowers
       but for capitalists, who required enormous security for
       immense sums until they could employ them themselves. … One
       of the most interesting features in connection with the
       dealings of the bank with the Genoese government, and a
       conclusive proof of the perfect accord which existed between
       them, was the cession from time to time of various colonies
       and provinces to the directors of the bank when the government
       felt itself too weak and too poor to maintain them. In this
       manner were the colonies in the Black Sea made over to the
       bank when the Turkish difficulties arose.
    {2208}
       Corsica and Cyprus, also towns on the Riviera, such as
       Sarzana, Ventimiglia, Levanto, found themselves at various
       times under the direct sovereignty of the bank. … It is
       melancholy to have to draw a veil over the career of this
       illustrious bank with the Revolution of 1798. The new order of
       things which Genoa had learnt from France deemed it
       inconsistent with liberty that the taxes, the property of the
       Republic, should remain in the hands of the directors of St.
       George; it was voted a tyranny on a small scale, and the
       directors were compelled to surrender them; and inasmuch as
       the taxes represented the sole source from which their income
       was derived, they soon discovered that their bank notes were
       useless, and the building was closed shortly afterwards. In
       1804 and 1814 attempts were made to resuscitate the fallen
       fortunes of St. George, but without avail; and so this bank,
       the origin of which was shrouded in the mysteries of bygone
       centuries, fell under the sweeping scythe of the French
       Revolution."

          J. T. Bent,
          Genoa,
          chapter 11.

          See, also, GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

    MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17th Centuries.
       Monetary effects of the Discovery of America.

       "From 1492, the year of the discovery of the New World, to
       1500, it is doubtful whether [the mines of Mexico and Peru]
       … yielded on an average a prey of more than 1,500,000 francs
       (£60,000) a year. From 1500 to 1545, if we add to the treasure
       produced from the mines the amount of plunder found in the
       capital of the Montezumas, Ténochtitlan (now the city of
       Mexico), as well as in the temples and palaces of the kingdom
       of the Incas, the gold and silver drawn from America did not
       exceed an average of sixteen million francs (£640,000) a year.
       From 1545, the scene changes. In one of the gloomiest deserts
       on the face of the globe, in the midst of the rugged and
       inhospitable mountain scenery of Upper Peru, chance revealed
       to a poor Indian, who was guarding a flock of llamas, a mine
       of silver of incomparable richness. A crowd of miners was
       instantly attracted by the report of the rich deposits of ore
       spread over the sides of this mountain of Potocchi—a name
       which for euphony the European nations have since changed to
       Potosi. The exportation of the precious metals from America to
       Europe now rose rapidly to an amount which equalled, weight
       for weight, sixty millions of francs (£2,400,000) of our day,
       and it afterwards rose even to upwards of eighty millions. At
       that time such a mass of gold and silver represented a far
       greater amount of riches than at present. Under the influence
       of so extraordinary a supply, the value of these precious
       metals declined in Europe, in comparison with every other
       production of human industry, just as would be the case with
       iron or lead, if mines were discovered which yielded those
       metals in superabundance, as compared with their present
       consumption, and at a much less cost of labour than
       previously, just in fact as occurs in the case of manufactures
       of every kind, whenever, by improved processes, or from
       natural causes of a novel kind, they can be produced in
       unusual quantities, and at a great reduction of cost. This
       fall in the value of gold and silver, in comparison with all
       other productions, revealed itself by the increased quantity
       of coined metal which it was necessary to give in exchange for
       the generality of other articles. And it was thus that the
       working of the mines of America had necessarily for effect a
       general rise of prices, in other words, it made all other
       commodities dearer. The fall in the value of the precious
       metals, or that which means the same thing, the general rise
       of prices, does not appear to have been very great, out of
       Spain, till after the middle of the 16th century. Shortly
       after the commencement of the 17th century, the effects of the
       productiveness of the new mines and of the diminished cost of
       working them were realised in all parts of Europe. For the
       silver, which had been extracted in greater proportion than
       the gold, and on more favourable terms, the fall in value had
       been in the proportion of 1 to 3. In transactions where
       previously one pound of silver, or a coin containing a given
       quantity of this metal, had sufficed, henceforth three were
       required. … After having been arrested for awhile in this
       downward course, and even after having witnessed for a time a
       tendency to an upward movement, the fall in the value of the
       precious metals, and the corresponding rise in prices, resumed
       their course, under the influence of the same causes, until
       towards the end of the 18th century, without however
       manifesting their influence so widely or intensely as had been
       witnessed after the first development of the great American
       mines. We find, as the result, that during the first half of
       the 19th century, the value of silver fell to about the sixth
       of what it was before the discovery of America, when compared
       with the price of corn."

          M. Chevalier,
          On the Probable Fall in the Value of Gold
          (translated by Cobden),
          section 1, chapter 1.

    MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
       The Bank of Amsterdam.

       "In 1609, the great Bank of Amsterdam was founded, and its
       foundation not only testifies to the wealth of the republic,
       but marks an epoch in the commercial history of Northern
       Europe. Long before this period, banks had been established in
       the Italian cities, but, until late in the history of the Bank
       of England, which was not founded until nearly a century
       later, nothing was known on such a scale as this. It was
       established to meet the inconvenience arising from the
       circulation of currency from all quarters of the globe, and to
       accommodate merchants in their dealings. Anyone making a
       deposit of gold or silver received notes for the amount, less
       a small commission, and these notes commanded a premium in all
       countries. Before the end of the century its deposits of this
       character amounted to one hundred and eighty million dollars,
       an amount of treasure which bewildered financiers in every
       other part of Europe."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          volume 2, pages 323-324.

    MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
       Indian Money used in the American Colonies.

       Sea shells, strung or embroidered on belts and garments,
       formed the "wampum" which was the money of the North American
       Indians (see WAMPUM). "Tradition gives to the Narragansetts
       the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both
       for use and exchange. This tribe was one of the most powerful,
       and it is asserted that their commercial use of wampum gave
       them their best opportunities of wealth. The Long Island
       Indians manufactured the beads in large quantities and then
       were forced to pay them away in tribute to the Mohawks and the
       fiercer tribes of the interior.
    {2209}
       Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets, which carried
       a permanent value, through the constancy of the Indian desire
       for them. The holder of wampum always compelled trade to come
       to him. After the use of wampum was established in colonial
       life, contracts were made payable at will in wampum, beaver,
       or silver. … The use began in New England in 1627. It was a
       legal tender until 1661, and for more than three quarters of a
       century the wampum was current in small transactions. For more
       than a century, indeed; this currency entered into the
       intercourse of Indian and colonist. … Labor is a chief
       factor in civilized society and the labor of the Indian was
       made available through wampum. As Winthrop shows, 10,000
       beaver skins annually came to the Dutch from the Great Lake.
       The chase was the primitive form of Indian industry and furs
       were the most conspicuous feature of foreign trade, as gold is
       to-day, but wampum played a much larger part in the vital
       trade of the time. Wampum, or the things it represented,
       carried deer meat and Indian corn to the New England men. Corn
       and pork went for fish; fish went for West India rum,
       molasses, and the silver which Europe coveted. West India
       products, or the direct exchange of fish with the Catholic
       countries of Europe, brought back the goods needed to
       replenish and extend colonial industries and trade. … As
       long as the natives were active and furs were plenty, there
       appears to have been no difficulty in passing any quantity of
       wampum in common with other currencies. The Bay annulled its
       statutes, making the beads a legal tender in 1661. Rhode
       Island and Connecticut followed this example soon after. …
       New York continued the beads in circulation longer than the
       regular use prevailed in New England. In 1693 they were
       recognized in the definite rates of the Brooklyn ferry. They
       continued to be circulated in the more remote districts of New
       England through the century, and even into the beginning of
       the eighteenth."

          W. B. Weeden,
          Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization,
          pages 5-30.

    MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
       Colonial Coinage in America.

       "The earliest coinage for America is said to have been
       executed in 1612, when the Virginia Company was endeavoring to
       establish a Colony on the Summer Islands (the Bermudas). This
       coin was of the denomination of a shilling, and was struck in
       brass." The "pine-tree" money of Massachusetts" was instituted
       by the Colonial Assembly in 1652, after the fall of Charles I.
       … This coinage was not discontinued until 1686; yet they
       appear to have continued the use of the same date, the
       shillings, sixpences, and threepences all bearing the date
       1652, while the twopenny pieces are all dated 1662. … After
       the suppression of their mint, the Colony of Massachusetts
       issued no more coins until after the establishment of the
       Confederacy. … The silver coins of Lord Baltimore, Lord
       Proprietor of Maryland, were the shilling, sixpence, and
       fourpence, or groat."

          J. R. Snowden,
          Description of Ancient and Modern Coins,
          pages 85-87.

          See PINE TREE MONEY.

    MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
       Banking in Great Britain.
       Origin and influence of the Bank of England.

       "In the reign of William old men were still living who could
       remember the days when there was not a single banking house in
       the city of London. So late as the time of the Restoration
       every trader had his own strong box in his own house, and,
       when an acceptance was presented to him, told down the crowns
       and Caroluses on his own counter. But the increase of wealth
       had produced its natural effect, the subdivision of labour.
       Before the end of the reign of Charles II. a new mode of
       paying and receiving money had come into fashion among the
       merchants of the capital. A class of agents arose, whose
       office was to keep the cash of the commercial houses. This new
       branch of business naturally fell into the hands of the
       goldsmiths, who were accustomed to traffic largely in the
       precious metals, and who had vaults in which great masses of
       bullion could lie secure from fire and from robbers. It was at
       the shops of the goldsmiths of Lombard Street that all the
       payments in coin were made. Other traders gave and received
       nothing but paper. This great change did not take place
       without much opposition and clamour. … No sooner had banking
       become a separate and important trade, than men began to
       discuss with earnestness the question whether it would be
       expedient to erect a national bank. … Two public banks had
       long been renowned throughout Europe, the Bank of Saint George
       at Genoa, and the Bank of Amsterdam. … Why should not the
       Bank of London be as great and as durable as the Banks of
       Genoa and Amsterdam? Before the end of the reign of Charles
       II. several plans were proposed, examined, attacked and
       defended. Some pamphleteers maintained that a national bank
       ought to be under the direction of the King. Others thought
       that the management ought to be entrusted to the Lord Mayor,
       Alderman and Common Council of the capital. After the
       Revolution the subject was discussed with an animation before
       unknown. … A crowd of plans, some of which resemble the
       fancies of a child or the dreams of a man in a fever, were
       pressed on the government. Pre-eminently conspicuous among the
       political mountebanks, whose busy faces were seen every day in
       the lobby of the House of Commons, were John Briscoe and Hugh
       Chamberlayne, two projectors worthy to have been members of
       that Academy which Gulliver found at Lagado. These men
       affirmed that the one cure for every distemper of the State
       was a Land Bank. A Land Bank would work for England miracles
       such as had never been wrought for Israel. … These blessed
       effects the Land Bank was to produce simply by issuing
       enormous quantities of notes on landed security. The doctrine
       of the projectors was that every person who had real property
       ought to have, besides that property, paper money to the full
       value of that property. Thus, if his estate was worth two
       thousand pounds, he ought to have his estate and two thousand
       pounds in paper money. Both Briscoe and Chamberlayne
       treated with the greatest contempt the notion that there could
       be an over-issue of paper as long as there was, for every ten
       pound note, a piece of land in the country worth ten pounds.
       … All the projectors of this busy time, however, were not so
       absurd as Chamberlayne. One among them, William Paterson, was
       an ingenious, though not always a judicious speculator. Of his
       early life little is known except that he was a native of
       Scotland, and that he had been in the West Indies. … This
       man submitted to the government, in 1691, a plan of a national
       bank; and his plan was favourably received both by statesmen
       and by merchants.
    {2210}
       But years passed away; and nothing was done, till, in the
       spring of 1694, it became absolutely necessary to find some
       new mode of defraying the charges of the war. Then at length
       the scheme devised by the poor and obscure Scottish adventurer
       was taken up in earnest by Montague [Charles Montague, then
       one of the lords of the treasury and subsequently Chancellor
       of the Exchequer]. With Montague was closely allied Michael
       Godfrey. … Michael was one of the ablest, most upright and
       most opulent of the merchant princes of London. … By these
       two distinguished men Paterson's scheme was fathered. Montague
       undertook to manage the House of Commons, Godfrey to manage
       the City. An approving vote was obtained from the Committee of
       Ways and Means; and a bill, the title of which gave occasion
       to many sarcasms, was laid on the table. It was indeed not
       easy to guess that a bill, which purported only to impose a
       new duty on tonnage for the benefit of such persons as should
       advance money towards carrying on the war, was really a bill
       creating the greatest commercial institution that the world
       had ever seen. The plan was that £1,200,000 should be borrowed
       by the government on what was then considered as the moderate
       interest of eight per cent. In order to induce capitalists to
       advance the money promptly on terms so favourable to the
       public, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of
       the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The
       corporation was to have no exclusive privilege, and was to be
       restricted from trading in any thing but bills of exchange,
       bullion and forfeited pledges. As soon as the plan became
       generally known, a paper war broke out. … All the goldsmiths
       and pawnbrokers set up a howl of rage. Some discontented
       Tories predicted ruin to the monarchy. … Some discontented
       Whigs, on the other hand, predicted ruin to our liberties. …
       The power of the purse, the one great security for all the
       rights of Englishmen, will be transferred from the House of
       Commons to the Governor and Directors of the new Company. This
       last consideration was really of some weight, and was allowed
       to be so by the authors of the bill. A clause was therefore
       most properly inserted which inhibited the Bank from advancing
       money to the Crown without authority from Parliament. Every
       infraction of this salutary rule was to be punished by
       forfeiture of three times the sum advanced; and it was
       provided that the King should not have power to remit any part
       of the penalty. The plan, thus amended, received the sanction
       of the Commons more easily than might have been expected from
       the violence of the adverse clamour. In truth, the Parliament
       was under duress. Money must be had, and could in no other way
       be had so easily. … The bill, however, was not safe when it
       had reached the Upper House," but it was passed, and received
       the royal assent. "In the City the success of Montague's plan
       was complete. It was then at least as difficult to raise a
       million at eight per cent. as it would now be to raise forty
       millions at four per cent. It had been supposed that
       contributions would drop in very slowly: and a considerable
       time had therefore been allowed by the Act. This indulgence
       was not needed. So popular was the new investment that on the
       day on which the books were opened £300,000 were subscribed;
       300,000 more were subscribed during the next 48 hours; and, in
       ten days, to the delight of all the friends of the government,
       it was announced that the list was full. The whole sum which
       the Corporation was bound to lend to the State was paid into
       the Exchequer before the first instalment was due. Somers
       gladly put the Great Seal to a charter framed in conformity
       with the terms prescribed by Parliament; and the Bank of
       England commenced its operations in the house of the Company
       of Grocers. … It soon appeared that Montague had, by
       skilfully availing himself of the financial difficulties of
       the country, rendered an inestimable service to his party.
       During several generations the Bank of England was
       emphatically a Whig body. It was Whig, not accidentally, but
       necessarily. It must have instantly stopped payment if it had
       ceased to receive the interest on the sum which it had
       advanced to the government; and of that, interest James would
       not have paid one farthing."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 20.

       "For a long time the Bank of England was the focus of London
       Liberalism, and in that capacity rendered to the State
       inestimable services. In return for these substantial benefits
       the Bank of England received from the Government, either at
       first or afterwards, three most important privileges. First.
       The Bank of England had the exclusive possession of the
       Government balances. In its first period … the Bank gave
       credit to the Government, but afterwards it derived credit
       from the Government. There is a natural tendency in men to
       follow the example of the Government under which they live.
       The Government is the largest, most important, and most
       conspicuous entity with which the mass of any people are
       acquainted; its range of knowledge must always lie infinitely
       greater than the average of their knowledge, and therefore,
       unless there is a conspicuous warning to the contrary, most
       men are inclined to think their Government right, and, when
       they can, to do what it does. Especially in money matters a
       man might fairly reason—'If the Government is right in
       trusting the Bank of England with the great balance of the
       nation, I cannot be wrong in trusting it with my little
       balance.' Second, The Bank of England had, till lately, the
       monopoly of limited liability in England. The common law of
       England knows nothing of any such principle. It is only
       possible by Royal Charter or Statute Law. And by neither of
       these was any real bank … permitted with limited liability
       in England till within these few years. … Thirdly. The Bank
       of England had the privilege of being the sole joint stock
       company permitted to issue bank notes in England. Private
       London bankers did indeed issue notes down to the middle of
       the last century, but no joint stock company could do so. The
       explanatory clause of the Act of 1742 sounds most curiously to
       our modern ears. … 'It is the true intent and meaning of the
       said Act that no other bank shall be created, established, or
       allowed by Parliament, and that it shall not be lawful for any
       body politic or corporate whatsoever created or to be created,
       or for any other persons whatsoever united or to be united in
       covenants or partnership exceeding the number of six persons
       in that part of Great Britain called England, to borrow, owe,
       or take up any sum or sums of money on their bills or notes
       payable on demand or at any less time than six months from the
       borrowing thereof during the continuance of such said
       privilege to the said governor and company, who are hereby
       declared to be and remain a corporation with the privilege of
       exclusive banking, as before recited.'
    {2211}
       To our modern ears these words seem to mean more than they
       did. The term banking was then applied only to the issue of
       notes and the taking up of money on bills on demand. Our
       present system of deposit banking, in which no bills or
       promissory notes are issued, was not then known on a great
       scale, and was not called banking. But its effect was very
       important. It in time gave the Bank of England the monopoly of
       the note issue of the Metropolis. It had at that time no
       branches, and so it did not compete for the country
       circulation. But in the Metropolis, where it did compete, it
       was completely victorious. No company but the Bank of England
       could issue notes, and unincorporated individuals gradually
       gave way, and ceased to do so. Up to 1844 London private
       bankers might have issued notes if they pleased, but almost a
       hundred years ago they were forced out of the field. The Bank
       of England had so long had a practical monopoly of the
       circulation, that it is commonly believed always to have had a
       legal monopoly. And the practical effect of the clause went
       further: it was believed to make the Bank of England the only
       joint stock company that could receive deposits, as well as
       the only company that could issue notes. The gift of
       'exclusive banking' to the Bank of England was read in its
       most natural modern sense: it was thought to prohibit any
       other banking company from carrying on our present system of
       banking. After joint stock banking was permitted in the
       country, people began to inquire why it should not exist in
       the Metropolis too? And then it was seen that the words I have
       quoted only forbid the issue of negotiable instruments, and
       not the receiving of money when no such instrument is given.
       Upon this construction, the London and Westminster Bank and
       all our older joint stock banks were founded. But till they
       began, the Bank of England had among companies not only the
       exclusive privilege of note issue, but that of deposit banking
       too. It was in every sense the only banking company in London.
       With so many advantages over all competitors, it is quite
       natural that the Bank of England should have far outstripped
       them all. … All the other bankers grouped themselves round
       it, and lodged their reserve with it. Thus our one-reserve
       system of banking was not deliberately founded upon definite
       reasons; it was the gradual consequence of many singular
       events, and of an accumulation of legal privileges on a single
       bank which has now been altered, and which no one would now
       defend. … For more than a century after its creation
       (notwithstanding occasional errors) the Bank of England, in
       the main, acted with judgment and with caution. Its business
       was but small as we should now reckon, but for the most part
       it conducted that business with prudence and discretion. In
       1696, it had been involved in the most serious difficulties,
       and had been obliged to refuse to pay some of its notes. For a
       long period it was in wholesome dread of public opinion, and
       the necessity of retaining public confidence made it cautious.
       But the English Government removed that necessity. In 1797,
       Mr. Pitt feared that he might not be able to obtain sufficient
       specie for foreign payments, in consequence of the low state
       of the Bank reserve, and he therefore required the Bank not to
       pay in cash. He removed the preservative apprehension which is
       the best security of all Banks. For this reason the period
       under which the Bank of England did not pay gold for its
       notes—the period from 1797 to 1819—is always called the
       period of the Bank 'restriction.' As the Bank during that
       period did not perform, and was not compelled by law to
       perform, its contract of paying its notes in cash, it might
       apparently have been well called the period of Bank license.
       But the word 'restriction' was quite right, and was the only
       proper word as a description of the policy of 1797. Mr. Pitt
       did not say that the Bank of England need not pay its notes in
       specie; he 'restricted' them from doing so; he said that they
       must not. In consequence, from 1797 to 1844 (when a new era
       begins), there never was a proper caution on the part of the
       Bank directors. At heart they considered that the Bank of
       England had a kind of charmed life, and that it was above the
       ordinary banking anxiety to pay its way. And this feeling was
       very natural."

          W. Bagehot,
          Lombard Street,
          chapters 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Gilbart,
          History and Principles of Banking.

          H. May,
          The Bank of England
          (Fortnightly Review, March, 1885).

    MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
       Early Paper issues and Banks in the American Colonies.

       "Previous to the Revolutionary War paper money was issued to a
       greater or less extent by each one of the thirteen colonies.
       The first issue was by Massachusetts in 1690, to aid in
       fitting out the expedition against Canada. Similar issues had
       been made by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
       York, and New Jersey, previous to the year 1711. South
       Carolina began to emit bills in 1712, Pennsylvania in 1723,
       Maryland in 1734, Delaware in 1739, Virginia in 1755, and
       Georgia in 1760. Originally the issues were authorized to meet
       the necessities of the colonial treasuries. In Massachusetts,
       in 1715, as a remedy for the prevailing embarrassment of
       trade, a land bank was proposed with the right to issue
       circulating notes secured by land. … The plan for the land
       bank was defeated, but the issue of paper money by the
       treasury was authorized to the extent of £50,000, to be loaned
       on good mortgages in sums of not more than £500, nor less than
       £50, to one person. The rate of interest was five per cent.,
       payable with one-fifth of the principal annually. … In 1733
       an issue of bills to the amount of £110,000 was made by the
       merchants of Boston, which were to be redeemed at the end of
       ten years, in silver, at the rate of 19 shillings per ounce.
       In 1739, the commercial and financial embarrassment still
       continuing, another land bank was started in Massachusetts.
       … A specie bank was also formed in 1739, by Edward
       Hutchinson and others, which issued bills to the amount of
       £120,000, redeemable in fifteen years in silver, at 20
       shillings per ounce, or gold pro rata. The payment of these
       notes was guaranteed by wealthy and responsible merchants.
       These notes, and those of a similar issue in 1733, were
       largely hoarded and did not pass generally into circulation.
       In 1740 Parliament passed a bill to extend the act of 1720,
       known as the bubble act, to the American colonies, with the
       intention of breaking up all companies formed for the purpose
       of issuing paper money.
    {2212}
       Under this act both the land bank and the specie bank were
       forced to liquidate their affairs, though not without some
       resistance on the part of the former. … The paper money of
       the colonies, whether issued by them or by the loan banks,
       depreciated almost without exception as the amounts in
       circulation increased. … The emission of bills by the
       colonies and the banks was not regarded with favor by the
       mother country, and the provincial governors were as a general
       thing opposed to these issues. They were consequently
       frequently embroiled with their legislatures."

          J. J. Knox,
          United States Notes,
          pages 1-5.

    MONEY AND BANKING: 17-19th Centuries.
       Creation of the principal European Banks.

       "The Bank of Vienna was founded as a bank of deposit in 1703,
       and as a bank of issue in 1793; the Banks of Berlin and
       Breslau in 1765 with state sanction; the Austrian National
       Bank in 1816. In St. Petersburg three banks were set up; the
       Loan Bank in 1772, advancing loans on deposits of bullion and
       jewels; the Assignation Bank in 1768 (and in Moscow, 1770),
       issuing government paper money; the Aid Bank in 1797, to
       relieve estates from mortgage and advance money for
       improvements. The Commercial Bank of Russia was founded in
       1818. The Bank of Stockholm was founded in 1688. The Bank of
       France was founded first in 1803 and reorganised in 1806, when
       its capital was raised to 90,000,000 francs, held in 90,000
       shares of 1,000 francs. It is the only authorised source of
       paper money in France, and is intimately associated with the
       government."

          H. de B. Gibbins,
          History of Commerce in Europe,
          book 3, chapter 4.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1775-1780.
       The Continental Currency of the American Revolution.

       "The colonies … went into the Revolutionary War, many of
       them with paper already in circulation, all of them making
       issues for the expenses of military preparations. The
       Continental Congress, having no power to tax, and its members
       being accustomed to paper issues as the ordinary form of
       public finance, began to issue bills on the faith of the
       'Continent,' Franklin earnestly approving. The first issue was
       for 300,000 Spanish dollars, redeemable in gold or silver, in
       three years, ordered in May and issued in August, 1775. Paper
       for nine million dollars was issued before any depreciation
       began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected
       it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah
       Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a
       member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the
       people when they could go to the printing-office and get a
       cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began,
       Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills.
       Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who
       'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for
       speculators who bought up for a rise."

          W. G. Sumner,
          History of American Currency,
          pages 43-44.

       "During the summer of 1780 this wretched 'Continental'
       currency fell into contempt. As Washington said, it took a
       wagon-load of money to buy a wagon-load of provisions. At the
       end of the year 1778, the paper dollar was worth sixteen cents
       in the northern states and twelve cents in the south. Early in
       1780 its value had fallen to two cents, and before the end of
       the year it took ten paper dollars to make a cent. In October,
       Indian corn sold wholesale in Boston for $150 a bushel, butter
       was $12 a pound, tea $90, sugar $10, beef $8, coffee $12, and
       a barrel of flour cost $1,575. Samuel Adams paid $2,000 for a
       hat and suit of clothes. The money soon ceased to circulate,
       debts could not be collected, and there was a general
       prostration of credit. To say that a thing was 'worth a
       Continental' became the strongest possible expression of
       contempt."

          J. Fiske,
          The American Revolution,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

       Before the close of the year 1780, the Continental Currency
       had ceased to circulate. Attempts were subsequently made to
       have it funded or redeemed, but without success.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Phillips, Jr.,
          Historical Sketches of American Paper Currency,
          2d Series.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.
       The Pennsylvania Bank and the Bank of North America.

       "The Pennsylvania Bank, which was organized in Philadelphia
       during the Revolutionary War, was founded for the purpose of
       facilitating the operations of the Government in transporting
       supplies for the army. It began its useful work in 1780, and
       continued in existence until after the close of the war;
       finally closing its affairs toward the end of the year 1784.
       But the need was felt of a national bank which should not only
       aid the Government on a large scale by its money and credit,
       but should extend facilities to individuals, and thereby
       benefit the community as well as the state. Through the
       influence and exertion of Robert Morris, then Superintendent
       of Finance for the United States, the Bank of North America,
       at Philadelphia, was organized with a capital of $400,000. It
       was incorporated by Congress in December, 1781, and by the
       State of Pennsylvania a few months afterward. Its success was
       immediate and complete. It not only rendered valuable and
       timely aid to the United States Government and to the State of
       Pennsylvania, but it greatly assisted in restoring confidence
       and credit to the commercial community, and afforded
       facilities to private enterprise that were especially welcome.
       … The success of the Bank of North America, and the
       advantages which the citizens of Philadelphia enjoyed from the
       facilities it offered them, naturally suggested the founding
       of a similar enterprise in the city of New York." The Bank of
       New York was accordingly founded in 1784.

          H. W. Domett,
          History of the Bank of New York,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          W. G. Sumner,
          The Financier and the Finances of
          the American Revolution,
          chapter 17 (volume 2).

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796.
       The Assignats of the French Revolution.

       "The financial embarrassments of the government in 1789 were
       extreme. Many taxes had ceased to be productive; the
       confiscated estates not only yielded no revenue but caused a
       large expense, and, as a measure of resource, the finance
       committee of the Assembly reported in favor of issues based
       upon the confiscated lands. But the bitter experience of
       France through the Mississippi schemes of John Law, 1719-21,
       made the Assembly and the nation hesitate. … Necker, the
       Minister, stood firm in his opposition to the issue of paper
       money, even as a measure of resource; but the steady pressure
       of fiscal exigencies, together with the influence of the
       fervid orators of the Assembly, gained a continually
       increasing support to the proposition of the committee. …
    {2213}
       The leaders of the Assembly were secretly actuated by a
       political purpose, viz., by widely distributing the titles to
       the confiscated lands (for such the paper money in effect was)
       to commit the thrifty middle class of France to the principles
       and measures of the revolution. … Oratory, the force of
       fiscal necessities, the half-confessed political design,
       prevailed at last over the warnings of experience; and a
       decree passed the Assembly authorizing an issue of notes to
       the value of four hundred million francs, on the security of
       the public lands. To emphasize this security the title of
       'assignats' was applied to the paper. … The issue was made;
       the assignats went into circulation; and soon came the
       inevitable demand for more. … The decree for a further issue
       of eight hundred millions passed, September, 1790. Though the
       opponents of the issue had lost heart and voice, they still
       polled 423 votes against 508. To conciliate a minority still
       so large, contraction was provided for by requiring that the
       paper when paid into the Treasury should be burned, and the
       decree contained a solemn declaration that in no case should
       the amount exceed twelve hundred millions. June 19, 1791, the
       Assembly, against feeble resistance, violated this pledge and
       authorized a further issue of six hundred millions. Under the
       operation of Gresham's Law, specie now began to disappear from
       circulation. … And now came the collapse of French industry.
       … 'Everything that tariffs and custom-houses could do was
       done. Still the great manufactories of Normandy were closed;
       those of the rest of the kingdom speedily followed, and vast
       numbers of workmen, in all parts of the country, were thrown
       out of employment. … In the spring of 1791 no one knew
       whether a piece of paper money, representing 100 francs,
       would, a month later, have a purchasing power of 100 francs,
       or 90 francs, or 80, or 60. The result was that capitalists
       declined to embark their means in business. Enterprise
       received a mortal blow. Demand for labor was still further
       diminished. The business of France dwindled into a mere living
       from hand to mouth.' … Towards the end of 1794 there had
       been issued 7,000 millions in assignats; by May, 1795, 10,000
       millions; by the end of July, 16,000 millions; by the
       beginning of 1796, 45,000 millions, of which 36,000 millions
       were in actual circulation. M. Bresson gives the following
       table of depreciation: 24 livres in coin were worth in
       assignats
       April 1, 1795,  238;
       May 1,          299;
       June 1,         439;
       July 1,         808;
       Aug. 1,         807;
       Sept. 1,      1,101;
       Oct. 1,       1,205;
       Nov. 1,       2,588;
       Dec. 1,       3,575;
       Jan. 1, 1796, 4,658;
       Feb. 1,       5,337.

       At the last 'an assignat professing to be worth 100 francs was
       commonly exchanged for 5 sous 6 deniers: in other words, a
       paper note professing to be worth £4 sterling passed current
       for less than 3d. in money.' The downward course of the
       assignats had unquestionably been accelerated by the extensive
       counterfeiting of the paper in Belgium, Switzerland, and
       England. … Now appears that last resort of finance under a
       depreciating paper: an issue under new names and new devices.
       … Territorial Mandates were ordered to be issued for
       assignats at 30:1, the mandates to be directly exchangeable
       for land, at the will of the holder, on demand. … For a
       brief time after the first limited emission, the mandates rose
       as high as 80 per cent. of their nominal value; but soon
       additional issues sent them down even more rapidly than the
       assignats had fallen."

          F. A. Walker,
          Money,
          part 2, chapter 16.

          ALSO IN:
          Andrew D. White,
          Paper-money Inflation in France.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.
       The First Bank of the United States.

       On the organization of the government of the United States,
       under its federal constitution, in 1789 and 1790, the lead in
       constructive statesmanship was taken, as is well known, by
       Alexander Hamilton. His plan "included a financial institution
       to develop the national resources, strengthen the public
       credit, aid the Treasury Department in its administration, and
       provide a secure and sound circulating medium for the people.
       On December 13, 1790, he sent into Congress a report on the
       subject of a national bank. The Republican party, then in the
       minority, opposed the plan as unconstitutional, on the ground
       that the power of creating banks or any corporate body had not
       been expressly delegated to Congress, and was therefore not
       possessed by it. Washington's cabinet was divided; Jefferson
       opposing the measure as not within the implied powers, because
       it was an expediency and not a paramount necessity. Later he
       used stronger language, and denounced the institution as 'one
       of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles
       and form of our Constitution,' nor did he ever abandon these
       views. There is the authority of Mr. Gallatin for saying that
       Jefferson 'died a decided enemy to our banking system
       generally, and specially to a bank of the United States.' But
       Hamilton's views prevailed. Washington, who in the weary years
       of war had seen the imperative necessity of some national
       organization of the finances, after mature deliberation
       approved the plan, and on February 25, 1791, the Bank of the
       United States was incorporated. The capital stock was limited
       to twenty-five thousand shares of four hundred dollars each,
       or ten millions of dollars, payable one fourth in gold and
       silver, and three fourths in public securities bearing an
       interest of six and three per cent. The stock was immediately
       subscribed for, the government taking five thousand shares,
       two millions of dollars, under the right reserved in the
       charter. The subscription of the United States was paid in ten
       equal annual instalments. A large proportion of the stock was
       held abroad, and the shares soon rose above par. … Authority
       was given the bank to establish offices of discount and
       deposit within the United States. The chief bank was placed in
       Philadelphia and branches were established in eight cities,
       with capitals in proportion to their commercial importance. In
       1809 the stockholders of the Bank of the United States
       memorialized the government for a renewal of their charter,
       which would expire on March 4, 1811; and on March 9, 1809, Mr.
       Gallatin sent in a report in which he reviewed the operations
       of the bank from its organization. Of the government shares,
       five million dollars at par, two thousand four hundred and
       ninety-three shares were sold in 1796 and 1797 at an advance
       of 25 per cent., two hundred and eighty-seven in 1797 at an
       advance of twenty per cent., and the remaining 2,220 shares in
       1802, at an advance of 45 per cent., making together,
       exclusive of the dividends, a profit of $671,680 to the United
       States. Eighteen thousand shares of the bank stock were held
       abroad, and seven thousand shares, or a little more than one
       fourth part of the capital, in the United States.
    {2214}
       A table of all the dividends made by the bank showed that they
       had on the average been at the rate of 8 3/8 (precisely 8
       13/34) per cent. a year, which proved that the bank had not in
       any considerable degree used the public deposits for the
       purpose of extending its discounts. From a general view of the
       debits and credits, as presented, it appeared that the affairs
       of the Bank of the United States, considered as a moneyed
       institution, had been wisely and skilfully managed. The
       advantages derived by the government Mr. Gallatin stated to
       be,
       1, safe-keeping of the public moneys;
       2, transmission of the public moneys;
       3, collection of the revenue;
       4, loans.
       The strongest objection to the renewal of the charter lay in
       the great portion of the bank stock held by foreigners. Not on
       account of any influence over the institution, since they had
       no vote; but because of the high rate of interest payable by
       America to foreign countries. … Congress refused to prolong
       its existence and the institution was dissolved. Fortunately
       for the country, it wound up its affairs with such
       deliberation and prudence as to allow of the interposition of
       other bank credits in lieu of those withdrawn, and thus
       prevented a serious shock to the interests of the community.
       In the twenty years of its existence from 1791 to 1811 its
       management was irreproachable. The immediate effect of the
       refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank of the United States
       was to bring the Treasury to the verge of bankruptcy. The
       interference of Parish, Girard, and Astor alone saved the
       credit of the government. … Another immediate effect of the
       dissolution of the bank was the withdrawal from the country of
       the foreign capital invested in the bank, more than seven
       millions of dollars. This amount was remitted, in the twelve
       months preceding the war, in specie. Specie was at that time a
       product foreign to the United States, and by no means easy to
       obtain. … The notes of the Bank of the United States,
       payable on demand in gold and silver at the counters of the
       bank, or any of its branches, were, by its charter, receivable
       in all payments to the United States; but this quality was
       also stripped from them on March 19, 1812, by a repeal of the
       act according it. To these disturbances of the financial
       equilibrium of the country was added the necessary withdrawal
       of fifteen millions of bank credit and its transfer to other
       institutions. This gave an extraordinary impulse to the
       establishment of local banks, each eager for a share of the
       profits. The capital of the country, instead of being
       concentrated, was dissipated. Between January 1, 1811, and
       1815, one hundred and twenty new banks were chartered, and
       forty millions of dollars were added to the banking capital.
       To realize profits, the issues of paper were pushed to the
       extreme of possible circulation. Meanwhile New England kept
       aloof from the nation. The specie in the vaults of the banks
       of Massachusetts rose from $1,706,000 on June 1, 1811, to
       $7,326,000 on June 1, 1814. … The suspension of the banks
       was precipitated by the capture of Washington. It began in
       Baltimore, which was threatened by the British, and was at
       once followed in Philadelphia and New York. Before the end of
       September all the banks south and west of New England had
       suspended specie payment. … The depression of the local
       currencies ranged from seven to twenty-five per cent. … In
       November the Treasury Department found itself involved in the
       common disaster. The refusal of the banks, in which the public
       moneys were deposited, to pay their notes or the drafts upon
       them in specie deprived the government of its gold and silver;
       and their refusal, likewise, of credit and circulation to the
       issues of banks in other States deprived the government also
       of the only means it possessed for transferring its funds to
       pay the dividends on the debt and discharge the treasury
       notes. … On October 14, 1814, Alexander J. Dallas, Mr.
       Gallatin's old friend, who had been appointed Secretary of the
       Treasury on the 6th of the same month, in a report of a plan
       to support the public credit, proposed the incorporation of a
       national bank. A bill was passed by Congress, but returned to
       it by Madison with his veto on January 15, 1815. … Mr.
       Dallas again, as a last resort, insisted on a bank as the only
       means by which the currency of the country could be restored
       to a sound condition. In December, 1815, Dallas reported to
       the Committee of the House of Representatives on the national
       currency, of which John C. Calhoun was chairman, a plan for a
       national bank, and on March 3, 1816, the second Bank of the
       United States was chartered by Congress. The capital was
       thirty-five millions, of which the government held seven
       millions in seventy thousand shares of one hundred dollars
       each. Mr. Madison approved the bill. … The second national
       bank of the United States was located at Philadelphia, and
       chartered for twenty years."

          J. A. Stevens,
          Albert Gallatin,
          chapter 6.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.
       The Second Bank of the United States
       and the war upon it.

       "On the 1st of January, 1817, the bank opened for business,
       with the country on the brink of a great monetary crisis, but
       'too late to prevent the crash which followed.' The management
       of the bank during the first two years of its existence was
       far from satisfactory. It aggravated the troubles of the
       financial situation instead of relieving them. Specie payments
       were nominally resumed in 1817, but the insidious canker of
       inflation had eaten its way into the arteries of business, and
       in the crisis of 1819 came another suspension that lasted for
       two years. … It was only by a desperate effort that the bank
       finally weathered the storm brought on by its own
       mismanagement and that of the State Banks. After the recovery,
       a period of several years of prosperity followed, and the
       management of the bank was thoroughly reorganized and sound.
       From this time on until the great 'Bank War' its affairs seem
       to have been conducted with a view to performing its duty to
       the government as well as to its individual stockholders, and
       it rendered such aid to the public, directly, and indirectly,
       as entitled it to respect and fair treatment on the part of
       the servants of the people. … But the bank controversy was
       not yet over. It was about to be revived, and to become a
       prominent issue in a period of our national politics more
       distinguished for the bitterness of its personal animosities
       than perhaps any other in our annals. … As already said, the
       ten years following the revulsion of 1819-25 were years of
       almost unbroken prosperity. … The question of the
       continuance of the bank was not under discussion. In fact,
       scarcely any mention of the subject was made until President
       Jackson referred to it in his message of December, 1829.
    {2215}
       In this message he reopened the question of the
       constitutionality of the bank, but the committee to which this
       portion of the message was referred in the House of
       Representatives made a report favorable to the institution.
       There seems no reason to doubt the honesty of Jackson's
       opinion that the bank was unconstitutional, and at first he
       probably had no feeling in the matter except that which sprang
       from his convictions on this point. Certain events, however,
       increased his hostility to the bank, and strengthened his
       resolution to destroy it. … When President Jackson first
       attacked the bank, the weapon he chiefly relied on was the
       alleged unconstitutionality of the charter."

          D. Kinley,
          The Independent Treasury of the United States,
          chapter 1.

       The question of the rechartering of the Bank was made an issue
       in the presidential campaign of 1832, by Henry Clay. "Its
       disinterested friends in both parties strongly dissuaded
       Biddle [president of the Bank] from allowing the question of
       recharter to be brought into the campaign. Clay's advisers
       tried to dissuade him. The bank, however, could not oppose the
       public man on whom it depended most, and the party leaders
       deferred at last to their chief. Jackson never was more
       dictatorial and obstinate than Clay was at this juncture."
       Pending the election, a bill to renew the charter of the Bank
       was passed through both houses of Congress. The President
       promptly vetoed it. "The national republican convention met at
       Baltimore, December 12, 1831. It … issued an address, in
       which the bank question was put forward. It was declared that
       the President 'is fully and three times over pledged to the
       people to negative any bill that may be passed for
       rechartering the bank, and there is little doubt that the
       additional influence which he would acquire by a reelection
       would be employed to carry through Congress the extraordinary
       substitute which he has repeatedly proposed.' The appeal,
       therefore, was to defeat Jackson in order to save the bank.
       … Such a challenge as that could have but one effect on
       Jackson. It called every faculty he possessed into activity to
       compass the destruction of the bank. Instead of retiring from
       the position he had taken, the moment there was a fight to be
       fought, he did what he did at New Orleans. He moved his lines
       up to the last point he could command on the side towards the
       enemy. … The proceedings seemed to prove just what the
       anti-bank men had asserted: that the bank was a great monster,
       which aimed to control elections, and to set up and put down
       Presidents. The campaign of 1832 was a struggle between the
       popularity of the bank and the popularity of Jackson."

          W. G. Sumner,
          Andrew Jackson,
          chapter 11.

       Jackson was overwhelmingly elected, and feeling convinced that
       his war upon the Bank had received the approval of the people,
       he determined to remove the public deposits from its keeping
       on his own responsibility. "With this view he removed (in the
       spring of 1833) the Secretary of the Treasury, who would not
       consent to remove the deposits, and appointed William J.
       Duane, of Pennsylvania, in his place. He proved to be no more
       compliant than his predecessor. After many attempts to
       persuade him, the President announced to the Cabinet his final
       decision that the deposits must be removed. The Reasons given
       were that the law gave the Secretary, not Congress, control of
       the deposits, that it was improper to leave them longer in a
       bank whose charter would so soon expire, that the Bank's funds
       had been largely used for political purposes, that its
       inability to pay all its depositors had been shown by its
       efforts to procure an extension of time from its creditors in
       Europe, and that its four government directors had been
       systematically kept from knowledge of its management.
       Secretary Duane refused either to remove the deposits or to
       resign his office, and pronounced the proposed removal
       unnecessary, unwise, vindictive, arbitrary, and unjust. He was
       at once removed from office, and Roger B. Taney, of Maryland,
       appointed in his place. The necessary Orders for Removal were
       given by Secretary Taney. It was not strictly a removal, for
       all previous deposits were left in the Bank, to be drawn upon
       until exhausted. It was rather a cessation. The deposits were
       afterwards made in various State banks, and the Bank of the
       United States was compelled to call in its loans. The
       commercial distress which followed in consequence probably
       strengthened the President in the end by giving a convincing
       proof of the Bank's power as an antagonist to the Government."

          A. Johnston,
          History of American Politics,
          chapter 13.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841.
       The Wild Cat Banks of Michigan.

       "Michigan became a State in January, 1837. Almost the first
       act of her State legislature was the passage of a general
       banking law under which any ten or more freeholders of any
       county might organize themselves into a corporation for the
       transaction of banking business. Of the nominal capital of a
       bank only ten per cent. in specie was required to be paid when
       subscriptions to the stock were made, and twenty per cent.
       additional in specie when the bank began business. For the
       further security of the notes which were to be issued as
       currency, the stockholders were to give first mortgages upon
       real estate, to be estimated at its cash value by at least
       three county officers, the mortgages to be filed with the
       auditor-general of the State. A bank commissioner was
       appointed to superintend the organization of the banks, and to
       attest the legality of their proceedings to the
       auditor-general, who, upon receiving such attestation, was to
       deliver to the banks circulating notes amounting to two and a
       half times the capital certified to as having been paid in.
       This law was passed in obedience to a popular cry that the
       banking business had become an 'odious monopoly' that ought to
       be broken up. Its design was to 'introduce free competition
       into what was considered a profitable branch of business
       heretofore monopolized by a few favored corporations.' Anybody
       was to be given fair opportunities for entering the business
       on equal terms with everybody else. The act was passed in
       March, 1837, and the legislature adjourned till November 9
       following. Before the latter date arrived, in fact before any
       banks had been organized under the law, a financial panic
       seized the whole country. An era of wild speculation reached a
       climax, the banks in all the principal cities of the country
       suspended specie payments, and State legislatures were called
       together to devise remedies to meet the situation. That of
       Michigan was convened in special session in June, and its
       remedy for the case of Michigan was to leave the general
       banking law in force, and to add to it full authority for
       banks organized under it to begin the business of issuing
       bills in a state of suspension—that is, to flood the State
       with an irredeemable currency, based upon thirty per cent. of
       specie and seventy per cent. of land mortgage bonds."

          Cheap-Money Experiments
          (from the Century Magazine),
          pages 75-77.

    {2216}

       "Wild lands that had been recently bought of the government at
       one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre were now valued at
       ten or twenty times that amount, and lots in villages that
       still existed only on paper had a worth for banking purposes
       only limited by the conscience of the officer who was to take
       the securities. Any ten freeholders of a county must be poor
       indeed if they could not give sufficient security to answer
       the purpose of the general banking law. The requirement of the
       payment of thirty per cent. of the capital stock in specie was
       more difficult to be complied with. But as the payment was to
       be made to the bank itself, the difficulty was gotten over in
       various ingenious ways, which the author of the general
       banking law could hardly have anticipated. In some cases,
       stock notes in terms payable in specie, or the certificates of
       individuals which stated—untruly—that the maker held a
       specified sum of specie for the bank, were counted as specie
       itself; in others, a small sum of specie was paid in and taken
       out, and the process repeated over and over until the
       aggregate of payments equaled the sum required; in still
       others, the specie with which one bank was organized was
       passed from town to town and made to answer the purposes of
       several. By the first day of January, 1838, articles of
       association for twenty-one banks had been filed, making, with
       the banks before in existence, an average of one to less than
       five thousand people. Some of them were absolutely without
       capital, and some were organized by scheming men in New York
       and elsewhere, who took the bills away with them to circulate
       abroad, putting out none at home. For some, locations as
       inaccessible as possible were selected, that the bills might
       not come back to plague the managers. The bank commissioners
       say in their report for 1838, of their journey for inspection:
       'The singular spectacle was presented of the officers of the
       State seeking for banks in situations the most inaccessible
       and remote from trade, and finding at every step an increase
       of labor by the discovery of new and unknown organizations.
       Before they could be arrested the mischief was done: large
       issues were in circulation and no adequate remedy for the
       evil.' One bank was found housed in a saw-mill, and it was
       said with pardonable exaggeration in one of the public papers.
       'Every village plat with a house, or even without a house, if
       it had a hollow stump to serve as a vault, was the site of a
       bank.' … The governor, when he delivered his annual message
       in January, 1838, still had confidence in the general banking
       law, which he said 'offered to all persons the privilege of
       banking under certain guards and restrictions,' and he
       declared that 'the principles upon which this law is based are
       certainly correct, destroying as they do the odious feature of
       a banking monopoly, and giving equal rights to all classes of
       the community.' … The aggregate amount of private
       indebtedness had by this time become enormous, and the
       pressure for payment was serious and disquieting. … The
       people must have relief; and what relief could be so certain
       or so speedy as more banks and more money? More banks
       therefore continued to be organized, and the paper current
       flowed out among the people in increasing volume. … At the
       beginning of 1839 the bank commissioners estimated that there
       were a million dollars of bills of insolvent banks in the
       hands of individuals and unavailable. Yet the governor, in his
       annual message delivered in January, found it a 'source of
       unfeigned gratification to be able to congratulate [the
       legislature] on the prosperous condition to which our rising
       commonwealth has attained.' … Then came stay laws, and laws
       to compel creditors to take lands at a valuation. They were
       doubtful in point of utility, and more than doubtful in point
       of morality and constitutionality. The federal bankrupt act of
       1841 first brought substantial relief: it brought almost no
       dividends to creditors, but it relieved debtors from their
       crushing burdens and permitted them, sobered and in their
       right minds, to enter once more the fields of industry and
       activity. The extraordinary history of the attempt to break up
       an 'odious monopoly' in banking by making everybody a banker,
       and to create prosperity by unlimited issues of paper
       currency, was brought at length to a fit conclusion."

          T. M. Cooley,
          Michigan,
          chapter 13.

          See WILD CAT BANKS.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.
       Free Banking Law of New York.

       "On April 18th, 1838, the monopoly of banking under special
       charters, was brought to a close in the State of New York, by
       the passage of the act 'to authorize the business of Banking.'
       Under this law Associations for Banking purposes and
       Individual Bankers, were authorized to carry on the business
       of Banking, by establishing offices of deposit, discount and
       circulation. Subsequently a separate Department was organized
       at Albany, called 'The Bank Department,' with a
       Superintendent, who was charged with the supervision of all
       the banks in the State. Under this law institutions could be
       organized simply as banks of 'discount and deposit,' and might
       also add the issuing of a paper currency to circulate as
       money. At first the law provided that State and United States
       stocks for one-half, and bonds and mortgages for the other
       half, might be deposited as security for the circulating notes
       to be issued by Banks and individual Bankers. Upon a fair
       trial, however, it was found that when a bank failed, and the
       Bank Department was called upon to redeem the circulating
       notes of such bank, the mortgages could not be made available
       in time to meet the demand. … By an amendment of the law the
       receiving of mortgages as security for circulating notes was
       discontinued."

          E. G. Spaulding,
          One Hundred Years of Progress
          in the Business of Banking,
          page 48.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.
       The English Bank Charter Act.

       "By an act of parliament passed in 1838, conferring certain
       privileges on the Bank of England, it was provided that the
       charter granted to that body should expire in 1855, but the
       power was reserved to the legislature, on giving six months'
       notice, to revise the charter ten years earlier. Availing
       themselves of this option, the government proposed a measure
       for regulating the entire monetary system of the country."

          W. C. Taylor,
          Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 3, chapter 7.

    {2217}

       "The growth of commerce, and in particular the establishment
       of numerous joint-stock banks had given a dangerous impulse to
       issues of paper money, which were not then restricted by law.
       Even the Bank of England did not observe any fixed proportion
       between the amount of notes which it issued and the amount of
       bullion which it kept in reserve. When introducing this
       subject to the House of Commons, Peel remarked that within the
       last twenty years there had been four periods when a
       contraction of issues had been necessary in order to maintain
       the convertibility of paper, and that in none of these had the
       Bank of England acted with vigour equal to the emergency. In
       the latest of these periods, from June of 1838 to June of
       1839, the amount of bullion in the Bank had fallen to little
       more than £4,000,000, whilst the total of paper in circulation
       had risen to little less than £30,000,000. … Peel was not
       the first to devise the methods which he adopted. Mr. Jones
       Loyd, afterwards Lord Overstone, who impressed the learned
       with his tracts and the vulgar with his riches, had advised
       the principal changes in the law relating to the issue of
       paper money which Peel effected by the Bank Charter Act. These
       changes were three in number. The first was to separate
       totally the two departments of the Bank of England, the
       banking department and the issue department. The banking
       department was left to be managed as best the wisdom of the
       directors could devise for the profit of the shareholders. The
       issue department was placed under regulations which deprived
       the Bank of any discretion in its management, and may almost
       be said to have made it a department of the State. The second
       innovation was to limit the issue of paper by the Bank of
       England to an amount proportioned to the value of its assets.
       The Bank was allowed to issue notes to the amount of
       £14,000,000 against Government securities in its possession.
       The Government owed the Bank a debt of £11,000,000, besides
       which the Bank held Exchequer Bills. But the amount over
       £14,000,000 which the Bank could issue was not, henceforwards,
       to be more than the equivalent of the bullion in its
       possession. By this means it was made certain that the Bank
       would be able to give coin for any of its notes which might be
       presented to it. The third innovation was to limit the issues
       of the country banks. The power of issuing notes was denied to
       any private or joint-stock banks founded after the date of the
       Act. It was recognized in those banks which already possessed
       it, but limited to a total sum of £8,500,000, the average
       quantity of such notes which had been in circulation during
       the years immediately preceding. It was provided that if any
       of the banks which retained this privilege should cease to
       exist or to issue notes, the Bank of England should be
       entitled to increase its note circulation by a sum equal to
       two-thirds of the amount of the former issues of the bank
       which ceased to issue paper. The Bank of England was required
       in this contingency to augment the reserve fund. By Acts
       passed in the succeeding year, the principles of the English
       Bank Charter Act were applied to Scotland and Ireland, with
       such modifications as the peculiar circumstances of those
       kingdoms required. The Bank Charter Act has ever since been
       the subject of voluminous and contradictory criticism, both by
       political economists and by men of business."

          F. C. Montague,
          Life of Sir Robert Peel,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Bonamy Price,
          The Bank Charter Act of 1844
          (Fraser's Magazine, June, 1865).

          W. C. Taylor,
          Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 3, chapter 7.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.
       Production of the Precious Metals
       in the last half-century.
       The Silver Question in the United States.

       "The total (estimated) stock of gold in the world in 1848, was
       £560,000,000. As for the annual production, it had varied
       considerably since the beginning of the century [from
       £3,000,000 to £8,000,000]. Such was the state of things
       immediately preceding 1848. In that year the Californian
       discoveries took place, and these were followed by the
       discoveries in Australia in 1851.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849;
          and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

       For these three years the annual average production is set
       down by the Economist at £9,000,000, but from this date the
       production suddenly rose to, for 1852, £27,000.000, and
       continued to rise till 1856, when it attained its maximum of
       £32,250,000. At this stage a decline in the returns occurred,
       the lowest point reached being in 1860, when they fell to
       £18,683,000, but from this they rose again, and for the last
       ten years [before 1873] have maintained an average of about
       £20,500,000; the returns for the year 1871 being £20,811,000.
       The total amount of gold added to the world's stock by this
       twenty years' production has been about £500,000,000, an
       amount nearly equal to that existing in the world at the date
       of the discoveries: in other words, the stock of gold in the
       world has been nearly doubled since that time."

          J. E. Cairnes,
          Essays in Political Economy,
          pages 160-161.

          "The yearly average of gold production in the twenty-five
          years from 1851-75 was $127,000,000. The yearly average
          product of silver for the same period was $51,000,000. The
          average annual product of gold for the fifteen years from
          1876 to 1890 declined to $108,000,000; a minus of 15 per
          cent. The average annual product of silver for the same
          period increased to $116,000,000; a plus of 127 per cent.
          There is the whole silver question."

          L. R. Ehrich,
          The Question of Silver,
          page 21.

       "From 1793—the date of the first issue of silver coin by the
       United States—to 1834 the silver and the gold dollar were
       alike authorized to be received as legal tender in payment of
       debt, but silver alone circulated. Subsequently, however,
       silver was not used, except in fractional payments, or, since
       1853, as a subsidiary coin. The silver coin, as a coin of
       circulation, had become obsolete. The reason why, prior to
       1834, payments were made exclusively in silver, and
       subsequently to that date in gold, is found in the fact that
       prior to the legislation of 1834 … the standard silver coins
       were relatively the cheaper, and consequently circulated to
       the exclusion of the gold; while during the later period the
       standard gold coins were the cheaper, circulating to the
       exclusion of the silver. The Coinage Act of 1873, by which the
       coinage of the silver dollar was discontinued, became a law on
       February 12th of that year. The act of February 28, 1878,
       which passed Congress by a two-thirds vote over the veto of
       President Hayes, again provided for the coinage of a silver
       dollar of 412.5 grains, the silver bullion to be purchased at
       the market price by the Government, and the amount so
       purchased and coined not to be less than two millions of
       dollars per month. During the debate on this bill the charge
       was repeatedly made, in and out of Congress, that the previous
       act of 1873, discontinuing the free coinage of the silver
       dollar, was passed surreptitiously.
    {2218}
       This statement has no foundation in fact. The report of the
       writer, who was then Deputy Comptroller of the Currency,
       transmitted to Congress in 1870 by the Secretary, three times
       distinctly stated that the bill accompanying it proposed to
       discontinue the issue of the silver dollar-piece. Various
       experts, to whom it had been submitted, approved this feature
       of the bill, and their opinions were printed by order of
       Congress."

          J. J. Knox,
          United States Notes,
          chapter 10.

       "The bill of 1878, generally spoken of as the 'Bland' bill,
       directed the secretary of the treasury to purchase not less
       than two million nor more than four million dollars' worth of
       silver bullion per month, to coin it into silver dollars, said
       silver dollars to be full legal tender at 'their nominal
       value.' Also, that the holder of ten or more of these silver
       dollars could exchange them for silver certificates, said
       certificates being 'receivable for customs, taxes, and all
       public dues.' The bill was pushed and passed by the efforts,
       principally, of the greenback inflationists and the
       representatives of the silver States. … Since 1878 [to
       1891], 405,000,000 silver dollars have been coined. Of these
       348,000,000 are still lying in the treasury vaults. No comment
       is needed. The Bland-Allison act did not hold up silver. In
       1870 it was worth $1.12 an ounce, in 1880 $1.14, '81 $1.13,
       '82 $1.13, '83 $1.11, '86 99 cents, until in '89 it reached
       93½ cents an ounce. That is, in 1880 the commercial ratio was
       22:1 and the coin value of the Bland-Allison silver dollar was
       72 cents. In March, 1800, a bill was reported to the House by
       the committee of 'coinage, weights and measures,' based on a
       plan proposed by Secretary Windom. … The bill passed the
       House. The Senate passed it with an amendment making provision
       for free and unlimited coinage. It finally went to a
       conference committee which reported the bill that became a
       law, July 14, 1890. This bill directs the secretary of the
       treasury to purchase four and one-half million ounces of
       silver a month at the market price, to give legal tender
       treasury notes therefor, said notes being redeemable in gold
       or silver coin at the option of the government, 'it being the
       established policy of the United States to maintain the two
       metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal
       ratio.' It was believed that this bill would raise the price
       of silver. … To-day [December 8, 1891] the silver in our
       dollar is actually worth 73 cents."

          L. R. Ehrich,
          The Question of Silver,
          pages 21-25.

          See, also,
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1873, 1878, and 1890-1893.

       In the summer of 1893, a financial crisis, produced in the
       judgment of the best informed by the operation of the
       silver-purchase law of 1890 (known commonly as the Sherman
       Act) became so serious that President Cleveland called a
       special session of Congress to deal with it. In his Message to
       Congress, at the opening of its session, the President said:
       "With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of remunerative
       production and manufacture, with unusual invitation to safe
       investment, and with satisfactory assurance to business
       enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung
       up on every side. Numerous moneyed institutions have suspended
       because abundant assets were not immediately available to meet
       the demands of the frightened depositors. Surviving
       corporations and individuals are content to keep in hand the
       money they are usually anxious to loan, and those engaged in
       legitimate business are surprised to find that the securities
       they offer for loans, though heretofore satisfactory, are no
       longer accepted. Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming
       conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch
       of business. I believe these things are principally chargeable
       to congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage
       of silver by the General Government. This legislation is
       embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day of July, 1890,
       which was the culmination of much agitation on the subject
       involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long
       struggle between the advocates of free silver coinage and
       those intending to be more conservative." A bill to repeal the
       act of July 14, 1890 (the Sherman law, so called), was passed
       by both houses and received the President's signature, Nov. 1,
       1893.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874.
       The Latin Union and the Silver Question.

       "The gold discoveries of California and Australia were
       directly the cause of the Latin Union. … In 1853, when the
       subsidiary silver of the United States had disappeared before
       the cheapened gold, we reduced the quantity of silver in the
       small coins sufficiently to keep them dollar for dollar below
       the value of gold. Switzerland followed this example of the
       United States in her law of January 31, 1860; but, instead of
       distinctly reducing the weight of pure silver in her small
       coins, she accomplished the same end by lowering the fineness
       of standard for these coins to 800 thousandths fine. …
       Meanwhile France and Italy had a higher standard for their
       coins than Switzerland, and as the neighboring states, which
       had the franc system of coinage in common, found each other's
       coins in circulation within their own limits, it was clear
       that the cheaper Swiss coins, according to Gresham's law, must
       drive out the dearer French and Italian coins, which contained
       more pure silver, but which passed current at the same nominal
       value. The Swiss coins of 800 thousandths fine began to pass
       the French frontier and to displace the French coins of a
       similar denomination; and the French coins were exported,
       melted, and recoined in Switzerland at a profit. This, of
       course, brought forth a decree in France (April 14, 1864),
       which prohibited the receipt of these Swiss coins at the
       public offices of France, the customs-offices, etc., and they
       were consequently refused in common trade among individuals.
       Belgium also, as well as Switzerland, began to think it
       necessary to deal with the questions affecting her silver
       small coins, which were leaving that country for the same
       reason that they were leaving Switzerland. Belgium then
       undertook to make overtures to France, in order that some
       concerted action might be undertaken by the four countries
       using the franc system—Italy, Belgium, France, and
       Switzerland—to remedy the evil to which all were exposed by
       the disappearance of their silver coin needed in every-day
       transactions. The discoveries of gold had forced a
       reconsideration of their coinage systems. In consequence of
       these overtures, a conference of delegates representing the
       Latin states just mentioned assembled in Paris, November
       20, 1865. … The Conference, fully realizing the effects of
       the fall of gold in driving out their silver coins, agreed to
       establish a uniform coinage in the four countries, on the
       essential principles adopted by the United States in 1853.
    {2219}
       They lowered the silver pieces of two francs, one franc, fifty
       centimes, and twenty centimes from a standard of 900
       thousandths fine to a uniform fineness of 835 thousandths,
       reducing these coins to the position of a subsidiary currency.
       They retained for the countries of the Latin Union, however,
       the system of bimetallism. Gold pieces of one hundred, fifty,
       twenty, ten, and five francs were to be coined, together with
       five-franc pieces of silver, and all at a standard of 900
       thousandths fine. Free coinage at a ratio of 15½:1, was
       thereby granted to any holder of either gold or silver bullion
       who wanted silver coins of five francs, or gold coins from
       five francs and upward. … The subsidiary silver coins (below
       five francs) were made a legal tender between individuals of
       the state which coined them to the amount of fifty francs. …
       The treaty was ratified, and went into effect August 1, 1866,
       to continue until January 1, 1880, or about fifteen years. …
       The downward tendency of silver in 1873 led the Latin Union to
       fear that the demonetized silver of Germany would flood their
       own mints if they continued the free coinage of five-franc
       silver pieces at a legal ratio of 15½:1. … This condition of
       things led to the meeting of delegates from the countries of
       the Latin Union at Paris, January 30, 1874, who there agreed
       to a treaty supplementary to that originally formed in 1865,
       and determined on withdrawing from individuals the full power
       of free coinage by limiting to a moderate sum the amount of
       silver five-franc pieces which should be coined by each state
       of the Union during the year 1874. The date of this suspension
       of coinage by the Latin Union is regarded by all authorities
       as of great import in regard to the value of silver."

          J. L. Laughlin,
          The History of Bimetallism in the United States,
          pages 146-155.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.
       The Legal-tender notes, or Greenbacks, the
       National Bank System, of the American Civil War.

       "In January, 1861, the paper currency of the United States was
       furnished by 1,600 private corporations, organized under
       thirty-four different State laws. The circulation of the banks
       amounted to $202,000,000, of which only about $50,000,000 were
       issued in the States which in April, 1861, undertook to set up
       an independent government. About $150,000,000 were in
       circulation in the loyal States, including West Virginia. When
       Congress met in extraordinary session on the 4th of July, the
       three-months volunteers, who had hastened to the defence of
       the capital, were confronting the rebel army on the line of
       the Potomac, and the first great battle at Bull Run was
       impending. President Lincoln called upon Congress to provide
       for the enlistment of 400,000 men, and Secretary Chase
       submitted estimates for probable expenditures amounting to
       $318,000,000. The treasury was empty, and the expenses of the
       government were rapidly approaching a million dollars a day.
       The ordinary expenses of the government, during the year
       ending on the 30th of June, 1861, had been $62,000,000, and
       even this sum had not been supplied by the revenue, which
       amounted to only $41,000,000. The rest had been borrowed. It
       was now necessary to provide for an expenditure increased
       fivefold, and amounting to eight times the income of the
       country, Secretary Chase advised that $80,000,000 be provided
       by taxation, and $240,000,000 by loans; and that, in
       anticipation of revenue, provision be made for the issue of
       $50,000,000 of treasury notes, redeemable on demand in coin.
       'The greatest care will, however, be requisite,' he said, 'to
       prevent the degradation of such issues into an irredeemable
       paper currency, than which no more certainly fatal expedient
       for impoverishing the masses and discrediting the government
       of any country can well be devised.' The desired authority was
       granted by Congress. The Secretary was authorized to borrow,
       on the credit of the United States, not exceeding
       $250,000,000, and, 'as a part of the above loan,' to issue an
       exchange for coin, or pay for salaries or other dues from the
       United States, not over $50,000,000 of treasury notes, bearing
       no interest, but payable on demand at Philadelphia, New York,
       or Boston. The act does not say, 'payable in coin,' for nobody
       had then imagined that any other form of payment was possible.
       Congress adjourned on the 6th of August, after passing an act
       to provide an increased revenue from imports, and laying a
       direct tax of $20,000,000 upon the States, and a tax of 3 per
       cent. upon the excess of all private incomes above $800. The
       Secretary immediately invited the banks of Philadelphia, New
       York, and Boston to assist in the negotiation of the proposed
       loans, and they loyally responded. On the 19th of August they
       took $50,000,000 of three years 7-30 bonds at par; on the 1st
       of October, $50,000,000 more of the same securities at par;
       and on the 16th of November, $50,000,000 of twenty years 6 per
       cents., at a rate making the interest equivalent to 7 per
       cent. These advances relieved the temporary necessities of the
       treasury, and, when Congress reassembled in December,
       Secretary Chase was prepared to recommend a permanent
       financial policy. The solid basis of this policy was to be
       taxation. … It was estimated, a revenue of $90,000,000 would
       be needed; and to secure that sum, the Secretary advised that
       the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar be increased; that a
       direct tax of $20,000,000 be assessed on the States; that the
       income tax be modified so as to produce $10,000,000, and that
       duties be laid on liquors, tobacco, carriages, legacies,
       bank-notes, bills payable, and conveyances. For the
       extraordinary expenses of the war it was necessary to depend
       upon loans, and the authority to be granted for this purpose
       the Secretary left 'to the better judgment of Congress,' only
       suggesting that the rate of interest should be regulated by
       law, and that the time had come when the government might
       properly claim a part, at least, of the advantage of the paper
       circulation, then constituting a loan without interest from
       the people to the banks. There were two ways, Secretary Chase
       said, in which this advantage might be secured: 1. By
       increasing the issue of United States notes, and taxing the
       bank-notes out of existence. 2. By providing a national
       currency, to be issued by the banks but secured by the pledge
       of United States bonds. The former plan the Secretary did not
       recommend, regarding the hazard of a depreciating and finally
       worthless currency as far outweighing the probable benefits of
       the measure. … Congress had hardly begun to consider these
       recommendations, when the situation was completely changed by
       the suspension of specie payments, on the 28th of December, by
       the banks of New York, followed by the suspension of the other
       banks in the country, and compelling the treasury also to
       suspend.
    {2220}
       This suspension was the result of a panic occasioned by the
       shadow of war with England. … To provide for the pressing
       wants of the treasury, Congress, on the 12th of February,
       1862, authorized the issue of $10,000,000 more of demand
       notes. Before the end of the session further issues were
       provided for, making the aggregate of United States notes
       $300,000,000, besides fractional currency. There was a long
       debate upon the propriety of making these notes a legal tender
       for private debts, and it seemed for a time that the measure
       would be defeated by this dispute. [The bill authorizing the
       issue of legal tender notes known afterwards as 'Greenbacks'
       was prepared by the Hon. E. G. Spaulding, who subsequently
       wrote the history of the measure.] Secretary Chase finally
       advised the concession of this point; nevertheless, 55 votes
       in the House of Representatives … were recorded against the
       provision making the notes a tender for private debts.
       Congress also empowered the Secretary to borrow $500,000,000
       on 5-20 year 6 per cent. bonds, besides a temporary loan of
       $100,000,000, and provided that the interest on the bonds
       should be paid in coin, and that the customs should be
       collected in coin for that purpose. Nothing was said about the
       principal, for it was taken for granted that specie payments
       would be resumed before the payment of the principal of the
       debt would be undertaken. … Congress had thus adopted the
       plan which the Secretary of the Treasury did not recommend,
       and neglected the proposition which he preferred. … When
       Congress met in December, 1862, the magnitude of the war had
       become fully apparent. … The enormous demands upon the
       treasury … had exhausted the resources provided by Congress.
       The disbursements in November amounted to $59,847,077—two
       millions a day. Unpaid requisitions had accumulated amounting
       to $46,000,000. The total receipts for the year then current,
       ending June 30, 1863, were estimated at $511,000,000; the
       expenditures at $788,000,000; leaving $277,000,000 to be
       provided for. There were only two ways to obtain this sum—by
       a fresh issue of United States notes, or by new
       interest-bearing loans. But the gold premium had advanced in
       October to 34; the notes were already at a discount of 25 per
       cent. The consequences of an addition of $277,000,000 to the
       volume of currency, the Secretary said, would be 'inflation of
       prices, increase of expenditures, augmentation of debt, and,
       ultimately, disastrous defeat of the very purposes sought to
       be obtained by it.' He therefore recommended an increase in
       the amount authorized to be borrowed on the 5-20 bonds. … In
       order to create a market for the bonds, he again recommended
       the creation of banking associations under a national law
       requiring them to secure their circulation by a deposit of
       government bonds. The suggestion thus renewed was not received
       with favor by Congress. … On the 7th of January Mr. Hooper
       offered again his bill to provide a national currency, secured
       by a pledge of United States bonds, but the next day Mr.
       Stevens, of Pennsylvania, submitted the bill with an adverse
       report from the committee on ways and means. On the 14th of
       January Mr. Stevens reported a resolution authorizing the
       Secretary of the Treasury to issue $100,000,000 more of United
       States notes for the immediate payment of the army and navy.
       The resolution passed the House at once, and the Senate the
       next day. … On the 19th of January President Lincoln sent a
       special message to the House, announcing that he had signed
       the joint resolution authorizing a new issue of United States
       notes, but adding that he considered it his duty to express
       his sincere regret that it had been found necessary to add
       such a sum to an already redundant currency, while the
       suspended banks were still left free to increase their
       circulation at will. He warned Congress that such a policy
       must soon produce disastrous consequences, and the warning was
       effective. On the 25th of January Senator Sherman offered a
       bill to provide a national currency, differing in some
       respects from Mr. Hooper's in the House. The bill passed the
       Senate on the 12th of February, 23 to 21, and the House on the
       20th, 78 to 64. … It was signed by the President on the 25th
       of February, 1863."

          H. W. Richardson,
          The National Banks,
          chapter 2.

       "One immediate effect of the Legal Tender Act was to destroy
       our credit abroad. Stocks were sent home for sale, and, as
       Bagebot shows, Lombard Street was closed to a nation which had
       adopted legal tender paper money. … By August all specie had
       disappeared from circulation, and postage-stamps and private
       note-issues took its place. In July a bill was passed for
       issuing stamps as fractional currency, but in March 1863,
       another act was passed providing for an issue of 50,000,000 in
       notes for fractional parts of a dollar—not legal tender. For
       many years the actual issue was only 30,000,000, the amount of
       silver fractional coins in circulation in the North, east of
       the Rocky Mountains, when the war broke out. … Gold rose to
       200-220 or above, making the paper worth 45 or 50 cts., at
       which point the 5 per cent. ten-forties floated. The amount
       sold up to October 31st, 1865, was $172,770,100. Mr. Spaulding
       reckons up the paper issues which acted more or less as
       currency, on January 30th, 1864, at $1,125,877,034;
       812,000,000 bore no interest."

          W. G. Sumner,
          History of American Currency,
          pages 204-208.

       The paper-money issues of the Civil War were not brought to
       parity of value with gold until near the close of the year
       1878. The 1st day of January, 1879, had been fixed for
       resumption by an act passed in 1875; but that date was
       generally anticipated in practical business by a few months.

          A. S. Bolles,
          Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
          book 1, chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11,
          and book 2, chapter 2.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873.
       Adoption of the Gold Standard by Germany.

       "At the close of the Franco-Prussian war the new German Empire
       found the opportunity … for the establishment of a uniform
       coinage throughout its numerous small states, and was
       essentially aided in its plan at this time by the receipt of
       the enormous war-indemnity from France, of which $54,600,000
       was paid to Germany in French gold coin. Besides this, Germany
       received from France bills of exchange in payment of the
       indemnity which gave Germany the title to gold in places, such
       as London, on which the bills were drawn. Gold in this way
       left London for Berlin. With a large stock of gold on hand,
       Germany began a series of measures to change her circulation
       from silver to gold.
    {2221}
       Her circulation in 1870, before the change was made, was
       composed substantially of silver and paper money, with no more
       than 4 per cent of the whole circulation in gold. … The
       substitution of gold instead of silver in a country like
       Germany which had a single silver medium was carried out by a
       path which led first to temporary bimetallism and later to
       gold monometallism. And for this purpose the preparatory
       measures were passed December 4, 1871. … This law of 1871
       created new gold coins, current equally with existing silver
       coins, at rates of exchange which were based on a ratio
       between the gold and silver coins of 1:15½. The silver coins
       were not demonetized by this law; their coinage was for the
       present only discontinued; but there was no doubt as to the
       intention of the Government in the future. … The next and
       decisive step toward a single gold standard was taken by the
       act of July 9, 1873. … By this measure gold was established
       as the monetary standard of the country, with the 'mark' as
       the unit, and silver was used, as in the United States in
       1853, in a subsidiary service. … Under the terms of this
       legislation Germany began to withdraw her old silver coinage,
       and to sell as bullion whatever silver was not recoined into
       the new subsidiary currency."

         J. L. Laughlin,
          History of Bimetallism in the United States,
          pages 136-140.

    MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1893.
       Stoppage of the free Coinage of Silver in India.

       The free coinage of silver in India was stopped by the
       Government in June, 1893, thus taking the first step toward
       the establishment of the gold standard in that country.

       ----------MONEY AND BANKING: End----------

       ----------MONGOLS: Start--------

    MONGOLS:
       Origin and earliest history.

       "The name Mongol (according to Schmidt) is derived from the
       word Mong, meaning brave, daring, bold, an etymology which is
       acquiesced in by Dr. Schott. Ssanang Setzen says it was first
       given to the race in the time of Jingis Khan, but it is of
       much older date than his time, as we know from the Chinese
       accounts. … They point further, as the statements of Raschid
       do, to the Mongols having at first been merely one tribe of a
       great confederacy, whose name was probably extended to the
       whole when the prowess of the Imperial House which governed it
       gained the supremacy. We learn lastly from them that the
       generic name by which the race was known in early times to the
       Chinese was Shi wei, the Mongols having, in fact, been a tribe
       of the Shi wei. … The Shi wei were known to the Chinese from
       the 7th century; they then consisted of various detached
       hordes, subject to the Thu kiu, or Turks. … After the fall
       of the Yuan-Yuan, the Turks, by whom they were overthrown,
       acquired the supreme control of Eastern Asia. They had, under
       the name of Hiong nu, been masters of the Mongolian desert and
       its border land from a very early period, and under their new
       name of Turks they merely reconquered a position from which
       they had been driven some centuries before. Everywhere in
       Mongol history we find evidence of their presence, the titles
       Khakan, Khan, Bigui or Beg, Terkhan, &c., are common to both
       races, while the same names occur among Mongol and Turkish
       chiefs. … This fact of the former predominance of Turkish
       influence in further Asia supports the traditions collected by
       Raschid, Abulghazi, &c., … which trace the race of Mongol
       Khans up to the old royal race of the Turks."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          volume 1, pages 27-32.

       "Here [in the eastern portion of Asia known as the desert of
       Gobi], from time immemorial, the Mongols, a people nearly akin
       to the Turks in language and physiognomy, had made their home,
       leading a miserable nomadic life in the midst of a wild and
       barren country, unrecognised by their neighbours, and their
       very name unknown centuries after their kinsmen, the Turks,
       had been exercising an all-powerful influence over the
       destinies of Western Asia."

          A. Vámbéry,
          History of Bokhara,
          chapter 8.

          A. Vámbéry,
          Travels in Central Asia
          www.gutenberg.org #41751

          See also, TARTARS.

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
       Conquests of Jingiz Khan.

       "Jingiz-Khan [or Genghis, or Zingis], whose original name was
       Tamujin, the son of a Tatar chief, was born in the year 1153
       A. D. In 1202, at the age of 49, he had defeated or
       propitiated all his enemies, and in 1205 was proclaimed, by a
       great assembly, Khakan or Emperor of Tartary. His capital, a
       vast assemblage of tents, was at Kara-Korum, in a distant part
       of Chinese Tartary; and from thence he sent forth mighty
       armies to conquer the world. This extraordinary man, who could
       neither read nor write, established laws for the regulation of
       social life and for the chase; and adopted a religion of pure
       Theism. His army was divided into Tumans of 10,000 men,
       Hazarehs of 1,000, Sedehs of 100, and Dehehs of 10, each under
       a Tatar officer, and they were armed with bows and arrows,
       swords, and iron maces. Having brought the whole of Tartary
       under his sway, he conquered China, while his sons, Oktai and
       Jagatai, were sent [A. D. 1218] with a vast army against
       Khuwarizm [whose prince had provoked the attack by murdering a
       large number of merchants who were under the protection of
       Jingiz]. The country was conquered, though bravely defended by
       the king's son, Jalalu-'d-Din; 100,000 people were put to the
       sword, the rest sold as slaves. … The sons of Jingiz-Khan
       then returned in triumph to their father; but the brave young
       prince, Jalalu-'d-Din, still held out against the conquerors
       of his country. This opposition roused Jingiz-Khan to fury;
       Balk was attacked for having harboured the fugitive prince in
       1221, and, having surrendered, the people were all put to
       death. Nishapur shared the same fate, and a horrible massacre
       of all the inhabitants took place." Jalalu-'d-Din, pursued to
       the banks of the Indus and defeated in a desperate battle
       fought there, swam the liver on horseback, in the face of the
       enemy, and escaped into India. "The Mongol hordes then overran
       Kandahar and Multan, Azerbaijan and 'Irak; Fars was only saved
       by the submission of its Ata-beg, and two Mongol generals
       marched round the Caspian Sea. Jingiz-Khan returned to Tartary
       in A. D. 1222, but in these terrible campaigns he lost no less
       than 200,000 men. As soon as the great conqueror had retired
       out of Persia, the indefatigable Jalalu-'d-Din recrossed the
       Indus with 4,000 followers, and passing through Shiraz and
       Isfaham drove the Mongols out of Tubriz. But he was defeated
       by them in 1226; and though he kept up the war in Azerbaijan
       for a short time longer, he was at length utterly routed, and
       flying into Kurdistan was killed in the house of a friend
       there, four years afterwards. … Jingiz-Khan died in the year
       1227."

          C. R. Markham,
          History of Persia,
          chapter 7.

    {2222}

       In 1224 Jingiz "divided his gigantic empire amongst his sons
       as follows: China and Mongolia were given to Oktai, whom he
       nominated as his successor; Tchaghatai received a part of the
       Uiguric passes as far as Khahrezm, including Turkestan and
       Transoxania; Djudi had died in the meantime, so Batu was made
       lord of Kharezm, Desht i-Kiptchak of the pass of Derbend and
       Tuli was placed over Khorasan, Persia, and India."

          A. Vámbéry,
          History of Bokhara,
          chapter 8.

       "Popularly he [Jingis-Khan] is mentioned with Attila and with
       Timur as one of the 'Scourges of God.' … But he was far more
       than a conqueror. … In every detail of social and political
       economy he was a creator; his laws and his administrative
       rules are equally admirable and astounding to the student. …
       He may fairly claim to have conquered the greatest area of the
       world's surface that was ever subdued by one hand. … Jingis
       organised a system of intelligence and espionage by which he
       generally knew well the internal condition of the country he
       was about to attack. He intrigued with the discontented and
       seduced them by fair promises. … The Mongols ravaged and
       laid waste the country all round the bigger towns, and they
       generally tried to entice a portion of the garrison into an
       ambuscade. They built regular siege-works armed with
       catapults; the captives and peasants were forced to take part
       in the assault; the attack never ceased night or day; relief
       of troops keeping the garrison in perpetual terror. They
       employed Chinese and Persians to make their war engines. …
       They rarely abandoned the siege of a place altogether, and
       would sometimes continue a blockade for years. They were bound
       by no oath, and however solemn their promise to the
       inhabitants who would surrender, it was broken, and a general
       massacre ensued. It was their policy to leave behind them no
       body of people, however submissive, who might inconvenience
       their communications. … His [Jingis'] creed was to sweep
       away all cities, as the haunts of slaves and of luxury; that
       his herds might freely feed upon grass whose green was free
       from dusty feet. It does make one hide one's face in terror to
       read that from 1211 to 1223, 18,470,000 human beings perished
       in China and Tangut alone, at the hands of Jingis and his
       followers."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          volume 1, pages 49, 108-113.

       "He [Jingiz-Khan] was … a military genius of the very first
       order, and it may be questioned whether either Cæsar or
       Napoleon can, as commanders, be placed on a par with him. The
       manner in which he moved large bodies of men over vast
       distances without an apparent effort, the judgment he showed
       in the conduct of several wars in countries far apart from
       each other, his strategy in unknown regions, always on the
       alert yet never allowing hesitation or over-caution to
       interfere with his enterprises, the sieges which he brought to
       a successful termination, his brilliant victories … —all
       combined, make up the picture of a career to which Europe can
       offer nothing that will surpass, if indeed she has anything to
       bear comparison with it."

          D. C. Boulger,
          History of China,
          volume 1, chapter 21.

          See, also,
          CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234;
          KHORASSAN;
          BOKHARA: A. D. 1219;
          SAMARKAND;
          MERV;
          BALKH;
          KHUAREZM,

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1202.
       Overthrow of the Keraït, or the kingdom of Prester John.

          See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.
       Conquests of the successors of Jingiz Khan.

       "Okkodai [or Ogotai or Oktai], the son and successor of
       Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished
       the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his empire all
       the provinces north of the Great Kiang. … After establishing
       his power over so much of China as we have said, Okkodai
       raised a vast army and set it in motion towards the west. One
       portion was directed against Armenia, Georgia, and Asia Minor,
       whilst another great host under Batu, the nephew of the Great
       Khan, conquered the countries north of Caucasus, overran
       Russia making it tributary, and still continued to carry fire
       and slaughter westward. One great detachment under a
       lieutenant of Batu's entered Poland, burned Cracow, found
       Breslaw in ashes and abandoned by its people, and defeated
       with great slaughter at Wahlstadt near Lignitz (April 12th,
       1241) the troops of Poland, Moravia and Silesia, who had
       gathered under Duke Henry of the latter province to make head
       against this astounding flood of heathen. Batu himself with
       the main body of his army was ravaging Hungary. …

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301].

       Pesth was now taken and burnt and all its people put to
       the sword. The rumours of the Tartars and their frightful
       devastations had scattered fear through Europe, which the
       defeat at Lignitz raised to a climax. Indeed weak and
       disunited Christendom seemed to lie at the foot of the
       barbarians. The Pope to be sure proclaimed crusade, and wrote
       circular letters, but the enmity between him and the Emperor
       Frederic II. was allowed to prevent any co-operation, and
       neither of them responded by anything better than words to the
       earnest calls for help which came from the King of Hungary. No
       human aid merited thanks when Europe was relieved by hearing
       that the Tartar host had suddenly retreated eastward. The
       Great Khan Okkodai was dead [A. D. 1241] in the depths of
       Asia, and a courier had come to recall the army from Europe.
       In 1255 a new wave of conquest rolled westward from Mongolia,
       this time directed against the Ismaelians or 'Assassins' on
       the south of the Caspian, and then successively against the
       Khalif of Baghdad and Syria. The conclusion of this expedition
       under Hulagu may be considered to mark the climax of the
       Mongol power. Mangu Khan, the emperor then reigning, and who
       died on a campaign in China in 1259, was the last who
       exercised a sovereignty so nearly universal. His successor
       Kublai extended indeed largely the frontiers of the Mongol
       power in China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], which he brought
       entirely under the yoke, besides gaining conquests rather
       nominal than real on its southern and southeastern borders,
       but he ruled effectively only in the eastern regions of the
       great empire, which had now broken up into four. (1) The
       immediate Empire of the Great Khan, seated eventually at
       Khanbalik or Peking, embraced China, Corea, Mongolia, and
       Manchuria, Tibet, and claims at least over Tunking and
       countries on the Ava frontier; (2), the Chagatai Khanate, or
       Middle Empire of the Tartars, with its capital at Almalik,
       included the modern Dsungaria, part of Chinese Turkestan,
       Transoxiana, and Afghanistan; (3), the Empire of Kipchak, or
       the Northern Tartars, founded on the conquests of Batu, and
       with its chief seat at Sarai, on the Wolga, covered a large
       part of Russia, the country north of Caucasus, Khwarizm, and a
       part of the modern Siberia; (4), Persia, with its capital
       eventually at Tabriz, embraced Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan
       and part of Asia Minor, all Persia, Arabian Irak, and
       Khorasan."

          H. Yule,
          Cathay and the way Thither: Preliminary Essay,
          sections 92-94 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          chapters 4-5.

    {2223}

    {2224}

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
       The Kipchak empire.
       The Golden Horde.

       "It was under Toushi [or Juchi], son of Tschingis, that the
       great migration of the Moguls effected an abiding settlement
       in Russia. … Toushi, with half a million of Moguls, entered
       Europe close by the Sea of Azof. On the banks of the river
       Kalka he encountered the united forces of the Russian princes.
       The death of Toushi for awhile arrested the progress of the
       Tatar arms. But in 1236, Batu, the son of Toushi, took the
       command, and all the principalities and cities of Russia, with
       the exception of Novogorod, were desolated by fire and sword
       and occupied by the enemy. For two centuries Russia was held
       cabined, cribbed, confined by this encampment or horde. The
       Golden Horde of the Deshti Kipzak, or Steppe of the Hollow
       Tree. Between the Volga and the Don, and beyond the Volga,
       spreads this limitless region the Deshti Kipzak. It was
       occupied in the first instance, most probably, by Hun-Turks,
       who first attracted and then were absorbed by fresh
       immigrants. From this region an empire took its name. By the
       river Akhtuba, a branch of the lower Volga, at Great Serai,
       Batu erected his golden tent; and here it was he received the
       Russian princes whom he had reduced to vassalage. Here he
       entertained a king of Armenia; and here, too, he received the
       ambassadors of S. Louis. … With the exception of Novogorod,
       which had joined the Hanseatic League in 1276, and rose
       rapidly in commercial prosperity, all Russia continued to
       endure, till the extinction of the house of Batu, a degrading
       and hopeless bondage. When the direct race came to an end, the
       collateral branches became involved in very serious conflicts;
       and in 1380, Temnik-Mami was overthrown near the river Don by
       Demetrius IV., who, with the victory, won a title of honour,
       Donski, which outlasted the benefits of the victory; although
       it is from this conflict that Russian writers date the
       commencement of their freedom. … After an existence of more
       than 250 years the Golden Horde was finally dissolved in 1480.
       Already, in 1468, the khanate of Kusan [or Kazan] was
       conquered and absorbed by the Grand Duke Ivan; and, after the
       extinction of the horde, Europeans for the first time exacted
       tribute of the Tatar, and ambassadors found their way
       unobstructed to Moscow. But the breaking up of the Golden
       Horde did not carry with it the collapse of all Tatar power in
       Russia. Rather the effect was to create a concentration of all
       their residuary resources in the Crimea."

          C. I. Black,
          The Proselytes of Ishmael,
          part 3, chapter 4.

       "The Mongol word yurt meant originally the domestic fireplace,
       and, according to Van Hammer, the word is identical with the
       German herde and the English hearth, and thence came in a
       secondary sense to mean house or home, the chief's house being
       known as Ulugh Yurt or the Great House. An assemblage of
       several yurts formed an ordu or orda, equivalent to the German
       hort and the English horde, which really means a camp. The
       chief camp where the ruler of the nation lived was called the
       Sir Orda, i. e., the Golden Horde. … It came about that
       eventually the whole nation was known as the Golden Horde."
       The power of the Golden Horde was broken by the conquests of
       Timour (A. D. 1389-1391). It was finally broken into several
       fragments, the chief of which, the Khanates of Kazan, of
       Astrakhan, and of Krim, or the Crimea, maintained a long
       struggle with Russia, and were successively overpowered and
       absorbed in the empire of the Muscovite.

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 2, pages 1 and x.

          See, also, above: A. D. 1229-1294;

          KIPCHAKS; and RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1257-1258.
       Khulagu's overthrow of the Caliphate.

          See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1258-1393.
       The empire of the Ilkhans.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1371-1405.
       The conquests of Timour.

          See TIMOUR.

    MONGOLS: A. D. 1526-1605.
       Founding of the Mogul (Mongol) empire in India.

          See INDIA.: A. D. 1399-1605.

       ----------MONGOLS: End----------

    MONITOR AND MERRIMAC, Battle of the.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
       A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

    MONKS.

          See
          AUSTIN CANONS;
          BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
          CAPUCHINS;
          CARMELITE FRIARS;
          CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
          CISTERCIAN ORDER;
          CLAIRVAUX;
          CLUGNY;
          MENDICANT ORDERS;
          RECOLLECTS;
          SERVITES;
          THEATINES;
          TRAPPISTS.

    MONMOUTH, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

    MONMOUTH'S REBELLION.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

    MONOCACY, Battle of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

    MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

          See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY;
          also, JACOBITE CHURCH.

    MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY, The.

       "The Council of Chalcedon having decided that our Lord
       possessed two natures, united but not confused, the Eutychian
       error condemned by it is supposed to have been virtually
       reproduced by the Monothelites, who maintained that the two
       natures were so united as to have but one will. This heresy is
       ascribed to Heraclius the Greek emperor, who adopted it as a
       political project for reconciling and reclaiming the
       Monophysites to the Church, and thus to the empire. The
       Armenians as a body had held, for a long time, the Monophysite
       (a form of the Eutychian) heresy, and were then in danger of
       breaking their allegiance to the emperor, as they had done to
       the Church; and it was chiefly to prevent the threatened
       rupture that Heraclius made a secret compromise with some of
       their principal men. … Neither … the strenuous efforts of
       the Greek emperors Heraclius and Constans, nor the concession
       of Honorius the Roman pontiff to the soundness of the
       Monothelite doctrine, could introduce it into the Church.
       Heraclius published in A. D. 639 an Ecthesis, or a formula, in
       which Monotheism was covertly introduced. The sixth general
       council, held in Constantinople A. D. 680, condemned both the
       heresy and Honorius, the Roman pontiff who had countenanced it.
    {2225}
       'The doctrine of the Monothelites, thus condemned and exploded
       by the Council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge
       among the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the mountains of
       Libanus and Anti-Libanus, and who, about the conclusion of
       this century, received the name of Maronites from John Maro,
       their first bishop-a name which they still retain.' … In the
       time of the Crusaders, the Maronites united with them in their
       wars against the Saracens, and subsequently (A. D. 1182) in
       their faith. After the evacuation of Syria by the Crusaders,
       the Maronites, as their former allies, had to bear the
       vengeance of the Saracenic kings; and for a long time they
       defended themselves as they could, sometimes inflicting
       serious injury on the Moslem army, and at others suffering the
       revengeful fury of their enemies. They ultimately submitted to
       the rule of their Mohammedan masters, and are now good
       subjects of the sultan. … The Maronites now … are entirely
       free from the Monothelite heresy, which they doubtless
       followed in their earlier history; nor, indeed, does there
       appear a single vestige of it in their histories, theological
       books, or liturgies. Their faith in the person of Christ and
       in all the articles of religion is now, as it has been for a
       long time past, in exact uniformity with the doctrines of the
       Roman Church."

          J. Wortabet,
          Researches into the Religions of Syria,
          pages 103-111; with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          H. F. Tozer,
          The Church and the Eastern Empire,
          chapter 5.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 47.

          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 4, chapter 11, sections 109-111.

    MONROE, James,
       Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

       Presidential election and administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816, to 1825.

    MONROE DOCTRINE, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.

    MONROVIA.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

       ----------MONS: Start--------

    MONS: A. D. 1572.
       Capture by Louis of Nassau, recovery by the Spaniards,
       and massacre.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

    MONS: A. D. 1691.
       Siege and surrender to Louis XIV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

    MONS: A. D. 1697.
       Restored to Spain.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    MONS: A. D. 1709.
       Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

    MONS: A. D. 1713.
       Transferred to Holland.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    MONS: A. D 1746-1748.
       Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
          and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

       ----------MONS: End--------

    MONS GRAMPIUS, Battle of.

          See GRAMPIANS.

    MONS SACER, Secession of the Roman Plebeians to.

          See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

    MONS TARPEIUS.

          See CAPITOLINE HILL.

    MONSIEUR.

       Under the old regime, in France, this was the special
       designation of the elder among the king's brothers.

    MONT ST. JEAN, Battle of.

       The battle of Waterloo—
       is sometimes so called by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

    MONTAGNAIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
          and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

    MONTAGNARDS, OR THE MOUNTAIN.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
          1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

    MONTAGNE NOIRE, Battle of (1794).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

       ----------MONTANA: Start--------

    MONTANA: A. D. 1803,
       Partly or wholly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
       The question.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    MONTANA: A. D. 1864-1889.
       Organization as a Territory and admission as a State.

       Montana received its Territorial organization in 1864, and was
       admitted to the Union as a State in 1889.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

       ----------MONTANA: End--------

    MONTANISTS.

       A name given to the followers of Montanus, who appeared in the
       2d century, among the Christians of Phrygia, claiming that the
       Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, "had, by divine appointment,
       descended upon him for the purpose of foretelling things of
       the greatest moment that were about to happen, and
       promulgating a better and more perfect discipline of life and
       morals. … This sect continued to flourish down to the 5th
       century."

          J. L. von Mosheim,
          Historical Commentaries, 2d Century,
          section. 66.

    MONTAPERTI, Battle of (1260).

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

    MONTAUBAN, Siege of (1621).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

    MONTAUKS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    MONTBÉLIARD, Battle of (1871).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

    MONTCALM, and the defense of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1756, to 1759.

    MONTE CASEROS, Battle of (1852).

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

    MONTE CASINO, The Monastery of.

          See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

    MONTE ROTUNDO, Battle of (1867).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

    MONTE SAN GIOVANNI, Battle and massacre (1495).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

    MONTEBELLO,
       Battle of (1800).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

       Battle of (1859.)

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

    MONTECATINI, Battle of (1315).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    MONTENEGRO.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

    MONTENOTTE, Battles at (1796).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    MONTEREAU, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    MONTEREAU, The Bridge of (1419).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

    MONTEREY, California:
       Possession taken by the American fleet (1846).

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

    MONTEREY, Mexico:
       Siege by the Americans (1846).

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

    MONTEREY, Pennsylvania, The Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

    MONTEVIDEO: Founding of the city.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    {2226}

    MONTEZUMA, The so-called Empire of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

    MONTFORT, Simon de (the elder), The Crusade of.

          See CRUSADES: A. D.1201-1203.

    MONTFORT, Simon de (the younger),
       The English Parliament and the Barons' war.

          See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

    MONTGOMERY, General Richard, and his expedition against Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

    MONTGOMERY CONSTITUTION and Government.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

    MONTI OF SIENA, The.

          See SIENA.

    MONTLEHERY, Battle of (1465).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

       ----------MONTMÉDY: Start--------

    MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1657.
       Siege and capture by the French and English.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

    MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1659.
       Cession to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

       ----------MONTMÉDY: End--------

    MONTMIRAIL, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    MONTPELIER, Treaty of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

    MONTPELIER, Second Treaty of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    MONTPENSIER, Mademoiselle, and the Fronde.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.

       ----------MONTREAL: Start--------

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1535.
       The Naming of the Island.

             See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1611.
       The founding of the City by Champlain.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1641-1657.
       Settlement under the seigniory of the Sulpicians.

          See CANADA: A.D. 1637-1657.

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1689.
       Destructive attack by the Iroquois.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1690.
       Threatened by the English Colonists.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1760.
       The surrender of the city and of all Canada to the English.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1775-1776.
       Taken by the Americans and recovered by the British.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

    MONTREAL: A. D. 1813.
       Abortive expedition of American forces against the city.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

       ----------MONTREAL: End--------

    MONTROSE, and the Covenanters.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640; and 1644-1645.

    MONZA, Battle of (1412).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    MONZON,
    MONÇON, Treaty of (1626).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    MOODKEE, Battle of (1845).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    MOOKERHYDE, Battle of (1574).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

    MOOLTAN,
    MULTAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Siege and capture by the English.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    MOORE, Sir John:
       Campaign in Spain and death.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

    MOORE'S CREEK, Battle of (1776).

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

    MOORISH SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

       ----------MOORS: Start--------

    MOORS, OR MAURI,
       Origin.

          See NUMIDIANS.

    MOORS: A. D. 698-709.
       Arab conquest.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709;
          and MAROCCO.

    MOORS: A. D. 711-713.
       Conquest of Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after.

    MOORS: 11-13th Centuries.
       The Almoravides and Almohades in Morocco.

          See ALMORAVIDES; and ALMOHADES.

    MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
       Persecution and final expulsion from Spain.
       The deadly effect upon that country.

       "After the reduction … of the last Mohammedan kingdom in
       Spain, the great object of the Spaniards became to convert
       those whom they had conquered [in violation of the treaty made
       on the surrender of Granada]. … By torturing some, by burning
       others, and by threatening all, they at length succeeded; and
       we are assured that, after the year 1526, there was no
       Mohammedan in Spain, who had not been converted to
       Christianity. Immense numbers of them were baptized by force;
       but being baptized, it was held that they belonged to the
       Church, and were amenable to her discipline. That discipline
       was administered by the Inquisition, which, during the rest of
       the 16th century, subjected these new Christians, or Moriscoes,
       as they were now called, to the most barbarous treatment. The
       genuineness of their forced conversions was doubted; it
       therefore became the business of the Church to inquire into
       their sincerity. The civil government lent its aid; and among
       other enactments, an edict was issued by Philip II., in 1566,
       ordering the Moriscoes to abandon everything which by the
       slightest possibility could remind them of their former
       religion. They were commanded, under severe penalties, to
       learn Spanish, and to give up all their Arabic books. They
       were forbidden to read their native language, or to write it,
       or even to speak it in their own houses. Their ceremonies and
       their very games were strictly prohibited. They were to
       indulge in no amusements which had been practised by their
       fathers; neither were they to wear such clothes as they had
       been accustomed to. Their women were to go unveiled; and, as
       bathing was a heathenish custom, an public baths were to be
       destroyed, and even an baths in private houses. By these and
       similar measures, these unhappy people were at length goaded
       into rebellion; and in 1568 they took the desperate step of
       measuring their force against that of the whole Spanish
       monarchy. The result could hardly be doubted; but the
       Moriscoes maddened by their sufferings, and fighting for their
       all, protracted the contest till 1571, when the insurrection was
       finally put down. By this unsuccessful effort they were
       greatly reduced in numbers and in strength; and during the
       remaining 27 years of the reign of Philip II. we hear
       comparatively little of them. Notwithstanding an occasional
       outbreak, the old animosities were subsiding, and in the
       course of time would probably have disappeared. At all events,
       there was no pretence for violence on the part of the Spaniards,
       since it was absurd to suppose that the Moriscoes, weakened in
       every way, humbled, broken, and scattered through the kingdom,
       could, even if they desired it, effect anything against the
       resources of the executive government.
    {2227}
       But, after the death of Philip II., that movement began …
       which, contrary to the course of affairs in other nations,
       secured to the Spanish clergy in the 17th century, more power
       than they had possessed in the 16th. The consequences of this
       were immediately apparent. The clergy did not think that the
       steps taken by Philip II. against the Moriscoes were
       sufficiently decisive. … Under his successor, the clergy …
       gained fresh strength, and they soon felt themselves
       sufficiently powerful to begin another and final crusade
       against the miserable remains of the Moorish nation. The
       Archbishop of Valencia was the first to take the field. In
       1602, this eminent prelate presented a memorial to Philip III.
       against the Moriscoes; and finding that his views were
       cordially supported by the clergy, and not discouraged by the
       crown, he followed up the blow by another memorial having the
       same object. … He declared that the Armada, which Philip II.
       sent against England in 1588, had been destroyed, because God
       would not allow even that pious enterprise to succeed, while
       those who undertook it, left heretics undisturbed at home. For
       the same reason, the late expedition to Algiers had failed; it
       being evidently the will of Heaven that nothing should prosper
       while Spain was inhabited by apostates. He, therefore,
       exhorted the king to exile all the Moriscoes, except some whom
       he might condemn to work in the galleys, and others who could
       become slaves, and labour in the mines of America. This, he
       added, would make the reign of Philip glorious to all
       posterity, and would raise his fame far above that of his
       predecessors, who in this matter had neglected their obvious
       duty. … That they should all be slain, instead of being
       banished, was the desire of a powerful party in the Church,
       who thought that such signal punishment would work good by
       striking terror into the heretics of every nation. Bleda, the
       celebrated Dominican, one of the most influential men of his
       time, wished this to be done, and to be done thoroughly. He
       said, that, for the sake of example, every Morisco in Spain
       should have his throat cut; because it was impossible to tell
       which of them were Christians at heart, and it was enough to
       leave the matter to God, who knew his own, and who would
       reward in the next world those who were really Catholics. …
       The religious scruples of Philip III. forbade him to struggle
       with the Church; and his minister Lerma would not risk his own
       authority by even the show of opposition. In 1609 he announced
       to the king, that the expulsion of the Moriscoes had become
       necessary. 'The resolution,' replied Philip, 'is a great one;
       let it be executed.' And executed it was, with unflinching
       barbarity. About 1,000,000 of the most industrious inhabitants
       of Spain were hunted out like wild beasts, because the
       sincerity of their religious opinions was doubtful. Many were
       slain, as they approached the coast; others were beaten and
       plundered; and the majority, in the most wretched plight,
       sailed for Africa. During the passage, the crew, in many of
       the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the
       women, and threw the children into the sea. Those who escaped
       this fate, landed on the coast of Barbary, where they were
       attacked by the Bedouins, and many of them put to the sword.
       Others made their way into the desert, and perished from
       famine. Of the number of lives actually sacrificed, we have no
       authentic account; but it is said, on very good authority,
       that in one expedition, in which 140,000 were carried to
       Africa, upwards of 100,000 suffered death in its most
       frightful forms within a few months after their expulsion from
       Spain. Now, for the first time, the Church was really
       triumphant. For the first time there was not a heretic to be
       seen between the Pyrenees and the Straits of Gibraltar. All
       were orthodox, and all were loyal. Every inhabitant of that
       great country obeyed the Church, and feared the king. And from
       this happy combination, it was believed that the prosperity
       and grandeur of Spain were sure to follow. … The effects
       upon the material prosperity of Spain may be stated in a few
       words. From nearly every part of the country, large bodies of
       industrious agriculturists and expert artificers were suddenly
       withdrawn. The best systems of husbandry then known, were
       practised by the Moriscoes, who tilled and irrigated with
       indefatigable labour. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and
       sugar, and the manufacture of silk and paper were almost
       confined to them. By their expulsion all this was destroyed at
       a blow, and most of it was destroyed for ever. For the Spanish
       Christians considered such pursuits beneath their dignity. In
       their judgment, war and religion were the only two avocations
       worthy of being followed. To fight for the king, or to enter
       the Church was honourable; but everything else was mean and
       sordid. When, therefore, the Moriscoes were thrust out of
       Spain, there was no one to fill their place; arts and
       manufactures either degenerated, or were entirely lost, and
       immense regions of arable land were left uncultivated. …
       Whole districts were suddenly deserted, and down to the
       present day have never been repeopled. These solitudes gave
       refuge to smugglers and brigands, who succeeded the
       industrious inhabitants formerly occupying them; and it is
       said that from the expulsion of the Moriscoes is to be dated
       the existence of those organized bands of robbers, which,
       after this period, became the scourge of Spain, and which no
       subsequent government has been able entirely to extirpate. To
       these disastrous consequences, others were added, of a
       different, and, if possible, of a still more serious kind. The
       victory gained by the Church increased both her power and her
       reputation. … The greatest men, with hardly an exception,
       became ecclesiastics, and all temporal considerations, all
       views of earthly policy, were despised and set at nought. No
       one inquired; no one doubted; no one presumed to ask if all
       this was right. The minds of men succumbed and were prostrate.
       While every other country was advancing, Spain alone was
       receding. Every other country was making some addition to
       knowledge, creating some art, or enlarging some science, Spain
       numbed into a death-like torpor, spellbound and entranced by
       the accursed superstition which preyed on her strength,
       presented to Europe a solitary instance of constant decay."

          H. T. Buckle,
          History of Civilization,
          volume 2, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Philip II.,
          book 5, chapters 1-8 (volume 3).

          R. Watson,
          History of the Reign of Philip III.,
          book 4.

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

          See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    MOORS: 15-19th Centuries.
       The kingdom of Marocco.

          See MAROCCO.

       ----------MOORS: End--------

    MOPH.

          See MEMPHIS.

    {2228}

    MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.

    MOQUIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    MORA, The.

       The name of the ship which bore William the Conqueror to
       England, and which was the gift of his wife, the Duchess
       Matilda.

    MORAT, Battle of (1476).

          See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

       ----------MORAVIA: Start--------

    MORAVIA:
       Its people and their early history.

          See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE, &c.

    MORAVIA: 9th Century.
       Conversion to Christianity.
       The kingdom of Svatopluk and its obscure destruction.

       "Moravia has not even a legendary history. Her name appears
       for the first time at the beginning of the 9th century, under
       its Slav form, Morava (German 'March,' 'Moehren'). It is used
       to denote at the same time a tributary of the Danube and the
       country it waters; it is met with again in the lower valley of
       that stream, in Servia, and appears to have a Slav origin.
       During the 7th and 8th centuries there is no doubt Moravia was
       divided among several princes, and had a hard struggle against
       the Avars. The first prince whose name is known was Moïmir,
       who ruled at the beginning of the 9th century. … During his
       reign Christianity made some progress in Moravia. … Moïmir
       tried to withstand the Germans, but was not successful; and in
       846 Louis the German invaded his country, deposed him, and
       made his nephew Rostislav, whom the chroniclers call Rastiz,
       ruler in his stead. … The new prince, Rostislav, determined
       to secure both the political and moral freedom of his country.
       He fortified his frontiers and then declared war against the
       emperor. He was victorious, and when once peace was secured he
       undertook a systematic conversion of his people. Thus came
       about one of the great episodes in the history of the Slavs,
       and their Church, the mission of the apostles Cyril and
       Methodius. … After having struggled successfully for some
       time against the Germans" Rostislav was "betrayed by his
       nephew and vassal, Svatopluk, into the hands of Karloman, duke
       of Carinthia and son of Louis the German, who put out his eyes
       and shut him up in a monastery. Svatopluk believed himself
       sure of the succession to his uncle as the price of his
       treachery, but a very different reward fell to his lot, as
       Karloman, trusting but little in his fidelity to the Germans,
       threw him also into captivity. The German yoke was, however,
       hateful to the Moravians; they soon rebelled, and Karloman
       hoped to avert the danger by releasing Svatopluk and placing
       him at the head of an army. Svatopluk marched against the
       Moravians, then suddenly joined his forces to theirs and
       attacked the Germans. This time the independence of Moravia
       was secured, and was recognized by the treaty of Forcheim
       (874). … Thenceforward peace reigned between Svatopluk and
       Louis the German. … At one time he [Svatopluk] was the most
       powerful monarch of the Slavs; Rome was in treaty with him,
       Bohemia gravitated towards the orbit of Moravia, while Moravia
       held the empire in check. … At this time [891] the kingdom
       of Svatopluk … included, besides Moravia and the present
       Austrian Silesia, the subject country of Bohemia, the Slav
       tribes on the Elbe and the Vistula as far as the neighbourhood
       of Magdeburg, part of Western Galicia, the country of the
       Slovaks, and Lower Pannonia." But Svatopluk was ruined by war
       with his neighbor, Arnulf, duke of Pannonia. The latter
       "entered into an alliance with Braclav, a Slovene prince,
       sought the aid of the king of the Bulgarians, and, what was of
       far graver importance, summoned to his help the Magyars, who
       had just settled themselves on the Lower Danube. Swabians,
       Bavarians, Franks, Magyars, and Slovenes rushed simultaneously
       upon Moravia. Overwhelmed by numbers, Svatopluk made no
       attempt at resistance; he shut up his troops in fortresses,
       and abandoned the open country to the enemy, who ravaged it
       for four whole weeks. Then hostilities ceased; but no durable
       peace could exist between the two adversaries. War began again
       in the following year, when death freed Arnulf from Svatopluk.
       … At his death he left three sons; he chose the eldest,
       Moïmir II., as his heir, and assigned appanages to each of the
       others. On his death-bed he begged them to live at peace with
       one another, but his advice was not followed. … Bohemia soon
       threw off those bonds which had attached her as a vassal to
       Svatopluk; the Magyars invaded Moravian Pannonia, and forced
       Moïmir into an alliance with them. … In the year 900 the
       Bavarians, together with the Chekhs, invaded Moravia. In 903
       the name of Moïmir disappears. As to the cause of his death,
       as to how it was that suddenly and for ever the kingdom of
       Moravia was destroyed, the chronicles tell us nothing. Cosmas
       of Prague shows us Moravia at the mercy of Germans, Chekhs,
       and Hungarians; then history is silent, towns and castles
       crumble to pieces, churches are overthrown, the people are
       scattered."

          L. Leger,
          History of Austro-Hungary,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          G. F. Maclear,
          Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
          chapter 4.

    MORAVIA: A. D. 1355.
       Absorption in the kingdom of Bohemia.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

       ----------MORAVIA: End----------

    MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):
       Origin and early history.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457; and 1621-1648.

    MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):
       In Saxony and in America.
       The Indian Missions.

       "In 1722, and in the seven following years, a considerable
       number of these 'Brethren,' led by Christian David, who were
       persecuted in their homes, were received by Count Zinzendorf
       on his estate at Berthelsdorf in Saxony. They founded a
       village called Herrnhut, or 'the Watch of the Lord.' There
       they were joined by Christians from other places in Germany,
       and, after some time, Zinzendorf took up his abode among them,
       and became their principal guide and pastor. … In 1737, he
       consecrated himself wholly to the service of God in connection
       with the Moravian settlement, and was ordained a bishop. …
       Zinzendorf had before been received into the Lutheran
       ministry. The peculiar fervor which characterized his
       religious work, and certain particulars in his teaching,
       caused the Saxon Government, which was wedded to the
       traditional ways of Lutheranism, to exclude him from Saxony
       for about ten years (1736-1747). He prosecuted his religious
       labors in Frankfort, journeyed through Holland and England,
       made a voyage to the West Indies, and, in 1741, another voyage
       to America.
    {2229}
       New branches of the Moravian body he planted in the countries
       which he visited. … It was a church within a church that
       Zinzendorf aimed to establish. It was far from his purpose to
       found a sect antagonistic to the national churches in the
       midst of which the Moravian societies arose. … With a
       religious life remarkable as combining warm emotion with a
       quiet and serene type of feeling, the community of Zinzendorf
       connected a missionary zeal not equalled at that time in any
       other Protestant communion. Although few in number, they sent
       their gospel messengers to all quarters of the globe."

          G. P. Fisher,
          History of the Christian Church,
          pages 506-507.

       The first settlement of the Moravians in America was planted
       in Georgia, in 1735. "But Oglethorpe's border war with the
       Spaniards compelled him to call every man in his colony to
       arms, and the Moravians, rather than forsake their principles
       [of non-resistance, and dependence upon prayer], abandoned
       their lands and escaped to Pennsylvania [1740]. Here some of
       their brethren were already fixed. Among the refugees was the
       young David Zeisberger, the future head of the Ohio missions.
       Bethlehem on the Lehigh became, and is yet, the centre in
       America of their double system of missions and education. They
       bought lands, laid out villages and farms, built houses,
       shops, and mills, but everywhere, and first of all, houses of
       prayer, in thankfulness for the peace and prosperity at length
       found. The first mission established by Zinzendorf in the
       colonies was in 1741, among the Mohican Indians, near the
       borders of New York and Connecticut. The bigoted people and
       authorities of the neighborhood by outrages and persecution
       drove them off, so that they were forced to take refuge on the
       Lehigh. The brethren established them in a new colony twenty
       miles above Bethlehem, to which they gave the name of
       Gnadenhütten (Tents of Grace). The prosperity of the Mohicans
       attracted the attention and visits of the Indians beyond. The
       nearest were the Delawares, between whom and the Mohicans
       there were strong ties of affinity, as branches of the old
       Lenni Lenape stock. Relations were thus formed between the
       Moravians and the Delawares. And by the fraternization between
       the Delawares and Shawanees … and their gradual emigration
       to the West to escape the encroachments of Penn's people, it
       occurred that the Moravian missionaries, Zeisberger foremost,
       accompanied their Delaware and Mohican converts to the
       Susquehanna in 1765, and again, when driven from there by the
       cession at Fort Stanwix, journeyed with them across the
       Alleghanies to Goshgoshink, a town established by the
       unconverted Delawares far up the Alleghany River." In 1770,
       having gained some important converts among the Delawares of
       the Wolf clan, at Kuskuskee, on Big Beaver Creek, they
       transferred themselves to that place, naming it Friedenstadt.
       But there they were opposed with such hostility by warriors
       and white traders that they determined "to plunge a step
       further into the wilderness, and go to the head chief of the
       Delawares at Gepelmukpechenk (Stillwater, or Tuscarawi) on the
       Muskingum. It was near this village that Christian Frederick
       Post, the brave, enterprising pioneer of the Moravians, had
       established himself in 1761, with the approbation of the
       chiefs. … By marriage with an Indian wife he had forfeited
       his regular standing with the congregation. His intimate
       acquaintance with the Indians, and their languages and
       customs, so far gained upon them that in 1762 he was permitted
       to take Heckewelder to share his cabin and establish a school
       for the Indian children. But in the autumn the threatened
       outburst of Pontiac's war had compelled them to flee." Early
       in 1772 the Moravian colony "was invited by the council at
       Tuscarawi, the Wyandots west of them approving it, to come
       with all their Indian brethren from the Alleghany and
       Susquehanna, and settle on the Muskingum (as the Tuscarawas
       was then called), and upon any lands that they might choose."
       The invitation was accepted. "The pioneer party, in the
       removal from the Beaver to Ohio, consisted of Zeisberger and
       five Indian families, 28 persons, who arrived at this
       beautiful ground May 3, 1772. … The site was at the large
       spring, and appropriately it was named for it Shoenbrun. In
       August arrived the Missionaries Ettwein and Heckewelder, with
       the main body of Christian Indians who had been invited from
       the Alleghany and the Susquehanna, about 250 in number. …
       This, and further accessions from the east in September, made
       it advisable to divide the colony into two villages. The
       second [named Gnadenhütten] was established ten miles below
       Shoenbrun. … In April, 1773, the remnants of the mission on
       the Beaver joined their brethren in Ohio. The whole body of
       the Moravian Indians … was now united and at rest under the
       shelter of the unconverted but … tolerant Delaware warriors.
       … The population of the Moravian villages at the close of
       1775 was 414 persons. … The calamity of the Moravians was
       the war of the American Revolution. It developed the dangerous
       fact that their villages … were close upon the direct line
       between Pittsburgh and Detroit, the outposts of the two
       contending forces." The peaceful settlement became an object
       of hostility to the meaner spirits on both sides. In
       September, 1781, by order of the British commander at Detroit,
       they were expelled from their settlement, robbed of all their
       possessions, and sent to Sandusky. In the following February,
       a half-starved party of them, numbering 96, who had ventured
       back to their ravaged homes, for the purpose of gleaning the
       corn left standing in the fields, were massacred by a brutal
       American force, from the Ohio. "So perished the Moravian
       missions on the Muskingum. Not that the pious founders ceased
       their labors, or that these consecrated scenes knew them no
       more. But their Indian communities, the germ of their work,
       the sign of what was to be accomplished by them in the great
       Indian problem, were scattered and gone, Zeisberger, at their
       head, labored with the remnants of their congregation for
       years in Canada. They then transferred themselves temporarily
       to settlements on the Sandusky, the Huron, and the Cuyahoga
       rivers. At last he and Heckewelder, with the survivors of
       these wanderings, went back to their lands on the Tuscarawas,
       now surrounded by the whites, but fully secured to them by the
       generosity of Congress."

          R. King,
          Ohio,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Cranz,
          History of the United Brethren.

          F. Bovet,
          The Banished Count (Life of Zinzendorf).

          E. de Schweinitz,
          Life and Times of David Zeisberger.

          D. Zeisberger,
          Diary.

          D. Berger,
          United Brethren
          (American Church History),
          volume 12.

    {2230}

       ----------MOREA: Start--------

    MOREA:
       Origin of the name.

       "The Morea must … have come into general use, as the name of
       the peninsula [of the Peloponnesus] among the Greeks, after
       the Latin conquest [of 1204-1205], even allowing that the term
       was used among foreigners before the arrival of the Franks.
       … The name Morea was, however, at first applied only to the
       western coast of the Peloponnesus, or perhaps more
       particularly to Elis, which the epitome of Strabo points out
       as a district exclusively Sclavonian, and which, to this day,
       preserves a number of Sclavonian names. … Originally the
       word appears to be the same geographical denomination which
       the Sclavonians of the north had given to a mountain district
       of Thrace in the chain of Mount Rhodope. In the 14th century
       the name of this province is written by the Emperor
       Cantacuzenos, who must have been well acquainted with it
       personally, Morrha. Even as late as the 14th century, the
       Morea is mentioned in official documents relating to the Frank
       principality as a province of the Peloponnesus, though the
       name was then commonly applied to the whole peninsula."

          G. Finlay,
          History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
          chapter 1, section 4.

    MOREA:
       The Principality of the.

          See ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.

       ----------MOREA: End--------

    MOREAU, General,
       The Campaigns and the military and political fortunes of.

          See FRANCE:
          A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
          1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
          1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), (NOVEMBER);
          1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY); and 1804-1805;
          also, GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

    MORETON BAY DISTRICT.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

    MORGAN, General Daniel, and the War or the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

    MORGAN, General John H., and his raid into Ohio and Indiana.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

    MORGAN, William, The abduction of.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

    MORGANATIC MARRIAGES.

       "Besides the dowry which was given before the marriage
       ceremony had been performed, it was customary [among some of
       the ancient German peoples] for the husband to make his wife a
       present on the morning after the first night. This was called
       the 'morgengabe,' or morning gift, the presenting of which,
       where no previous ceremony had been observed, constituted a
       particular kind of connexion called matrimonium morganaticam,
       or 'morganatic marriage. As the liberality of the husband was
       apt to be excessive, we find the amount limited by the
       Langobardian laws to one fourth of the bridegroom's
       substance."

          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 10.

    MORGARTEN, Battle or (1315).

          See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

    MORINI, The.

          See BELGÆ.

    MORISCOES.

       This name was given to the Moors in Spain after their nominal
       and compulsory conversion to Christianity.

          See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

    MORMAERS,
    MAARMORS.

       A title, signifying great Maer or Steward, borne by certain
       princes or sub-kings of provinces in Scotland in the 10th and
       11th centuries. The Macbeth of history was Mormaer of Moray.

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume 3, pages 49-51.

          See, also, SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.

    MORMANS, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

       ----------MORMONISM: Start--------

    MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.
       Joseph Smith and the Book or Mormon.

       "Joseph Smith, Jr., who … appears in the character of the
       first Mormon prophet, and the putative founder of Mormonism
       and the Church of Latter Day Saints, was born in Sharon,
       Windsor County, Vermont, December 13, 1805. He was the son of
       Joseph Smith, Sr., who, with his wife Lucy and their family,
       removed from Royalton, Vermont, to Palmyra, New York, in the
       summer of 1816. The family embraced nine children, Joseph,
       Jr., being the fourth in the order of their ages. … At
       Palmyra, Mr. Smith, Sr., opened 'a cake and beer shop,' as
       described by his signboard, doing business on a small scale,
       by the profits of which, added to the earnings of an
       occasional day's work on hire by himself and his elder sons,
       for the village and farming people, he was understood to
       secure a scanty but honest living for himself and family. …
       In 1818 they settled upon a nearly wild or unimproved piece of
       land, mostly covered with standing timber, situate about two
       miles south of Palmyra. … Little improvement was made upon
       this land by the Smith family in the way of clearing, fencing,
       or tillage. … The larger proportion of the time of the
       Smiths … was spent in hunting and fishing … and idly
       lounging around the stores and shops in the village. … At
       this period in the life and career of Joseph Smith, Jr., or
       'Joe Smith,' as he was universally named, and the Smith
       family, they were popularly regarded as an illiterate,
       whiskey-drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people—the
       first named, the chief subject of this biography, being
       unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the
       generation. … Taciturnity was among his characteristic
       idiosyncrasies, and he seldom spoke to anyone outside of his
       intimate associates, except when first addressed by another;
       and then, by reason of his extravagancies of statement, his
       word was received with the least confidence by those who knew
       him best. He could utter the most palpable exaggeration or
       marvellous absurdity with the utmost apparent gravity. … He
       was, however, proverbially good-natured, very rarely if ever
       indulging in any combative spirit toward anyone, whatever
       might be the provocation, and yet was never known to laugh.
       Albeit, he seemed to be the pride of his indulgent father, who
       has been heard to boast of him as the 'genus of the family,'
       quoting his own expression. Joseph, moreover, as he grew in
       years, had learned to read comprehensively, in which
       qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and
       even of his father. … As he … advanced in reading and
       knowledge, he assumed a spiritual or religious turn of mind,
       and frequently perused the Bible, becoming quite familiar with
       portions thereof. … The final conclusion announced by him
       was, that all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches on
       a false foundation, and the Bible a fable. … In September,
       1819, a curious stone was found in the digging of a well upon
       the premises of Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra. This stone
       attracted particular notice on account of its peculiar shape,
       resembling that of a child's foot. It was of a whitish, glassy
       appearance, though opaque, resembling quartz.
    {2231}
       Joseph Smith, Sr., and his elder sons Alvin and Hyrum, did the
       chief labor of this well-digging, and Joseph, Jr., who had
       been a frequenter in the progress of the work, as an idle
       looker-on and lounger, manifested a special fancy for this
       geological curiosity, and he carried it home with him. …
       Very soon the pretension transpired that he could see
       wonderful things by its aid. … The most glittering sights
       revealed to the mortal vision of the young impostor, in the
       manner stated, were hidden treasures of great value, including
       enormous deposits of gold and silver sealed in earthen pots or
       iron chests, and buried in the earth in the immediate vicinity
       of the place where he stood. These discoveries finally became
       too dazzling for his eyes in daylight, and he had to shade his
       vision by looking at the stone in his hat! … The imposture
       was renewed and repeated at frequent intervals from 1820 to
       1827, various localities being the scenes of … delusive
       searches for money [for carrying on which Smith collected
       contributions from his dupes], as pointed out by the
       revelations of the magic stone. … Numerous traces of the
       excavations left by Smith are yet remaining as evidences of
       his impostures and the folly of his dupes, though most of them
       have become obliterated by the clearing off and tilling of the
       lands where they were made." In the summer of 1827 "Smith had
       a remarkable vision. He pretended that, while engaged in
       secret prayer, alone in the wilderness, an 'angel of the Lord'
       appeared to him, with the glad tidings that 'all his sins had
       been forgiven'; … also that he had received a 'promise that
       the true doctrine and the fulness of the doctrine and the
       fulness of the gospel should at some future time be revealed
       to him.' … In the fall of the same year Smith had yet a more
       miraculous and astonishing vision than any preceding one. He
       now arrogated to himself, by authority of 'the spirit of
       revelation,' and in accordance with the previous 'promises'
       made to him, a far higher sphere in the scale of human
       existence, assuming to possess the gift and power of 'prophet,
       seer, and revelator.' On this assumption he announced to his
       family friends and the bigoted persons who had adhered to his
       supernaturalism, that he was 'commanded,' upon a secretly
       fixed day and hour, to go alone to a certain spot revealed to
       him by the angel, and there take out of the earth a metallic
       book of great antiquity in its origin, and of immortal
       importance in its consequences to the world, which was a
       record, in mystic letters or characters, of the long-lost
       tribes of Israel, … who had primarily inhabited this
       continent, and which no human being besides himself could see
       and live; and the power to translate which to the nations of
       the earth was also given to him only, as the chosen servant of
       God. … Accordingly, when the appointed hour came, the
       prophet, assuming his practised air of mystery, took in hand
       his money-digging spade and a large napkin, and went off in
       silence and alone in the solitude of the forest, and after an
       absence of some three hours returned, apparently with his
       sacred charge concealed within the folds of the napkin. …
       With the book was also found, or so pretended, a huge pair of
       spectacles in a perfect state of preservation, or the Urim and
       Thummim, as afterward interpreted, whereby the mystic record
       was to be translated and the wonderful dealings of God
       revealed to man, by the superhuman power of Joseph Smith. …
       The sacred treasure was not seen by mortal eyes, save those of
       the one anointed, until after the lapse of a year or longer
       time, when it was found expedient to have a new revelation, as
       Smith's bare word had utterly failed to gain a convert beyond
       his original circle of believers. By this amended revelation,
       the veritable existence of the book was certified to by eleven
       witnesses of Smith's selection. It was then heralded as the
       Golden Bible, or Book of Mormon, and as the beginning of a new
       gospel dispensation. … The spot from which the book is
       alleged to have been taken is the yet partially visible pit
       where the money speculators had previously dug for another
       kind of treasure, which is upon the summit of what has ever
       since been known as 'Mormon Hill,' now owned by Mr. Anson
       Robinson, in the town of Manchester, New York. This book …
       was finally described by Smith and his echoes as consisting of
       metallic leaves or plates resembling gold, bound together in a
       volume by three rings running through one edge of them, the
       leaves opening like an ordinary paper book. … Translations
       and interpretations were now entered upon by the prophet," and
       in 1830 the "Book of Mormon" was printed and published at
       Palmyra, New York, a well-to-do farmer, Martin Harris, paying
       the expense. "In claiming for the statements herein set forth
       the character of fairness and authenticity, it is perhaps
       appropriate to add … that the locality of the malversations
       resulting in the Mormon scheme is the author's birthplace;
       that he was well acquainted with 'Joe Smith,' the first Mormon
       prophet, and with his father and all the Smith family, since
       their removal to Palmyra from Vermont … ; that he was
       equally acquainted with Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, and
       with most of the earlier followers of Smith, either as
       money-diggers or Mormons; that he established at Palmyra, in
       1823, and was for many years editor and proprietor of the
       'Wayne Sentinel,' and was editorially connected with that
       paper at the printing by its press of the original edition of
       the 'Book of Mormon' in 1830; that in the progress of the work
       he performed much of the reading of the proof-sheets,
       comparing the same with the manuscript copies, and in the
       meantime had frequent and familiar interviews with the pioneer
       Mormons."

          P. Tucker,
          Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism,
          chapters 1-5, and preface.

       It is believed by many that the groundwork of the Book of
       Mormon was supplied by an ingenious romance, written about
       1814 by the Rev. Solomon Spalding, a Presbyterian minister of
       some learning and literary ability, then living at New Salem
       (now Conneaut), Ohio. This romance, which was entitled "The
       Manuscript Found," purported to narrate the history of a
       migration of the lost ten tribes of Israel to America. It was
       never published; but members of Mr. Spalding's family, and
       other persons, who read it or heard it read, in manuscript,
       claimed confidently, after the appearance of the Book of
       Mormon that the main body of the narrative and the notable
       names introduced in it were identical with those of the
       latter. Some circumstances, moreover, seemed to indicate a
       probability that Mr. Spalding's manuscript, being left during
       several weeks with a publisher named Patterson, at Pittsburgh,
       came there into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, a young printer,
       who appeared subsequently as one of the leading missionaries
       of Mormonism, and who is believed to have visited Joseph
       Smith, at Palmyra, before the Book of Mormon came to light.
    {2232}
       On the other hand, Mormon believers have, latterly, made much
       of the fact that a manuscript romance without title, by
       Solomon Spalding, was found, not many years since, in the
       Sandwich Islands, by President Fairchild of Oberlin College,
       Ohio, and proved to bear no resemblance to the Book of Mormon.
       Spalding is said, however, to have written several romances,
       and, if so, nothing is proved by this discovery.

          T. Gregg,
          The Prophet of Palmyra,
          chapters 1-11 and 41-45.

          ALSO IN:
          E. E. Dickinson,
          New Light on Mormonism.

          J. M. Kennedy,
          Early Days of Mormonism,
          chapters 1-2.

    MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
       The First Hegira to Kirtland, Ohio, the Second to Missouri,
       the Third to Nauvoo, Illinois.
       The Danites.
       The building of the city and its Temple.
       Hostility of the Gentiles.
       The slaying of the Prophet.

       "Immediately after the publication of the Book the Church was
       duly organized at Manchester. On April 6, 1830, six members
       were ordained elders—Joseph Smith, Sr., Joseph Smith, Jr.,
       Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Knight.
       The first conference was held at Fayette, Seneca county, in
       June. A special 'revelation' at this time made Smith's wife
       'the Elect Lady and Daughter of God,' with the high-sounding
       title of 'Electa Cyria.' In later years this lady became
       disgusted with her husband's religion. … Another revelation
       was to the effect that Palmyra was not the gathering-place of
       the Saints, after all, but that they should proceed to
       Kirtland, in Ohio. Consequently, the early part of 1831 saw
       them colonized in that place, the move being known as 'The
       First Hegira.' Still another revelation (on the 6th of June)
       stated that some point in Missouri was the reliable spot.
       Smith immediately selected a tract in Jackson county, near
       Independence. By 1833 the few Mormons who had moved thither
       were so persecuted that they went into Clay county, and
       thence, in 1838, into Caldwell county, naming their settlement
       'Far West.' The main body of the Mormons, however, remained
       in Kirtland from 1831 till they were forced to join their
       Western brethren in 1838. Brigham Young, another native of
       Vermont, joined at Kirtland in 1832, and was ordained an
       elder. The conference of elders on May 3, 1833, repudiated the
       name of Mormons and adopted that of 'Latter-Day Saints.' The
       first presidency consisted of Smith, Rigdon, and Frederick G.
       Williams. In May, 1835, the Twelve Apostles—among them
       Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde—left on a
       mission for proselytes. … The Mormons were driven from
       Missouri by Governor Boggs's 'Extraordinary Order,' which
       caused them to gain sympathy as having been persecuted in a
       slave State. They moved to Hancock county, Illinois, in 1840,
       and built up Nauvoo [on the Mississippi River, 14 miles above
       Keokuk] by a charter with most unusual privileges."

          F. G. Mather,
          The Early Days of Mormonism
          (Lippincott's Magazine, August 1880).

       In the midst of the troubles of Smith and his followers in
       Missouri, and before their removal to Nauvoo, there arose
       among them "the mysterious and much dreaded band that finally
       took the name of Danites, or sons of Dan, concerning which so
       much has been said while so little is known, some of the
       Mormons even denying its existence. But of this there is no
       question. Says Burton: 'The Danite band, a name of fear in the
       Mississippi Valley, is said by anti-Mormons to consist of men
       between the ages of 17 and 49. They were originally termed
       Daughters of Gideon, Destroying Angels—the gentiles say
       devils—and, finally, Sons of Dan, or Danites, from one of
       whom was prophesied he should be a serpent in the path. They
       were organized about 1837 under D. W. Patten, popularly called
       Captain Fearnot, for the purpose of dealing as avengers of
       blood with gentiles; in fact they formed a kind of death
       society, desperadoes, thugs, hashshashiyun—in plain English,
       assassins in the name of the Lord. The Mormons declare
       categorically the whole and every particular to be the
       calumnious invention of the impostor and arch apostate, Mr.
       John C. Bennett. John Hyde, a seceder, states that the Danite
       band, or the United Brothers of Gideon, was organized on the
       4th of July, 1838, and was placed under the command of the
       apostle David Patten, who for the purpose assumed the name of
       Captain Fearnot. It is the opinion of some that the Danite
       band, or Destroying Angels as again they are called, was
       organized at the recommendation of the governor of Missouri as
       a means of self-defence against persecutions in that State."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 21, pages 124-126.

       "The Mormons first attracted national notice about the time
       they quitted Missouri to escape persecution and took refuge in
       Illinois. In that free State a tract of land was granted them
       and a charter too carelessly liberal in terms. The whole body,
       already numbering about 15,000, gathered into a new city of
       their own, which their prophet, in obedience to a revelation,
       named Nauvoo; here a body of militia was formed under the name
       of the Nauvoo legion; and Joe Smith, as mayor, military
       commander, and supreme head of the Church, exerted an
       authority almost despotic. The wilderness blossomed and
       rejoiced, and on a lofty height of this holy city was begun a
       grotesque temple, built of limestone, with huge monolithic
       pillars which displayed carvings of moons and suns. … Nauvoo
       was well laid out, with wide streets which sloped towards
       well-cultivated farms; all was thrift and sobriety, no
       spirituous liquors were drunk, and the colonists here, as in
       their former settlements, furnished the pattern of insect
       industry. The wonderful proselyting work of this new sect
       abroad had already begun, and recruits came over from the
       overplus toilers in the British factory towns. … But there
       was something in the methods of this sect, not to speak of the
       jealousy they excited by their prosperity, which bred them
       trouble here as everywhere else where they came in contact
       with American commonplace life. It was whispered that the
       hierarchy of impostors grew rich upon the toils of their
       simple followers. Polygamy had not yet received the sanction
       of a divine revelation; and yet the first step towards it was
       practised in the theory of 'sealing wives' spiritually, which
       Smith had begun in some mysterious way that it baffled the
       gentile to discover. Sheriffs, too, were forbidden to serve
       civil process in Nauvoo without the written permission of its
       mayor.
    {2233}
       All these strange scandals of heathenish pranks, and more,
       besides, stirred up the neighboring gentiles, plain Illinois
       backwoodsmen; and the more so that, besides his 3,000 militia,
       the Mormon prophet controlled 6,000 votes, which, in the close
       Presidential canvass of 1844, might have been enough to decide
       the election. Joe Smith, indeed, whose Church nominated him
       for President, showed a fatal but thoroughly American
       disposition at this time to carry his power into politics.
       This king of plain speech, who dressed as a journeyman
       carpenter, suppressed a newspaper which was set up by seceding
       Mormons. When complaint was made he resisted Illinois process
       and proclaimed martial law; the citizens of the surrounding
       towns armed for a fight. Joe Smith was arrested and thrown
       into jail at Carthage with his brother Hiram. The rumor
       spreading that the governor was disposed to release these
       prisoners, a disorderly band gathered at the jail and shot
       them [June 27, 1844]. Thus perished Smith, the Mormon founder.
       His death at first created terror and confusion among his
       followers, but Brigham Young, his successor, proved a man of
       great force and sagacity. The exasperated gentiles clamored
       loudly to expel these religious fanatics from Illinois as they
       had been expelled from Missouri; and finally, to prevent a
       civil war, the governor of the State took forcible possession
       of the holy city, with its unfinished temple, while the Mormon
       charter of Nauvoo was repealed by the legislature. The Mormons
       now determined [1846] upon the course which was most suited to
       their growth, and left American pioneer society to found their
       New Jerusalem on more enduring foundations west of the Rocky
       Mountains."

          J. Schouler,
          History of the United States,
          volume 4, pages 547-549.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Ford,
          History of Illinois,
          chapters 8 and 10-11.

          A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
          History of Illinois,
          chapter 41.

          J. Remy and J. Brenchley,
          Journey to Great Salt Lake City,
          book 2, chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

          R. F. Burton,
          The City of the Saints,
          page 359.

    MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.
       The gentile attack on Nauvoo.
       Exodus of "the Saints" into the wilderness of the West.
       Their settlement on the Great Salt Lake.

       "During the winter of 1845-46 the Mormons made the most
       prodigious preparations for removal. All the houses in Nauvoo,
       and even the temple, were converted into work-shops; and
       before spring more than 12,000 wagons were in readiness. The
       people from all parts of the country flocked to Nauvoo to
       purchase houses and farms, which were sold extremely low,
       lower than the prices at a sheriff's sale, for money, wagons,
       horses, oxen, cattle, and other articles of personal property
       which might be needed by the Mormons in their exodus into the
       wilderness. By the middle of May it was estimated that 16,000
       Mormons had crossed the Mississippi and taken up their line of
       march with their personal property, their wives and little
       ones, westward across the continent to Oregon or California;
       leaving behind them in Nauvoo a small remnant of 1,000 souls,
       being those who were unable to sell their property, or who
       having no property to sell were unable to get away. The twelve
       apostles went first with about 2,000 of their followers.
       Indictments had been found against nine of them in the circuit
       court of the United States for the district of Illinois at its
       December term, 1845, for counterfeiting the current coin of
       the United States. The United States Marshal had applied to me
       [the writer being at that time Governor of Illinois] for a
       militia force to arrest them; but in pursuance of the amnesty
       agreed on for old offences, believing that the arrest of the
       accused would prevent the removal of the Mormons, and that if
       arrested there was not the least chance that any of them would
       ever be convicted, I declined the application unless regularly
       called upon by the President of the United States according to
       law. … It was notorious that none of them could be
       convicted; for they always commanded evidence and witnesses
       enough to make a conviction impossible."

          T. Ford,
          History of Illinois,
          chapter 13.

       "The Saints who had as yet been unable to leave Nauvoo
       continued to labour assiduously at the completion of the
       temple, so as to accomplish one of the most solemn prophecies
       of their well-beloved martyr. The sacred edifice was
       ultimately entirely finished, at the end of April, 1846, after
       having cost the Saints more than a million dollars. It was
       consecrated with great pomp on the 1st and 2nd of May, 1846.
       … The day after the consecration of the temple had been
       celebrated, the Mormons withdrew from the building all the
       sacred articles which adorned it, and satisfied with having
       done their duty in accomplishing, though to no purpose
       otherwise, a Divine command, they crossed the Mississippi to
       rejoin those who had gone before them. Nauvoo was abandoned.
       There remained within its deserted walls but some hundred
       families, whom the want of means and the inability to sell
       their effects had not allowed as yet to start upon the road to
       emigration. The presence of those who were thus detained,
       together with the bruit caused by the ceremony of dedication,
       raised the murmurs of the gentiles, and seemed to keep alive
       their animosity and alarm. Their eager desire to be entirely
       rid of the Mormons made them extremely sensitive to every idle
       story respecting the projects of the latter to return. They
       imagined that the Saints had only left in detachments to seek
       recruits among the red-skins, meaning to come back with
       sufficient force once more to take possession of their
       property in Illinois. These apprehensions rose to such a pitch
       that the anti-Mormons plunged into fresh acts of illegality
       and barbarism. … On the 10th of September, 1846, an army of
       1,000 men, possessing six pieces of artillery, started to
       begin the attack under the direction of a person named Carlin,
       and of the Reverend Mr. Brockman. Nauvoo had only 300 men to
       oppose to this force, and but five small cannon, made from the
       iron of an old steamboat. The fire opened on the afternoon of
       the 10th, and continued on the 11th, 12th and 13th of
       September." Every attack of the besiegers was repulsed, until
       they consented to terms under which the remnant of the Mormons
       was to evacuate the town at the end of five days. "The Mormons
       had only three men killed and a few wounded during the whole
       affair; the loss of their enemies is unknown, but it would
       seem that it was heavy. It was agreed that a committee of five
       persons should remain at Nauvoo to attend to the interests of
       the exiles, and on the 17th of September, while the enemy, to
       the number of 1,625, entered the city to plunder, the remnant
       of the Mormons crossed the Mississippi to follow 'the track of
       Israel towards the west.' …
    {2234}
       About the end of June, 1846, the first column of the emigrants
       arrived on the banks of the Missouri, a little above the point
       of confluence of this immense river with the Platte, in the
       country of the Pottawatamies, where it stopped to await the
       detachments in its rear. This spot, now known by the name of
       Council Bluffs, was christened Kanesville by the Mormons. …
       At this place, in the course of July, the federal government
       made an appeal to the patriotism of the Mormons, and asked
       them to furnish a contingent of 500 men for the Mexican war.
       Did the government wish to favour the Saints by affording them
       an opportunity of making money by taking service, or did it
       merely wish to test their fidelity? This we cannot decide. …
       The Saints generally regarded this levy as a species of
       persecution; however … they furnished a battalion of 520
       men, and received $20,000 for equipment from the war
       department." The head quarters of the emigration remained at
       Kanesville through the winter of 1846-47, waiting for the
       brethren who had been left behind. There were several
       encampments, however, some of them about 200 miles in advance.
       The shelters contrived were of every kind—huts, tents, and
       caves dug in the earth. The suffering was considerable and
       many deaths occurred. The Indians of the region were
       Pottawatamies and Omahas, both hostile to the United States
       and therefore friendly to the Mormons, whom they looked upon
       as persecuted foes of the American nation. "On the 14th of
       April [1847], Brigham Young and eight apostles, at the head of
       143 picked men and 70 carts laden with grain and agricultural
       implements, started in search of Eden in the far-west. … The
       23rd of July, 1847, Orson Pratt, escorted by a small advanced
       guard, was the first to reach the Great Salt Lake. He was
       joined the following day by Brigham Young and the main body of
       the pioneers. That day, the 24th of July, was destined to be
       afterwards celebrated by the Mormons as the anniversary of
       their deliverance. … Brigham Young declared, by divine
       inspiration, that they were to establish themselves upon the
       borders of the Salt Lake, in this region, which was nobody's
       property, and wherein consequently his people could follow
       their religion without drawing upon themselves the hatred of
       any neighbours. He spent several weeks in ascertaining the
       nature of the country, and then fixed upon a site for the holy
       city. … When he had thus laid the foundations of his future
       empire, he set off on his return to Council Bluffs, leaving on
       the borders of the Salt Lake the greater portion of the
       companions who had followed him in his distant search. During
       the summer, a convoy of 566 waggons, laden with large
       quantities of grain, left Kanesville and followed upon the
       tracks of the pioneers. … On their arrival at the spot
       indicated by the president of the Church, they set to work
       without a moment's repose. Land was tilled, trees and hedges
       planted, and grain sown before the coming frost." The main
       body of the emigrants, led by Brigham Young, moved from the
       banks of the Missouri about the 1st of May, 1848, and arrived
       at the Salt Lake the following autumn.

          J. Remy and J. Brenchley,
          Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City,
          book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

       "On the afternoon of the 22d [August, 1847] a conference was
       held, at which it was resolved that the place should be called
       the City of the Great Salt Lake. The term 'Great' was retained
       for several years, until changed by legislative enactment. It
       was so named in contradistinction to Little Salt Lake, a term
       applied to a body of water some 200 miles to the south."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 21, chapter 10.

    MORMONISM: A. D. 1850.
       Organization of the Territory of Utah.

          See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

    MORMONISM: A. D. 1857-1859.
       The rebellion in Utah.

          See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

    MORMONISM: A. D. 1894.
       Admission of Utah to the Union as a State.

          See UTAH: A. D. 1894.

       ----------MORMONISM: End----------

    MOROCCO.

          See MAROCCO.

    MORONA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    MORRILL TARIFF, The.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

    MORRIS, Gouverneur,
       The framing of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

       The origin of the Erie Canal.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

    MORRIS, Robert, and the finances of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

    MORRIS-DANCE, The.

       "Both English and foreign glossaries, observes Mr. Douce,
       uniformly ascribe the origin of this dance to the Moors,
       although the genuine Moorish or Morisco dance was, no doubt,
       very different from the European morris. … It has been
       supposed that the morris-dance was first brought into England
       in the reign of Edward III., and when John of Gaunt returned
       from Spain: but it is much more probable that we had it from
       our Gallic neighbours, or the Flemings."

          H. Smith,
          Festivals, Games, etc.,
          chapter 18.

    MORRIS ISLAND, Military operations on.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    MORRIS'S PURCHASE.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

    MORRISTOWN, N. J.:
       Washington in winter quarters (1777-1778).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776-1777; and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

    MORTARA, Battle of (1849).

          See ITALY; A. D. 1848-1849.

    MORTEMER, Battle of.

       The French army invading Normandy, A. D. 1054, was surprised
       by the Normans, in the town of Mortemer and utterly routed.
       The town was destroyed and never rebuilt.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Norman Conquest,
          chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3).

    MORTIMER'S CROSS, Battle of (1461).

       One of the battles in the "Wars of the Roses," fought Feb. 2,
       1461, on a small plain called Kingsland Field, near Mortimer's
       Cross, in Herefordshire, England. The Yorkists, commanded by
       young Edward, Earl of March (soon afterwards King Edward IV.)
       were greatly superior in numbers to the Lancastrians, under
       the Earl of Pembroke, and won a complete victory.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

    MORTMAIN, The Statute of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

    MORTON, Thomas, at Merrymount.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

    MORTUATH, The.

          See TUATH, THE.

    MOSA, The.

       The ancient name of the river Meuse.

    {2235}

       ----------MOSCOW: Start--------

    MOSCOW: A. D. 1147.
       Origin of the city.

       "The name of Moscow appears for the first time in the
       chronicles at the date of 1147. It is there said that the
       Grand Prince George Dolgorouki, having arrived on the domain
       of a boyard named Stephen Koutchko, caused him to be put to
       death on some pretext, and that, struck by the position of one
       of the villages situated on a height washed by the Moskowa,
       the very spot whereon the Kremlin now stands, he built the
       city of Moscow. … During the century following its
       foundation, Moscow remained an obscure and insignificant
       village of Souzdal. The chroniclers do not allude to it except
       to mention that it was burned by the Tartars (1237), or that a
       brother of Alexander Nevski, Michael of Moscow, was killed
       there in a battle with the Lithuanians. The real founder of
       the principality of the name was Daniel, a son of Alexander
       Nevski, who had received this small town and a few villages as
       his appanage. … He was followed, in due course, by his
       brothers George and Ivan."

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

    MOSCOW: A. D. 1362-1480.
       Rise of the duchy which grew to be the Russian Empire.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

    MOSCOW: A. D. 1571.
       Stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

    MOSCOW: A. D. 1812.
       Napoleon in possession.
       The burning of the city.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER);
          and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

       ----------MOSCOW: End--------

    MOSKOWA,
    BORODINO, Battle of the.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    MOSLEM.

          See ISLAM;
          also MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

    MOSQUITO INDIANS AND MOSQUITO COAST.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSQUITO,
          or MOSQUITO INDIANS;
          also NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850;
          and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

    MOTASSEM, Al, Caliph, A. D. 833-841.

    MOTAWAKKEL, Al, Caliph, A. D. 847-861.

    MOTYE, Siege of.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

    MOUGOULACHAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    MOULEY-ISMAEL, Battle of (1835).

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

    MOULTRIE, Colonel, and the defense of Charleston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

    MOUND-BUILDERS OF AMERICA, The.

          See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

    MOUNT BADON, Battle of.

       This battle was fought A. D. 520 and resulted in a crushing
       defeat of the West Saxons by the Britons, arresting the
       advance of the latter in their conquest of southwestern
       England for a generation. It figures in some legends among the
       victories of King Arthur.

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          chapter 3.

    MOUNT CALAMATIUS, Battle of.

          See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

    MOUNT ETNA, Battle of (1849).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    MOUNT GAURUS, Battle of.

          See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

    MOUNT TABOR, Battle of (1799).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

    MOUNT VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

          See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

    MOUNTAIN, The Party of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
          1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

    MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE, The (1857).

          See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

    MOURU.

          See MARGIANA.

    MOXO, The Great.

          See EL DORADO.

    MOXOS,
    MOJOS, The.

          See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
          also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    MOYTURA, Battle of.

       Celebrated in the legendary history of Ireland and represented
       as a fatal defeat of the ancient people in that country called
       the Firbolgs by the new-coming Tuatha-de-Danaan. "Under the
       name of the 'Battle of the Field of the Tower' [it], was long
       a favourite theme of Irish song."

          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

    MOZARABES,
    MOSTARABES.

       The Christian people who remained in Africa and southern Spain
       after the Moslem conquest, tolerated in the practice of their
       religion, "were called Mostarabes or Mozarabes; they adopted
       the Arabic language and customs. … The word is from the
       Arabic 'musta'rab,' which means one 'who tries to imitate or
       become an Arab in his manners and language.'"

          H. Coppée,
          History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1), with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 51.

    MOZART HALL.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

    MUFTI.

          See SUBLIME PORTE.

    MUGELLO, Battle of (A. D. 542).

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    MUGGLETONIANS.

          See RANTERS.

    MUGHAL OR MOGUL EMPIRE.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

    MUGWUMPS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

    MUHAJIRIN, The.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    MUHLBERG, Battle of (1547).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

    MÜHLDORF, OR MAHLDORF, Battle of (1322).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

    MULATTO.

          See MESTIZO.

    MULE, Crompton's, The invention of.

          See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

    MÜLHAUSEN, Battle of (1674).

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

    MULLAGHMAST, The Massacre of.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

    MULLIGAN, Colonel James A.:
       Defense of Lexington, Missouri.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

    MULTAN, OR MOOLTAN:
       Siege and capture by the English (1848-1849).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    MUNDA, Battle of.

          See ROME: B. C. 45.

    MUNDRUCU, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

    MUNERA GLADIATORIA.

          See LUDI.

       ----------MUNICH: Start--------

    MUNICH: 13th Century.
       First rise to importance.

          See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

    MUNICH: A. D. 1632.
       Surrender to Gustavus Adolphus.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    MUNICH: A. D. 1743.
       Bombardment and capture by the Austrians.

       See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

       ----------MUNICH: End--------

    MUNICIPAL CONSTITUTIONS AND FORMS.

       See COMMUNE; BOROUGH; and GUILD.

    {2236}

    MUNICIPAL CURIA OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

          See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.

    MUNICIPIUM.

       "The term Municipium appears to have been applied originally
       to those conquered Italian towns which Rome included in her
       dominion without conferring on the people the Roman suffrage
       and the capacity of attaining the honours of the Roman state.
       … If the inhabitants of such Municipia had everything Roman
       except the right to vote and to be eligible to the Roman
       magistracies, they had Commercium and Connubium. By virtue of
       the first, such persons could acquire property within the
       limits of the Roman state, and could dispose of it by sale,
       gift, and testament. By virtue of the second, they could
       contract a legal marriage with the daughter of a Roman
       citizen."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapter 14.

    MUNSEES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
          and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
          also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

       ----------MÜNSTER: Start--------

    MÜNSTER: A. D. 1532-1536.
       The reign of the Anabaptists.

          See ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

    MÜNSTER: A. D. 1644-1648.
       Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648;
          and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

       ----------MÜNSTER: End--------

    MUNYCHIA.

          See PIRÆUS.

    MUNYCHIA, Battle of (B. C. 403).

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

    MURA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

    MURAD V., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1876 (MAY-AUGUST).

    MURAT, King of Naples, The career of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY),
          1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
          GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER), to 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
          SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER);
          ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809;
          RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, 1813 (AUGUST), to (OCTOBER);
          ITALY: A. D. 1814, and 1815.

    MURCI.

       A name given to degenerate Romans, in the later days of the
       Empire, who escaped military service by cutting off the
       fingers of their right hands.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 17.

    MURET, Battle of (A. D. 1213).

          See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213;
          and SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

    MURFREESBOROUGH,
    STONE RIVER, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

    MURRAY, The Regent, Assassination of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

    MURRHINE VASES.

       "The highest prices were paid for the so-called Murrhine vases
       (vasa Murrhina) brought to Rome from the East. Pompey, after
       his victory over Mithridates, was the first to bring one of
       them to Rome, which he placed in the temple of the Capitoline
       Jupiter. Augustus, as is well known, kept a Murrhine goblet
       from Cleopatra's treasure for himself, while all her gold
       plate was melted. The Consularis T. Petronius, who owned one
       of the largest collections of rare vases, bought a basin from
       Murrha for 300,000 sestertii; before his death he destroyed
       this matchless piece of his collection, so as to prevent Nero
       from laying hold of it. Nero himself paid for a handled
       drinking-goblet from Murrha a million sestertii. Crystal vases
       also fetched enormous prices. There is some doubt about the
       material of these Murrhine vases, which is the more difficult
       to solve, as the only vase in existence which perhaps may lay
       claim to that name is too thin and fragile to allow of closer
       investigation. It was found in the Tyrol in 1837.

          See
          Neue Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums,
          volume v. 1839.

       Pliny describes the colour of the Murrhine vases as a mixture
       of white and purple; according to some ancient writers, they
       even improved the taste of the wine drunk out of them."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 91.

       "I believe it is now understood that the murrha of the Romans
       was not porcelain, as had been supposed from the line,
       'Murrheaque in Parthis pocula cocta focis' (Propert. iv. 5.
       26.), but an imitation in coloured glass of a transparent
       stone."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 39, foot-note.

    MURSA, Battle of (A. D. 351).

          See ROME: A. D. 337-361.

    MUSCADINS.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

    MUSCULUS, The.

       A huge movable covered way which the Romans employed in siege
       operations. Its construction, of heavy timbers, with a
       roof-covering of bricks, clay and hides, is described in
       Cæsar's account of the siege of Massilia.

          Cæsar,
          The Civil War,
          book 2, chapter 10.

    MUSEUM, British.

          See LIBRARIES, MODERN: ENGLAND.

    MUSEUM OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

          See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

    MUSKHOGEES, OR MASKOKALGIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    MUSSULMANS.

          See ISLAM.

    MUSTAPHA I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1617-1618; and 1622-1623.

       Mustapha II., Turkish Sultan, 1695-1703.

       Mustapha III., Turkish Sultan, 1757-1774.

       Mustapha IV., Turkish Sultan, 1807-1808.

    MUTA, Battle of.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    MUTHUL, Battle of the.

          See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

    MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 72).

          See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

    MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 43).

          See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

    MUTINA AND PARMA.

       On the final conquest of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans, about
       220 B. C. the Senate planted the colonies of Mutina (Modena)
       and Parma on the line of the Æmilian Road and assigned the
       territory of the Apuans to the new colony of Luca (Lucca).

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 41 (volume 2).

    MUTINY ACTS, The English.

       In 1689 the Parliament (called a Convention at first) which
       settled the English crown upon William of Orange and Mary,
       "passed the first Act for governing the army as a separate and
       distinct body under its own peculiar laws, called 'The Mutiny
       Act.' … The origin of the first Mutiny Act was this. France
       had declared war against Holland, who applied under the treaty
       of Nimeguen to England for troops. Some English regiments
       refused to go, and it was felt that the common law could not
       be employed to meet the exigency. The mutineers were for the
       time by military force compelled to submit, happily without
       bloodshed; but the necessity for soldiers to be governed by
       their own code and regulations became manifest. Thereupon the
       aid of Parliament was invoked, but cautiously.
    {2237}
       The first Mutiny Act was very short in enactments and to
       continue only six months. It recited that standing armies and
       courts martial were unknown to English law, and enacted that
       no soldier should on pain of death desert his colours, or
       mutiny. At the expiration of the six months another similar
       Act was passed, also only for six months: and so on until the
       present practice was established of regulating and governing
       the army, now a national institution, by an annual Mutiny Act,
       which is requisite for the legal existence of a recognised
       force, whereby frequent meeting of Parliament is indirectly
       secured, if only to preserve the army in existence."

          W. H. Torriano,
          William the Third,
          chapter 7.

       "These are the two effectual securities against military
       power: that no pay can be issued to the troops without a
       previous authorisation by the commons in a committee of
       supply, and by both houses in an act of appropriation; and
       that no officer or soldier can be punished for disobedience,
       nor any court-martial held, without the annual re-enactment of
       the mutiny bill."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 15 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 11 (volume 3).

    MUTINY OF THE ENGLISH FLEET.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

    MUTINY OF THE PHILADELPHIA LINE.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

    MUTINY OF THE SEPOYS.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

    MUYSCAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

    MYCALE, Battle of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 479.

    MYCENÆ.

          See GREECE: MYCENÆ: AND ITS KINGS;
          also ARGOS; HERACLEIDÆ; and HOMER.

    MYCIANS, The.

       A race, so-called by the Greeks, who lived anciently on the
       coast of the Indian Ocean, east of modern Kerman. They were
       known to the Persians as Maka.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapter 1.

    MYLÆ, Naval battle at (B. C. 260).

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    MYONNESUS, Battle of (B. C. 190).

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

    MYRMIDONS, The.

       "Æakus was the son of Zeus, born of Ægina, daughter of Asopus,
       whom the god had carried off and brought into the island to
       which he gave her name. … Æakus was alone in Ægina: to
       relieve him from this solitude, Zeus changed all the ants in
       the island into men, and thus provided him with a numerous
       population, who, from their origin, were called Myrmidons."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 1, chapter 10.

       According to the legends, Peleus, Telamon and Phocus were the
       sons of Æakus; Peleus migrated, with the Myrmidons, or some
       part of them, to Thessaly, and from there the latter
       accompanied his son Achilles to Troy.

    MYSIANS, The.

          See PHRYGIANS.—MYSIANS.

    MYSORE, The founding of the kingdom of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

    MYSORE WARS, with Hyder Ali and Tippoo Saib.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783; 1785-1793;
          and 1798-1805.

    MYSTERIES, Ancient Religious.

          See ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES.

    MYSTICISM.
    QUIETISM.

       "The peculiar form of devotional religion known under these
       names was not, as most readers are aware, the offspring of the
       17th century. It rests, in fact, on a substratum of truth
       which is coeval with man's being, and expresses one of the
       elementary principles of our moral constitution. … The
       system of the Mystics arose from the instinctive yearning of
       man's soul for communion with the Infinite and the Eternal.
       Holy Scripture abounds with such aspirations—the Old
       Testament as well as the New; but that which under the Law was
       'a shadow of good things to come,' has been transformed by
       Christianity into a living and abiding reality. The Gospel
       responds to these longings for intercommunion between earth
       and heaven by that fundamental article of our faith, the
       perpetual presence and operation of God the Holy Ghost in the
       Church, the collective 'body of Christ,' and in the individual
       souls of the regenerate. But a sublime mystery like this is
       not incapable of misinterpretation. … The Church has ever
       found it a difficult matter to distinguish and adjudicate
       between what may be called legitimate or orthodox Mysticism
       and those corrupt, degrading, or grotesque versions of it
       which have exposed religion to reproach and contempt. Some
       Mystics have been canonized as saints; others, no less
       deservedly, have been consigned to obloquy as pestilential
       heretics. It was in the East—proverbially the fatherland of
       idealism and romance—that the earliest phase of error in this
       department of theology was more or less strongly developed. We
       find that in the 4th century the Church was troubled by a sect
       called Massalians or Euchites, who placed the whole of
       religion in the habit of mental prayer; alleging as their
       authority the Scripture precept 'That men ought always to
       pray, and not to faint.' They were for the most part monks of
       Mesopotamia and Syria; there were many of them at Antioch when
       St. Epiphanius wrote his Treatise against heresies, A. D. 376.
       They held that every man is from his birth possessed by an
       evil spirit or familiar demon, who can only be cast out by the
       practice of continual prayer. They disparaged the Sacraments,
       regarding them as things indifferent: they rejected manual
       labor; and, although professing to be perpetually engaged in
       prayer, they slept, we are told, the greater part of the day,
       and pretended that in that state they received revelations
       from above. … The Massalians did not openly separate from
       the Church; they were condemned, however, by two Councils—one
       at Antioch in 391, the other at Constantinople in 426.
       Delusions of the same kind were reproduced from time to time
       in the Oriental Church; and, as is commonly the case, the
       originators of error were followed by a race of disciples who
       advanced considerably beyond them. The Hesychasts, or
       Quietists of Mount Athos in the 14th century, seem to have
       been fanatics of an extreme type. They imagined that, by a
       process of profound contemplation, they could discern
       internally the light of the Divine Presence—the 'glory of
       God'—the very same which was disclosed to the Apostles on the
       Mount of Transfiguration. Hence they were also called
       Thaborites.
    {2238}
       The soul to which this privilege was vouchsafed had no need to
       practise any of the external acts or rites of religion. …
       The theory of abstract contemplation, with the extraordinary
       fruits supposed to be derived from it, travelled in due course
       into the West, and there gave birth to the far-famed school of
       the Mystics, of which there were various ramifications. The
       earliest exponent of the system in France was John Scotus
       Erigena, the contemporary and friend of Charles the Bald. …
       Erigena incurred the censures of the Holy See; but the results
       of his teaching were permanent. … The Mystics, or
       Theosophists as some style them, attained a position of high
       renown and influence at Paris towards the close of the 12th
       century. Here two of the ablest expositors of the learning of
       the middle age, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, initiated
       crowds of ardent disciples into the mysteries of the 'via
       interna,' and of 'pure love'—that marvellous quality by which
       the soul, sublimated and etherialized, ascends into the very
       presence-chamber of the King of kings. … The path thus
       traced was trodden by many who were to take rank eventually as
       the most perfect masters of spiritual science; among them are
       the venerated names of Thomas à Kempis, St. Bonaventure, John
       Tauler of Strasburg, Gerson, and St. Vincent Ferrier. … But,
       on the other hand, it is not less true that emotional religion
       has been found to degenerate, in modern as well as in ancient
       times, into manifold forms of moral aberration. … To exalt
       above measure the dignity and privileges of the spiritual
       element in man carries with it the danger of disparaging the
       material part of our nature; and this results in the
       preposterous notion that, provided the soul be absorbed in the
       contemplation of things Divine, the actions of the body are
       unimportant and indifferent. How often the Church has combated
       and denounced this most insidious heresy is well known to all
       who have a moderate acquaintance with its history. Under the
       various appellations of Beghards, Fratricelli, Cathari,
       Spirituals, Albigenses, Illuminati, Guerinets, and Quietists,
       the self-same delusion has been sedulously propagated in
       different parts of Christendom, and with the same ultimate
       consequences. A revival of the last-named sect, the Quietists,
       took place in Spain about the year 1675, when Michel de
       Molinos, a priest of the diocese of Saragossa, published his
       treatise called 'The Spiritual Guide,' or, in the Latin
       translation, 'Manuductio spiritualis.' His leading principle,
       like that of his multifarious predecessors, was that of
       habitual abstraction of the mind from sensible objects, with a
       view to gain, by passive contemplation, not only a profound
       realisation of God's presence, but so perfect a communion with
       Him as to end in absorption into His essence. … Persons of
       the highest distinction—Cardinals, Inquisitors, nay, even
       Pope Innocent himself—were suspected of sharing these
       dangerous opinions. Molinos was arrested and imprisoned, and
       in due time the Inquisition condemned sixty-eight propositions
       from his works; a sentence which was confirmed by a Papal bull
       in August, 1687. Having undergone public penance, he was
       admitted to absolution; after which, in 'merciful'
       consideration of his submission and repentance, he was
       consigned for the rest of his days to the dungeons of the Holy
       Office. Here he died in November, 1692. … 'The principles of
       Quietism had struck root so deeply, that they were not to be
       soon dislodged either by the terrors of the Inquisition, or by
       the well-merited denunciations of the Vatican. The system was
       irresistibly fascinating to minds of a certain order. Among
       those who were dazzled by it was the celebrated Jeanne Marie
       De la Mothe Guyon," whose ardent propagation of her mystic
       theology in the court circles of France—where Fenelon,
       Madame de Maintenon, and other important personages were
       greatly influenced—gave rise to bitter controversies and
       agitations. In the end, Madame Guyon was silenced and
       imprisoned and Fenelon was subjected to humiliating papal
       censures.

          W. H. Jervis,
          History of the Church of France,
          volume 2, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          R. A. Vaughan,
          Hours with the Mystics.

          J. Bigelow,
          Miguel Molinos, the Quietist.

          T. C. Upham,
          Life of M'me Guyon.

          H. L. S. Lear,
          Fenelon,
          chapters 3-5.

          S. E. Herrick,
          Some Heretics of Yesterday,
          chapter 1.

          H. C. Lea,
          Chapters from the Religious History of Spain: Mystics.

    MYTILENE, Siege of.

       See LESBOS.

    N

    N. S.
       New Style.

          See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

    NAARDEN: A. D. 1572.
       Massacre by the Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

    NABATHEANS, The.

       "Towards the seventh century B. C., the name Edomite suddenly
       disappears, and is used only by some of the Israelitish
       prophets, who, in doing so, follow ancient traditions. Instead
       of it is found the hitherto unknown word, Nabathean.
       Nevertheless the two names, Nabathean and Edomite, undoubtedly
       refer to the same people, dwelling in the same locality,
       possessing the same empire, with the same boundaries, and the
       same capital, Selah [Petra]. Whence arose this change of name?
       According to an appearances from an internal revolution, of
       which we have no record, a change in the royal race and in the
       dominant tribe."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          book 7, chapter 4.

       "This remarkable nation [the Nabatheans, or Nabatæans] has
       often been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the
       wandering Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan
       branch than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan
       or, according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian
       stock must have in very early times sent forth from its most
       ancient settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the
       sake of trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these
       were the Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf
       of Suez and Aila, in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In
       their ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for
       those of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran
       from Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,
       passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose
       still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer
       evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost
       extinct tradition."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          volume 5, page 351.

    {2239}

    NABOB.
    NAWAB.

       Under the Moghul empire, certain viceroys or governors of
       provinces bore the title of Nawab, as the Nawab Wuzeer or
       Vizier of Oude, which became in English speech Nabob, and
       acquired familiar use in England as a term applied to rich
       Anglo-Indians.

    NADIR SHAH, sovereign of Persia, A. D. 1736-1747.

    NAEFELS, OR NÖFELS, Battle of (1388).

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

       Battle of (1799).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    NAGPUR:
       The British acquisition and annexation.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819, and 1848-1856.

    NAHANARVALI, The.

          See LYGIANS.

    NAHUA PEOPLES.
    NAHUATL.

          See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

    NAIRS, The.

          See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    NAISSUS, The Battle of.

       See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

    NAJARA, Battle of.

          See NAVARETTE.

    NAMANGAN, Battle of (1876).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

    NAMAQUA, The.

       See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    NAMNETES,
    NANNETES, The.

          See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

       ----------NAMUR: Start--------

    NAMUR: A. D. 1692.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

    NAMUR: A. D. 1695.
       Siege and recovery by William of Orange.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

    NAMUR: A. D. 1713.
       Ceded to Holland.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
          and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

    NAMUR: A. D. 1746-1748.
       Taken by the French and ceded to Austria.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
          and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: CONGRESS.

       ----------NAMUR: End--------

    NANA SAHIB, and the Sepoy Revolt.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856; 1857 (MAY-AUGUST);
          and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

    NANCY: Defeat and death of Charles the Bold (1477).

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

       ----------NANKING: Start--------

    NANKING: A. D. 1842.
       Treaty ending the Opium War and opening Chinese ports.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

    NANKING: A. D. 1853-1864.
       The capital of the Taiping Rebels.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

       ----------NANKING: End--------

       ----------NANTES: Start--------

    NANTES:
       Origin of the name.

          See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

    NANTES: A. D. 1598.
       The Edict of Henry IV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

    NANTES: A. D. 1685.
       The Revocation of the Edict.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

    NANTES: A. D. 1793.
       Unsuccessful attack by the Vendeans.
       The crushing of the revolt and the frightful
       vengeance of the Terrorists.
       The demoniac Carrier and his Noyades.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
          THE CIVIL WAR; and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

       ----------NANTES: End--------

    NANTICOKES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    NANTWICH, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

    NAO.

          See CARAVELS.

    NAPATA.

          See ETHIOPIA.

       ----------NAPLES: Start--------

    NAPLES:
       Origin of the city.

          See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

    NAPLES: A. D. 536-543.
       Siege and capture by Belisarius.
       Recovery by the Goths.

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    NAPLES: A. D. 554-800.
       The dukedom.

          See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

    NAPLES: 8-9th Centuries.
       The duchy of Beneventum.

          See BENEVENTUM; also, AMALFI.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1000-1080.
       The Norman Conquest.
       Grant by the Pope as a fief of the Church.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1127.
       Union of Apulia with Sicily and formation of the
       kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1081-1194.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1282-1300.
       Separation from Sicily.
       Continuance as a separate kingdom under the House of Anjou.
       Adhesion to the name "Sicily."

          See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300;
          also, TWO SICILIES.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1312-1313.
       Hostilities between King Robert and the Emperor, Henry VII.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1313-1328.
       King Robert's leadership of the Guelf interest in Italy.
       His part in the wars of Tuscany.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1343-1389.
       The troubled reign of Joanna I.
       Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
       Political effects of the Great Schism in the Church.
       War of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
       Interfering violence of Pope Urban VI.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1386-1414.
       Civil war between the Durazzo and the Angevin parties.
       Success of Ladislas.
       His capture, loss, and recapture of Rome.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1414-1447.
       Renewal of civil war.
       Defeat of the Angevins and acquisition of the
       crown by Alfonso, king of Aragon and Sicily.
       League with Florence and Venice against Milan.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    NAPLES: A. D.1447-1454.
       Claim of King Alfonso to the duchy of Milan.
       War with Milan and Florence.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1458.
       Separation of the crown from those of Aragon and Sicily.
       Left to an illegitimate son of Alfonso.
       Revived French claims.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1494-1496.
       Invasion and temporary conquest by Charles VIII. of France.
       Retreat of the French.
       Venetian acquisitions in Apulia.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, 1494-1496;
          and VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1501-1504.
       Perfidious treaty of partition between
       Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
       Their joint conquest.
       Their quarrel and war.
       The French expelled.
       The Spaniards in possession.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1504-1505.
       Relinquishment of French claims.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1508-1509.
       The League of Cambrai against Venice.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1528.
       Siege by the French and successful defense.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1528-1570.
       Under the Spanish viceroys.
       Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
       The blockade and peril of the city.
       Revolt against the Inquisition.
       Alva's repulse of the French.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    {2240}

    NAPLES: A. D. 1544.
       Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1647-1654.
       Revolt of Masaniello.
       Undertakings of the Duke of Guise and the French.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1713.
       The kingdom ceded to the House of Austria.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1734-1735.
       Occupation by the Spaniards.
       Cession to Spain, with Sicily, forming a kingdom for
       Don Carlos, the first of the Neapolitan Bourbons.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1742.
       The neutrality of the kingdom in the War of the Austrian
       Succession enforced by England.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1744.
       The War of the Austrian Succession.
       Neutrality broken.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1749-1792.
       Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1769.
       Seizure of Papal territory.
       Demand for the suppression of the Order of the Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1793.
       Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    NAPLES: A. D. 1796.
       Armistice with Bonaparte.
       Treaty of Peace.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

    NAPLES: A. D. 1798-1799.
       The king's attack upon the French at Rome.
       His defeat and flight.
       French occupation of the capital.
       Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    NAPLES: A. D. 1799.
       Expulsion of the French.
       Restoration of the king.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    NAPLES: A. D. 1800-1801.
       The king's assistance to the Allies.
       Saved from Napoleon's vengeance by the intercession
       of the Russian Czar.
       Treaty of Foligno.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

    NAPLES: A. D. 1805 (April).
       Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

    NAPLES: A. D. 1805-1806.
       Napoleon's edict of dethronement against the king and queen.
       Its enforcement by French arms.
       Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER)

    NAPLES: A. D. 1808.
       The crown resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of Spain),
       and conferred on Joachim Murat.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    NAPLES: A. D. 1808-1809.
       Murat on the throne.
       Expulsion of the English from Capri.
       Popular discontent.
       Rise of the Carbonari.
       Civil war in Calabria.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1814.
       Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
       His treaty with the Allies.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1815.
       Murat's attempt to head an Italian national movement.
       His downfall and fate.
       Restoration of the Bourbon Ferdinand.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1815.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1815.
       Accession to the Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1821.
       Insurrection.
       Concession of a Constitution.
       Perjury and duplicity of the king.
       Intervention of Austria to overthrow the Constitution.
       Merciless re-establishment of despotism.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1822.
       The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
       Austrian intervention sanctioned.

          See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1830.
       Death of Francis I.
       Accession of Ferdinand II.

          See ITALY: A. D.1830-1832.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1848.
       Abortive revolt.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    NAPLES: A. D. 1859-1861.
       Death of Ferdinand II.
       Accession of Francis II.
       The overthrow of his kingdom by Garibaldi.
       Its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

       ----------NAPLES: End--------

    NAPO,
    QUIJO, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    NAPOLEON I.:
       His career.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
          and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    NAPOLEON III.:
       His career as conspirator, President of the
       French Republic, and Emperor.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840;
          and 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER), to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

       ----------NARBONNE: Start--------

    NARBONNE:
       Founding of the city.

       "In the year B. C. 118 it was proposed to settle a Roman
       colony in the south of France at Narbo (Narbonne). … The
       Romans must have seized some part of this country, or they
       could not have made a colony, which implies the giving of land
       to settlers. Narbo was an old native town which existed at
       least as early as the latter part of the sixth century before
       the Christian era. … The possession of Narbo gave the Romans
       easy access to the fertile valley of the Garonne, and it was
       not long before they took and plundered Tolosa (Toulouse),
       which is on that river. … Narbo also commanded the road into
       Spain."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapter 22.

    NARBONNE: A. D. 437.
       Besieged by the Goths.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

    NARBONNE: A. D. 525-531.
       The capital of the Visigoths.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

    NARBONNE: A. D. 719.
       Capture and occupation by the Moslems.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

    NARBONNE: A. D. 752-759.
       Siege and recovery from the Moslems.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

       ----------NARBONNE: End--------

    NARISCI, The.

          See MARCOMANNI.

    NARRAGANSETTS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
          RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
          and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, 1674-1675,
          1675, and 1676-1678.

    NARSES, Campaigns of.

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    NARVA, Siege and Battle of (1700).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

    NARVAEZ, Expedition of.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

    NASEBY, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).

       ----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: Start--------

    NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1779-1784.
       Origin and name of the city.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

    {2241}

    NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
       Occupied by the Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
          and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1864.
       Under siege.
       Defeat of Hood's army.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A D. 1864 (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

       ----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: End--------

    NASI, The.

       This was the title of the President of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

    NASR-ED-DEEN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1848-.

    NASSAU, The House of.

       "We find an Otho, Count of Nassau, so long ago as the
       beginning of the 10th century, employed as general under the
       Emperor Henry I … in subduing a swarm of savage Hungarians,
       who for many years had infested Germany. … The same
       fortunate warrior had a principal hand afterwards in reducing
       the Vandals, Danes, Sclavonians, Dalmatians, and Bohemians.
       Among the descendants of Otho of Nassau, Walram I and III more
       particularly distinguished themselves in the cause of the
       German Emperors; the former under the victorious Otho I, the
       latter under Conrad II. It was to these faithful services of
       his progenitors that, in a great measure, were owing the large
       possessions of Henry, surnamed the Rich, third in descent from
       the last mentioned Walram, and grandfather to the brave but
       unhappy Emperor Adolphus [deposed and slain at the battle of
       Gelheim, in 1298.]

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

       The accession, by marriage, of Breda, Vianden, and other
       lordships in the Netherlands, gave the Nassaus such a weight
       in those provinces that John II of Nassau-Dillemburg, and his
       son Engelbert II, were both successively appointed Governors
       of Brabant by the Sovereigns of that State [Charles the Bold,
       Duke of Burgundy, and his son-in-law, the Emperor Maximilian].
       … The last, who was likewise honoured with the commission of
       Maximilian I's Lieutenant-General in the Low-Countries,
       immortalized his fame, at the same time that he secured his
       master's footing there, by the glorious victory of
       Guinegaste,"—or Guinegate, or the "Battle of the Spurs."

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513—1515.

          J. Breval,
          History of the House of Nassau,
          pages 2-3.

       Engelbert II. dying childless, "was succeeded by his brother
       John, whose two sons, Henry and William, of Nassau, divided
       the great inheritance after their father's death. William
       succeeded to the German estates, became a convert to
       Protestantism, and introduced the Reformation into his
       dominions. Henry, the eldest son, received the family
       possessions and titles in Luxembourg, Brabant, Flanders and
       Holland, and distinguished himself as much as his uncle
       Engelbert, in the service of the Burgundo-Austrian house. The
       confidential friend of Charles V., whose governor he had been
       in that Emperor's boyhood, he was ever his most efficient and
       reliable adherent. It was he whose influence placed the
       imperial crown upon the head of Charles. In 1515 he espoused
       Claudia de Chalons, sister of Prince Philibert of Orange, 'in
       order,' as he wrote to his father, 'to be obedient to his
       imperial Majesty, to please the King of France, and more
       particularly for the sake of his own honor and profit.' His
       son Rene de Nassau-Chalons succeeded Philibert. The little
       principality of Orange, so pleasantly situated between
       Provence and Dauphiny, but in such, dangerous proximity to the
       seat of the 'Babylonian captivity' of the popes at Avignon,
       thus passed to the family of Nassau. The title was of high
       antiquity. Already in the reign of Charlemagne, Guillaume au
       Court-Nez, or 'William with the Short Nose,' had defended the
       little town of Orange against the assaults of the Saracens.
       The interest and authority acquired in the demesnes thus
       preserved by his valor became extensive, and in process of
       time hereditary in his race. The principality became an
       absolute and free sovereignty, and had already descended, in
       defiance of the Salic law, through the three distinct families
       of Orange, Baux, and Chalons. In 1544, Prince Rene died at the
       Emperor's feet in the trenches of Saint Dizier. Having no
       legitimate children, he left all his titles and estates to his
       cousin-german, William of Nassau [the great statesman and
       soldier, afterwards known as William the Silent], son of his
       father's brother William, who thus at the age of eleven years
       became William the Ninth of Orange."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       The Dutch branch of the House of Nassau is now represented by
       the royal family of Holland. The possessions of the German
       branch, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, after
       frequent partitioning, was finally gathered into a duchy,
       which Prussia extinguished and absorbed in 1866.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          Orange
          (Macmillan's Magazine, February, 1875).

          Baron Maurier,
          Lives of all the Princes of Orange.

          See, also, ORANGE;
          and GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

    NAT TURNER'S INSURRECTION.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

       ----------NATAL: Start--------

    NATAL: The Name.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

    NATAL: A. D. 1834-1843.
       Founding of the colony as a Dutch republic.
       Its absorption in the British dominions.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

       ----------NATAL: End--------

    NATALIA, Queen of Servia.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

    NATCHEZ, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          NATCHESAN FAMILY, and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    NATCHEZ: A. D. 1862.
       Taken by the National forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    NATCHITOCHES, The.

          See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, French Revolution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, German Revolution.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    NATIONAL BANK SYSTEM.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.

    NATIONAL CONVENTION, French, End of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FRANCE.

          See LIBRARIES, MODERN: FRANCE.

    NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

    NATIONALISTS, OR HOME RULERS, Irish.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

    {2242}

    NATIONALITY, The Principle of.

       "Among the French a nationality is regarded as the work of
       history, ratified by the will of man. The elements composing
       it may be very different in their origin. The point of
       departure is of little importance; the only essential thing is
       the point reached. The Swiss nationality is the most complete.
       It embraces three families of people, each of which speaks its
       own language. Moreover, since the Swiss territory belongs to
       three geographical regions, separated by high mountains,
       Switzerland, which has vanquished the fatality of nature, from
       both the ethnographical and geographical point of view, is a
       unique and wonderful phenomenon. But she is a confederation,
       and for a long time has been a neutral country. Thus her
       constitution has not been subjected to the great ordeal of
       fire and sword. France, despite her diverse races—Celtic,
       German, Roman, and Basque—has formed a political entity that
       most resembles a moral person. The Bretons and Alsacians, who
       do not all understand the language of her government, have not
       been the least devoted of her children in the hour of
       tribulation. Among the great nations France is the nation par
       excellence. Elsewhere the nationality blends, or tends to
       blend, with the race, a natural development and, hence, one
       devoid of merit. All the countries that have not been able to
       unite their races into a nation, have a more or less troubled
       existence. Prussia has not been able to nationalize (that is
       the proper word to use) her Polish subjects; hence she has a
       Polish question, not to mention at present any other. England
       has an Irish question. Both Turkey and Austria have a number
       of such questions. Groups of people in various parts of the
       Austrian Empire demand from the Emperor that they may be
       allowed to live as Germans, Hungarians, Tsechs, Croatians, in
       fact, even as Italians. They do not revolt against him; on the
       contrary, each of them offers him a crown. The time is,
       however, past when a single head can wear several crowns;
       to-day every crown is heavy. These race claims are not merely
       a cause of internal troubles; the agitations that they arouse
       may lead to great wars. Evidently no state will ever interpose
       between Ireland and England, but, while quarrels take place
       between Germans and Slavs, there will intervene the two
       conflicting forces of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism,
       formidable results and final consequences of ethnographical
       patriotism. Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism are, indeed, not
       forces officially acknowledged and organized. The Emperor of
       Germany can honestly deny that he is a Pan-Germanist, and the
       Tsar that he is a Pan-Slavist. Germans and Slavs of Austria,
       and Slavs of the Balkans, may, for their part, desire to
       remain Austrian or independent, as they are to-day. It is none
       the less true, however, that there is in Europe an old quarrel
       between two great races, that each of them is represented by a
       powerful empire, and that these empires cannot forever remain
       unconcerned about the quarrels of the two races. … The chief
       application of the principle of nationality has been the
       formation of the Italian and German nations. In former times
       the existence, in the centre of the Continent, of two objects
       of greed was a permanent cause of war. Will the substitution
       of two important states for German anarchy and Italian
       polyarchy prove a guaranty of future peace?"

          E. Lavisse,
          General View of the Political History of Europe,
          chapter 5, sections 6-7.

    NATIONALRATH, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

    NATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

    NATIVE STATES OF INDIA.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

    NATIVI.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL, &c.: ENGLAND.

    NAUARCHI.

       The title given in ancient Sparta to the commanders of the
       fleet. At Athens "the term Nauarchi seems to have been
       officially applied only to the commanders of the so-called
       sacred triremes."

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapters 1, and 3.

    NAUCRATIS.

          See NAUKRATIS.

    NAUKRARIES.

          See PHYLÆ.

    NAUKRATIS.

       "Naukratis was for a long time the privileged port [in Egypt]
       for Grecian commerce with Egypt. No Greek merchant was
       permitted to deliver goods in any other part (port), or to
       enter any other of the mouths of the Nile except the Kanôpic.
       If forced into any of them by stress of weather, he was
       compelled to make oath that his arrival was a matter of
       necessity, and to convey his goods round by sea into the
       Kanôpic branch to Naukratis; and if the weather still forbade
       such a proceeding, the merchandise was put into barges and
       conveyed round to Naukratis by the internal canals of the
       delta. Such a monopoly, which made Naukratis in Egypt
       something like Canton in China or Nangasaki in Japan, no
       longer subsisted in the time of Herodotus. … At what precise
       time Naukratis first became licensed for Grecian trade, we
       cannot directly make out. But there seems reason to believe
       that it was the port to which the Greek merchants first went,
       so soon as the general liberty of trading with the country was
       conceded to them; and this would put the date of such grant at
       least as far back as the foundation of Kyrene, … about 630
       B. C., during the reign of Psammetichus. … [About a century
       later, Amasis] sanctioned the constitution of a formal and
       organised emporium or factory, invested with commercial
       privileges, and armed with authority exercised by presiding
       officers regularly chosen. This factory was connected with,
       and probably grew out of, a large religious edifice and
       precinct, built at the joint cost of nine Grecian cities: four
       of them Ionic,—Chios, Teos, Phokæa and Klazomenæ; four
       Doric,—Rhodes, Knidus, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis; and one
       Æolic,—Mitylene. By these nine cities the joint temple and
       factory was kept up and its presiding magistrates chosen; but
       its destination, for the convenience of Grecian commerce
       generally, seems revealed by the imposing title of The
       Hellênion."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 20.

       The site of Naukratis has been determined lately by the
       excavations of Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, begun in 1885, the
       results of which are appearing in the publications of the
       "Egypt Exploration Fund." The ruins of the ancient city are
       found buried under a mound called Nebireh. Its situation was
       west of the Canobic branch of the Nile, on a canal which
       connected it with that stream.

          See EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.

    NAULOCHUS, Battle of.

       A naval battle fought near Naulochus, on the coast of Sicily,
       in which Agrippa, commanding for the triumvir Octavius,
       defeated and destroyed the fleet of Sextus Pompeius, B. C. 36.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 27.

    {2243}

    NAUMACHIÆ.

       The naumachiæ of the Romans were structures resembling
       excavated amphitheatres, but having the large central space
       filled with water, for the representation of naval combats.
       "The great Naumachia of Augustus was 1,800 feet long and 1,200
       feet broad."

          R. Burn.
          Rome and the Campagna,
          introduction.

    NAUPACTUS.

          See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;
          and GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

    NAUPACTUS, Battle of (B. C. 429).

          See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

    NAUPACTUS, Treaty of.

       A treaty, concluded B. C. 217, which terminated what was
       called the Social War, between the Achæan League, joined with
       Philip of Macedonia, and the Ætolian League, in alliance with
       Sparta.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 63.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapter 8, section 1.

    NAUPLIA.

          See ARGOS.

    NAURAGHI.

          See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

    NAUSETS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    NAUVOO, The Mormon city of.

          See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846, and 1846-1848.

    NAVAJOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ATHAPASCAN FAMILY and APACHE GROUP.

    NAVARETTE
    NAJARA, Battle of.

       Won, April 3, 1367, by the English Black Prince over a Spanish
       and French army, in a campaign undertaken to restore Peter the
       Cruel to the throne of Castile.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369,
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

       ----------NAVARINO: Start--------

    NAVARINO: B. C. 425.
       An ancient episode in the harbor.

          See GREECE: B. C. 425.

    NAVARINO: A. D. 1686.
       Taken by the Venetians.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

    NAVARINO: A. D. 1827.
       Battle and destruction of the Turkish fleet.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

       ----------NAVARINO: End--------

       ----------NAVARRE: Start--------
    NAVARRE:
       Aboriginal inhabitants.

          See BASQUES.

    NAVARRE:
       Origin of the kingdom.

       "No historical subject is wrapt in greater obscurity than the
       origin and early history of the kingdom of Navarre. Whether,
       during a great portion of the eighth and ninth centuries, the
       country was independent or tributary; and, if dependent,
       whether it obeyed the Franks, the Asturians, or the Arabs, or
       successively all three, are speculations which have long
       exercised the pens of the peninsular writers. … It seems
       undoubted that, in just dread of the Mohammedan domination,
       the inhabitants of these regions, as well as those of
       Catalonia, applied for aid to the renowned emperor of the
       Franks [Charlemagne]; and that he, in consequence, in 778,
       poured his legions into Navarre, and seized Pamplona. It seems
       no less certain that, from this period, he considered the
       country as a fief of his crown; and that his pretensions,
       whether founded in violence or in the voluntary submission of
       the natives, gave the highest umbrage to the Asturian kings:
       the feudal supremacy thenceforth became an apple of discord
       between the two courts, each striving to gain the homage of
       the local governors. … Thus things remained until the time
       of Alfonso III., who … endeavoured to secure peace both with
       Navarre and France by marrying a princess related to both
       Sancho Iñigo, count of Bigorre, and to the Frank sovereign,
       and by consenting that the province should be held as an
       immovable fief by that count. This Sancho Iñigo, besides his
       lordship of Bigorre, for which he was the vassal of the French
       king, had domains in Navarre, and is believed, on apparently
       good foundation, to have been of Spanish descent. He is said,
       however, not to have been the first count of Navarre; that his
       brother Aznar held the fief before him, nominally dependent on
       king Pepin, but successfully laying the foundation of
       Navarrese independence. If the chronology which makes Sancho
       succeed Aznar in 836, and the event itself, be correct,
       Alfonso only confirmed the count in the lordship. In this
       case, the only remaining difficulty is to determine whether
       the fief was held from Charles or Alfonso. … But whichever
       of the princes was acknowledged for the time the lord
       paramount of the province, there can be little doubt that both
       governor and people were averse to the sway of either; both
       had long aspired to independence, and that independence was at
       hand. The son of this Sancho Iñigo was Garcia, father of
       Sancho Garces, and the first king of Navarre [assuming the
       crown about 885-891]; the first, at least, whom … historic
       criticism can admit."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 3, section 2, chapter 2.

          See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1026.
       Acquisition of the crown of Castile by King Sancho el Mayor.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1234.
       Succession of Thibalt, Count of Champagne, to the throne.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1284-1328.
       Union with France, and separation.

       In 1284, the marriage of Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of
       Navarre and of the counties of Champagne and Brie, to Philip
       IV. of France, united the crown of Navarre to that of France.
       They were separated in 1328, on the death of her last
       surviving son, Charles IV., without male issue. Philip of
       Valois secured the French crown, under the so called Salic
       law, but that of Navarre passed to Jeanne's grand-daughter, of
       her own name.

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
       Usurpation of John II. of Aragon.
       The House of Foix and the D'Albrets.
       Conquest by Ferdinand.
       Incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

       Blanche, daughter of Charles III. of Navarre and heiress of
       the kingdom, married John II. of Aragon, to whom she gave
       three children, namely, Don Carlos, or Charles, "who, as heir
       apparent, bore the title of Prince of Viana, and two
       daughters, Blanche and Eleanor. Don Carlos is known by his
       virtues and misfortunes. At the death of his mother Blanche
       [1442], he should have succeeded to the throne of Navarre; but
       John II. was by no means disposed to relinquish the title
       which he had acquired by marriage, and Carlos consented to be
       his father's viceroy. But even this dignity he was not
       permitted to enjoy unmolested." Persecuted through life,
       sometimes imprisoned, sometimes in exile, he died at the age
       of forty, in 1461.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

    {2244}

       "By the death of Don Carlos, the succession to the crown of
       Navarre devolved to his sister Blanche, the divorced wife of
       Henry IV. of Castile; and that amiable princess now became an
       object of jealousy not only to her father but also to her
       younger sister, Eleanor, married to the Count of Foix, to whom
       John II. had promised the reversion of Navarre after his own
       death. Gaston de Foix, the offspring of this union, had
       married a sister of Louis XI.; and it had been provided in a
       treaty between that monarch and John II., that in order to
       secure the succession of the House of Foix to Navarre, Blanche
       should be delivered into the custody of her sister. John
       executed this stipulation without remorse. Blanche was
       conducted to the Castle of Orthès in Bearn (April 1462),
       where, after a confinement of nearly two years, she was
       poisoned by order of her sister Eleanor." After committing
       this crime, the latter waited nearly fifteen years for the
       crown which it was expected to win, and then enjoyed it but
       three weeks. Her father reigned until the 20th of January,
       1479, when he died; the guilty daughter soon followed him.
       "After Eleanor's brief reign … the blood-stained sceptre of
       Navarre passed to her grandson Phœbus, 1479, who, however,
       lived only four years, and was succeeded by his sister
       Catherine. Ferdinand and Isabella [now occupying the thrones
       of Aragon and Castile] endeavoured to effect a marriage
       between Catherine and their own heir; but this scheme was
       frustrated by Magdalen, the queen-mother, a sister of Louis
       XI. of France, who brought about a match between her daughter
       and John d'Albret, a French nobleman who had large possessions
       on the borders of Navarre (1485). Nevertheless the Kings of
       Spain supported Catherine and her husband against her uncle,
       John de Foix, viscount of Narbonne, who pretended to the
       Navarese crown on the ground that it was limited to male
       heirs; and after the death of John, the alliance with Spain
       was drawn still closer by the avowed purpose of Louis XII. to
       support his nephew, Gaston de Foix, in the claims of his
       father. After the fall of that young hero at Ravenna [see
       ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513], his pretensions to the throne of
       Navarre devolved to his sister, Germaine de Foix, the second
       wife of King Ferdinand [see SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517], an event
       which entirely altered the relations between the courts of
       Spain and Navarre. Ferdinand had now an interest in supporting
       the claims of the house of Foix-Narbonne; and Catherine, who
       distrusted him, despatched in May 1512, plenipotentiaries to
       the French court to negotiate a treaty of alliance." But it
       was too late. Ferdinand had already succeeded in diverting to
       Navarre an expedition which his son-in-law, Henry VIII. of
       England, acting in the Holy League against Louis XII., which
       Ferdinand now joined (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), had sent
       against Guienne. With this aid he took possession of Upper
       Navarre. "In the following year, he effected at Orthès a
       year's truce with Louis XII. (April 1st 1513), by which Louis
       sacrificed his ally, the King of Navarre, and afterwards, by
       renewing the truce, allowed Ferdinand permanently to settle
       himself in his new conquest. The States of Navarre had
       previously taken the oath of allegiance to Ferdinand as their
       King, and on the 15th of June 1515, Navarre was incorporated
       into the kingdom of Castile by the solemn act of the Cortès.
       The dominions of John d'Albret and Catherine were now reduced
       to the little territory of Bearn, but they still retained the
       title of sovereigns of Navarre." Six years later, in 1521, the
       French invaded Navarre and overran the whole kingdom.
       "Pampeluna alone, animated by the courage of Ignatius Loyola,
       made a short resistance. To this siege, the world owes the
       Order of the Jesuits. Loyola, whose leg had been shattered by
       a cannon ball, found consolation and amusement during his
       convalescence in reading the lives of the saints, and was thus
       thrown into that state of fanatical exaltation which led him
       to devote his future life to the service of the Papacy."
       Attempting to extend their invasion beyond Navarre, the French
       were defeated at Esquiros and driven back, losing the whole of
       their conquests.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 1, chapters 4 and 7,
          and book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
          chapters 2 and 23 (volumes 1 and 3).

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
       The kingdom remaining on the French side of the Pyrenees.
       Jeanne d'Albret's Bourbon marriage and the issue of it.
       Establishment of Protestantism in Béarn.

       Besides the Spanish province which Ferdinand the Catholic
       appropriated and joined to Castile, and which gave its name to
       the Kingdom of Navarre, "that kingdom embraced a large tract
       of country lying on the French side of the Pyrenees, including
       the principality of Béarn and the counties of Foix, Armagnac,
       Albret, Bigorre, and Comminges. Catherine de Foix, the heiress
       of this kingdom, had in 1491 carried it by marriage into the
       house of D'Albret. Henry, the second king of Navarre belonging
       to this house, was in 1528 united to Marguerite d'Angoulême,
       the favourite and devoted sister of Francis I. of France.
       Pampeluna, the ancient capital of their kingdom, being in the
       hands of the King of Spain, Henry and Marguerite held their
       Court at Nérac, the chief town of the duchy belonging to the
       family of D'Albret. It was at Nérac that Marguerite, herself
       more than half a Huguenot, opened an asylum to her persecuted
       fellow-countrymen [see PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535]. Farel,
       Calvin, Beza sought temporary refuge and found glad welcome
       there, while to Lefevre, Clement Marot, and Gerard Roussel it
       became a second home. Marguerite died in 1549, leaving only
       one child, a daughter, who, in the event of her father having
       no issue by any second marriage, became heiress to the crown
       of Navarre. Born in 1528, Jeanne d'Albret had early and bitter
       experience of what heirship to such a crown involved. The
       Emperor Charles V. was believed to have early fixed his eye on
       her as a fit consort for Philip, his son and successor." To
       prevent this marriage, she was shut up for years, by her
       uncle, the French king, Francis I., in the gloomy castle of
       Plessis-les-Tours. When she was twelve years old he affianced
       her to the Duke of Cleves, notwithstanding her vigorous
       protests; but the alliance was subsequently broken off. "The
       next hand offered to Jeanne, and which she accepted, was that
       of Antoine, elder brother of the Prince of Condé, and head of
       the Bourbon family. They were married in 1548, a year after
       the death of Francis I., and a year before that of his sister
       Marguerite, Jeanne's mother. The marriage was an unfortunate
       one. Ambitious, yet weak and vain; frivolous and vacillating,
       yet headstrong and impetuous, faithless to his wife, faithless
       to his principles, faithless to his party, Antoine became the
       butt and victim of the policy of the Court. But though
       unfortunate in so many respects, this marriage gave to France,
       if not the greatest, the most fortunate, the most popular, the
       most beloved of all her monarchs"—namely, Henry IV.—Henry of
       Navarre—the first of the Bourbon dynasty of French kings.
    {2245}
       "Antoine of Navarre died at the siege of Rouen in 1562. The
       first use that the Queen made of the increased measure of
       freedom she thus acquired was to publish an edict establishing
       the Protestant and interdicting the exercise of the Roman
       Catholic worship in Béarn. So bold an act by so weak a
       sovereign—by one whose political position was so perilous and
       insecure—drew down upon her the instant and severe
       displeasure of the Pope," who issued against her a Bull of
       excommunication, in October, 1563, and assumed the right to
       dispose of her kingdom. This assumption was more than the
       French Court could permit. "The Pope had to give way, and the
       Bull was expunged from the ecclesiastical ordinances of the
       Pontificate."

          W. Hanna,
          The Wars of the Huguenots,
          chapter 4.

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1568-1569.
       The queen joins the Huguenots in France, with Prince Henry.
       Invasion by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1620-1622.
       Protestant intolerance.
       Enforcement of Catholic rights.
       The kingdom incorporated and absorbed in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

    NAVARRE: A. D. 1876.
       Disappearance of the last municipal and provincial
       privileges of the old kingdom.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.

       ----------NAVARRE: End--------

    NAVE.
    NAVIO.

          See CARAVELS.

       ----------NAVIGATION LAWS: Start--------

    NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.
       The first English Act.

       "After the triumph of the parliamentary cause [in the English
       Civil War], great numbers of the royalists had sought refuge
       in Virginia, Barbadoes, and the other West India settlements;
       so that the white population of these dependencies was in
       general fiercely opposed to the new government, and they might
       be said to be in a state of rebellion after all the rest of
       the empire had been reduced to submission and quiet.
       Barbadoes, indeed, had actually received Lord Willoughby as
       governor under a commission from Charles II., then in Holland,
       and had proclaimed Charles as king. It was in these
       circumstances that the English parliament in 1651, with the
       view of punishing at once the people of the colonies and the
       Dutch, who had hitherto enjoyed the greater part of the
       carrying-trade between the West Indies and Europe, passed
       their famous Navigation Act, declaring that no merchandise
       either of Asia, Africa, or America, except only such as should
       be imported directly from the place of its growth or
       manufacture in Europe, should be imported into England,
       Ireland, or any of the plantations, in any but English-built
       ships, belonging either to English or English-plantation
       subjects, navigated by English commanders, and having at least
       three-fourths of the sailors Englishmen. It was also further
       enacted that no goods of the growth, production, or
       manufacture of any country in Europe should be imported into
       Great Britain except in British ships, or in such ships as
       were the real property of the people of the country or place
       in which the goods were produced, or from which they could
       only be, or most usually were, exported. Upon this law, which
       was re-enacted after the Restoration, and which down to our
       own day has been generally regarded and upheld as the
       palladium of our commerce, and the maritime Magna Charta of
       England, we shall only at present observe that one of its
       first consequences was undoubtedly the war with Holland which
       broke out the year after it was passed."

          G. L. Craik,
          History of British Commerce,
          chapter 7 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Adam Smith,
          Wealth of Nations,
          book 4, chapter 2.

          J. A. Blanqui,
          History of Political Economy,
          chapter 29.

    NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1660-1672.
       Effect upon the American colonies,
       and their relation to Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

    NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.
       Complete repeal of the British restrictive Acts.

       "The question of the navigation laws was … brought forward
       [in the British Parliament, at the commencement of the session
       of 1849] … with a fair prospect of being settled!" The
       stringency of the original act of 1651 had been "slightly
       mitigated by another act passed in the reign of Charles II.;
       but the modifications thus introduced were of slight
       importance. A farther relaxation, made at the conclusion of
       the war of independence, allowed the produce of the United
       States to be imported in ships belonging to citizens of those
       states. The last amendment of the original law was obtained in
       the year 1825 by Mr. Huskisson, who made some important
       changes in it. The law, then, which the legislature had to
       reconsider in the year 1849 stood thus: the produce of Asia,
       Africa, and America might be imported from places out of
       Europe into the United Kingdom, if to be used therein, in
       foreign as well us in British ships, provided that such ships
       were the ships of the country of which the goods were the
       produce, and from which they were imported. Goods which were
       the produce of Europe, and which were not enumerated in the
       act, might be brought thence in the ships of any country.
       Goods sent to or from the United Kingdom to any of its
       possessions, or from one colony to another, must be carried in
       British ships, or in ships of the country in which they were
       produced and from which they were imported. Then followed some
       stringent definitions of the conditions which constituted a
       vessel a British ship in the sense of the act. These
       restrictions were not without their defenders. Even the great
       founder of economic science, Adam Smith, while admitting that
       the navigation laws were inconsistent with that perfect
       freedom of trade which he contended for, sanctioned their
       continuance on the ground that defence is much more important
       than opulence. But as it was more and more strongly felt that
       these laws were part and parcel of that baneful system of
       monopoly which, under the name of protection, had so long been
       maintained and was now so completely exploded, it began also
       to be seriously doubted whether they were necessary to the
       defence of the nation. … Therefore, on the 14th of February
       in this year, Mr. Labouchere, as president of the board of
       trade, proposed a resolution on the subject couched in the
       following terms: 'That it is expedient to remove the
       restrictions which prevent the free carriage of goods by sea
       to and from the United Kingdom and the British possessions
       abroad, and to amend the laws regulating the coasting trade of
       the United Kingdom, subject nevertheless to such control by
       her Majesty in council as may be necessary; and also to amend
       the laws for the registration of ships and seamen.'
    {2246}
       A long debate took place on the question of the second reading
       of the government measure. … 214 members followed Mr.
       Disraeli into the lobby, while 275 voted with the government,
       which therefore had a majority of 61. In the upper house Lord
       Brougham astonished friend and foe by coming forward as the
       strenuous and uncompromising opponent of the ministerial
       measure. … The second reading was carried by a majority of
       10. The smallness of this majority caused some anxiety to the
       supporters of the measure with regard to its ultimate fate;
       but this anxiety was relieved by the withdrawal of the most
       conspicuous opponents of the bill, which consequently passed
       without farther opposition."

          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. D. J. Kelley,
          The Question of Ships,
          chapter 4.

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 20 (volume 4).

       ----------NAVIGATION LAWS: End----------

    NAWAB-VIZIER,
    NEWAB-WU-ZEER, of Oude.

          See OUDE; also NABOB.

       ----------NAXOS: Start--------

    NAXOS: B. C. 490.
       Destruction by the Persians.

          See GREECE: B. C. 490.

    NAXOS: B. C. 466.
       Revolt from the Delian Confederacy.
       Subjugation by Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

    NAXOS: B. C. 376.
       Battle between the Spartans and Athenians.

       A battle was fought in September, B. C. 376, off Naxos,
       between a Lacedæmonian fleet of 60 triremes and an Athenian
       fleet of 80. Forty-nine of the former were disabled or
       captured. "This was the first great victory … which the
       Athenians had gained at sea since the Peloponnesian war."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 77.

    NAXOS: A. D. 1204-1567.
       The mediæval dukedom.

       "In the partition of the [Byzantine] empire [after the
       conquest of Constantinople, in 1204, by the Crusaders and the
       Venetians], the twelve islands of the Archipelago, which had
       formed the theme of the Egean sea in the provincial division
       of the Byzantine empire, fell to the share of the crusading
       barons; but Mark Sanudo, one of the most influential of the
       Venetian nobles in the expedition, obtained possession of the
       principal part of the ancient theme—though whether by
       purchase from the Frank barons to whom it had been allotted,
       or by grant to himself from the emperor, is not known. Sanudo,
       however, made his appearance at the parliament of Ravenika as
       one of the great feudatories of the empire of Romania, and was
       invested by the emperor Henry with the title of Duke of the
       Archipelago, or Naxos. It is difficult to say on what precise
       footing Sanudo placed his relations with the republic. His
       conduct in the war of Crete shows that he ventured to act as a
       baron of Romania, or an independent prince, when he thought
       his personal interests at variance with his born allegiance to
       Venice. … The new duke and his successors were compelled by
       their position to acknowledge themselves, in some degree,
       vassals both of the empire of Romania and of the republic of
       Venice; yet they acted as sovereign princes." Nearly at the
       close of the fourteenth century the dukedom passed from the
       Sanudo family to the Crispo family, who reigned under the
       protection of Venice until 1537, when the Duke of Naxos was
       reduced to vassalage by the Turkish sultan Suleiman. Thirty
       years later, his title and authority were extinguished by the
       sultan, on the petition of the Greek inhabitants, who could
       not endure his oppressive and disgraceful government.

          G. Finlay,
          History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
          chapter 10, sections 1-3.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir J. E. Tennent,
          History of Modern Greece,
          chapter 3.

          H. F. Tozer,
          The Islands of the Aegean,
          chapter 4.

       ----------NAXOS: End----------

    NAZARETH, Battle of (1799).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

    NEANDERTHAL MAN.

       The race represented by a remarkable human skull and imperfect
       skeleton found in 1857, in a limestone cave in the
       Neanderthal, Rhenish Prussia, and thought to be the most
       primitive race of which any knowledge has yet been obtained.

          J. Geikie,
          Prehistoric Europe,
          page 22.

          ALSO IN:
          W. B. Dawkins,
          Cave Hunting,
          page 240.

    NEAPOLIS, Schools of.

       In the first century of the Roman empire, "Neapolis [modern
       Naples] had its schools and colleges, as well as Athens; its
       society abounded in artists and men of letters, and it enjoyed
       among the Romans the title of the learned, which comprehended
       in their view the praise of elegance as well as knowledge."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 40.

    NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

       "Palaepolis is mentioned only by Livy: it was an ancient
       Cumaean colony, the Cumaeans having taken refuge there across
       the sea. Neapolis derives its name from being a much later
       settlement of different Greek tribes, and was perhaps not
       founded till Olymp. 91, about the time of the Athenian
       expedition to Sicily, and as a fortress of the Greeks against
       the Sabellians. It is not impossible that the Athenians also
       may have had a share in it. Both towns, however, were of
       Chalcidian origin and formed one united state, which at that
       time may have been in possession of Ischia. Many absurdities
       have been written about the site of Palaepolis, and most of
       all by Italian antiquaries. We have no data to go upon except
       the two statements in Livy, that Palaepolis was situated by
       the side of Neapolis, and that the Romans [in the second
       Samnite war] had pitched their camp between the two towns. The
       ancient Neapolis was undoubtedly situated in the centre of the
       modern city of Naples above the church of Sta. Rosa; the coast
       is now considerably advanced. People have sought for
       Palaepolis likewise within the compass of the modern city. …
       I alone should never have discovered its true site, but my
       friend, the Count de Serre, a French statesman, who in his
       early life had been in the army and had thus acquired a quick
       and certain miliary eye, discovered it in a walk which I took
       with him. The town was situated on the outer side of Mount
       Posilipo, where the quarantine now is."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lecture 40 (volume 1).

       "Parthenopé was an ancient Greek colony founded by the
       Chalcidians of Cuma on the northern part of the Bay of Naples.
       In after years another city sprung up a little to the south,
       whence the original Parthenopé was called Palæpolis or
       Old-town, while the new town took the name of Neapolis. The
       latter preserves its name in the modern Naples." Palæpolis was
       taken by the Romans, B. C. 327, at the beginning of the second
       Samnite War, and is heard of no more. Neapolis made peace with
       them and lived.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 21 (volume 1).

    {2247}

    NEAPOLIS (Syracuse).

          See TEMENITES.

    NEARDA.

       See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.

       ----------NEBRASKA: Start--------

    NEBRASKA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    NEBRASKA: A. D. 1803.
       Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    NEBRASKA: A. D. 1854.
       Territorial organization.
       The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
       Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

    NEBRASKA: A. D. 1867.
       Admission to the Union.

       Nebraska was organized as a State and admitted
       to the Union in 1867.

       ----------NEBRASKA: End--------

    NECKER, Ministry of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788, to 1789 (JUNE).

    NECTANSMERE, Battle of (A. D. 685).

          See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

    NEERWINDEN,
    LANDEN,
       Battle of (1693).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY)

       Battle of (1793).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

    NEGRITO.

       "The term Negrito, i. e. 'Little Negro,' [was] long applied by
       the Spaniards to the dark dwarfish tribes in the interior of
       Luzon, and some others of the Philippine Islands. Here it will
       be extended to the dwarfish negroid tribes in the Andaman
       Islands and interior of Malacca, but to no others."

          A. H. Keane,
          Philology and Ethnology of the Interoceanic Races
          (appendix to Wallace's Hellwald's Australasia),
          section 4.

    NEGRO, The.

          See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

    NEGRO PLOT, Imagined in New York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

    NEGRO SLAVERY.

          See SLAVERY: NEGRO.

    NEGRO SUFFRAGE.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1867 (JANUARY), and (MARCH); and 1868-1870.

    NEGRO TROOPS, in the American Civil War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

       ----------NEGROPONT: Start--------

    NEGROPONT:
       The Name.

       The ancient island of Eubœa received from the Venetians the
       name Negropont. "In the middle ages, Eubœa was called Egripo,
       a corruption of Euripus, the name of the town built upon the
       ruins of Chalcis. The Venetians, who obtained possession of
       the island upon the dismemberment of the Byzantine empire by
       the Latins, called it Negropont, probably a corruption of
       Egripo, and 'ponte,' a bridge."

          W. Smith,
          Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.

    NEGROPONT: A. D. 1470.
       Capture and Massacre by the Turks.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

       ----------NEGROPONT: End--------

    NEGUS, OR NEGOOS, The.

       See ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES.

    NEHAVEND, Battle of.

       See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

    NELSON'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    NEMEDIANS, The.

       It is among the legends of the Irish that their island was
       settled, about the time of the patriarch Jacob, by a colony of
       descendants from Japhet, led by one Nemedius, from whom they
       and their posterity took the name of Nemedians. The Nemedians
       were afterwards subjugated by a host of African sea-rovers,
       known as Fomorians, but were delivered from these in time by a
       fresh colony of their kindred from the East called the Fir
       Bolgs.

          T. Wright,
          History of Ireland,
          book 1, chapter 2.

    NEMEAN AND ISTHMIAN GAMES.

       "The Nemean and Isthmian [games in ancient. Greece] were
       celebrated each twice in every Olympiad, at different seasons
       of the year: the former in the plain of Nemea, in Argolis,
       under the presidency of Argos; the latter in the Corinthian
       isthmus, under the presidency of Corinth. These, like the
       Pythian and Olympic games, claimed a very high antiquity,
       though the form in which they were finally established was of
       late institution; and it is highly probable that they were
       really suggested by the tradition of ancient festivals, which
       had served to cement an Amphictyonic confederacy."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 10.

    NEMETACUM.

       Modern Arras.

          See BELGÆ.

    NEMETES, The.

          See VANGIONES.

    NEMI, Priest of.

          See ARICIAN GROVE.

    NEMOURS, Treaty and Edict of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

    NEODAMODES.

       Enfranchised helots, in ancient Sparta.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 73.

    NEOLITHIC PERIOD.

          See STONE AGE.

    NEOPLATONICS, The.

       "There now [in the third century after Christ] arose another
       school, which from its first beginnings announced itself as a
       reform and support of the ancient faith, and, consequently, as
       an enemy of the new religion. This was the Neoplatonic school
       of Alexandria, founded by Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, and
       which was afterwards represented by Porphyrius, Amelius, and
       Iamblicus. The doctrine of this school was the last, and in
       many respects the best production of paganism, now in its
       final struggle; the effort of a society, which acknowledged
       its own defects, to regenerate and to purify itself.
       Philosophy, and the religion of the vulgar, hitherto separated
       and irreconcilable, joined in harmony together for mutual
       support, and for a new existence. The Neoplatonics
       endeavoured, therefore, to unite the different systems of
       philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, Platonic, and
       Aristotelean, in one body with the principles of oriental
       learning, and thus to raise an edifice of universal, absolute
       truth. In the same manner they represented the varied forms of
       eastern and western religious worship as one entire whole,
       which had manifested itself indeed in different ways, but at
       the foundation of which there lay the same true faith. They
       taught that 'every kind of homage and adoration, which men
       offer to superior beings, is referred to heroes, demons, or
       Gods, but, finally, to the one most-high God, the author of
       all: that these demons are the chiefs and genii of the
       different parts, elements, and powers of the world, of people,
       countries, and cities, to obtain whose favour and protection,
       it behoved men to honour them according to the rites and
       customs of the ancients.'
    {2248}
       It is, therefore, manifest that these philosophers were
       essentially hostile to the Christian religion,—the exclusive
       character of which, and tendency to destroy all other
       religions, stood in direct contrast with their doctrines: and
       as their school was in its vigour at the very time in which
       Christianity made its most rapid advances, and had struck
       Paganism with a mortal wound, they employed themselves
       especially, and more earnestly, than other philosophers, to
       maintain their own tenets, and to destroy Christianity. They
       in nowise, however, desired to defend heathenism, or its
       worship, in their then degenerate and degrading state: their
       ideal was a more pure, more noble, spiritualized, polytheism,
       to establish which was the object which they had proposed to
       themselves. Whilst, therefore, on the one hand, they preserved
       the ancient and genuine truths which had sprung from primitive
       tradition, and purified them from recent errors and
       deformations; on the other, they adopted many of the doctrines
       of the hated Christianity, and sought to reform paganism by
       the aid of light which had streamed upon them from the
       sanctuary of the Church. This admission and employment of
       Christian truths are easily explained, if it be true, that two
       of their chiefs, Ammonius and Porphyrius, had been Christians.
       It is well known that they received instructions from
       Christian masters. … This uniformity, or imitation, consists
       not only in the use of terms, but in essential dogmas. The
       Neoplatonic idea of three hypostases in one Godhead would not
       have been heard of, if the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
       had not preceded it. … Their doctrines respecting the minor
       Gods, their influence and connexion with the supreme Being,
       approached near to the Christian dogma of the angels. Nor is
       the influence of Christianity less evident in the pure and
       grave morality of the Neoplatonics: in their lessons which
       teach the purifying of fallen souls, the detachment from the
       senses, the crucifying … of the affections and passions, it
       is easy to distinguish the Christian, from the commingled
       pagan, elements. The Neoplatonics endeavoured to reform
       polytheism by giving to men a doctrine more pure concerning
       the Gods, by attributing an allegorical sense to the fables,
       and a moral signification to the forms and ceremonies of
       religion: they sought to raise the souls of men to piety, and
       rejected from their mythology many of the degrading narrations
       with which it had before abounded. It was their desire also to
       abolish the sacrifices, for the Gods could only abhor the
       slaughter, the dismemberment and the burning of animals. But
       at the same time they reduced to a theory the apparitions of
       the Gods; they declared magic to be the most divine of
       sciences; they taught and defended theurgy, or the art of
       invoking the Gods (those of an inferior order, who were united
       to matter), and of compelling them to comply with the desires
       of men."

          J. J. I. Döllinger,
          History of the Church,
          volume 1, pages 70-73.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Ueberweg,
          History of Philosophy,
          sections 66-70 (volume 1).

          C. Kingsley,
          Alexandria and Her Schools.

    NEPAUL, OR NIPAL, English war with the Ghorkas of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    NEPHTHALITES, The.

          See HUNS, THE WHITE.

    NÉRAC, Treaty of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

    NERESHEIM, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    NERI AND BIANCHI (Blacks and Whites), The.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

    NERIUM, Headland of.

          The ancient name of Cape Finisterre,

    NERO, Roman Emperor, A. D. 54-68.

    NERONIA.

       Games instituted by Nero, to be conducted in the Greek fashion
       and to recur periodically, like the Olympian.

    NERVA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 96-98.

    NERVII, The.

       A tribe in Belgic Gaul, at the time of Cæsar's conquest, which
       occupied the country "between the Sambre and the Scheldt
       (French and Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of
       Antwerp, and part of Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior
       to Cæsar mention Bagacum (Bavay) as their principal town."

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2).

       The tribe was destroyed by Cæsar.

          See BELGÆ, CÆSAR'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE.

    NESSA: Destruction by the Mongols (1220).

          See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

    NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

       The great religious controversy of the Christian world in the
       fourth century, relating to the mystery of the Trinity, having
       been settled by the triumph of the doctrine of Athanasius over
       the doctrine of Arius, it was succeeded in the fifth century
       by a still more violent disputation, which concerned the yet
       profounder mystery of the Incarnation. To the dogmatists of
       one party it was wickedness to distinguish the divine nature
       and the human nature which they believed to be united in
       Christ; to the dogmatists of the other side it was sin to
       confound them. Cyril of Alexandria became the implacable
       leader of the first party. Nestorius, Patriarch of
       Constantinople, was forced to the front of the battle on the
       other side and became its martyr. The opponents of Nestorius
       gained advantages in the contest from the then rapidly growing
       tendency in the Christian world to pay divine honors to the
       Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. To Nestorius and those who
       believed with him, this was abhorrent. "Like can but bear
       like," said Nestorius in one of his sermons; "a human mother
       can only bear a human being. God was not born—he dwelt in
       that which was born." But the mob was too easily charmed with
       Mariolatry to be moved by reasoning on the subject, and Cyril
       led the mob, not only in Alexandria, where it murdered Hypatia
       and massacred Jews at his bidding, but generally throughout
       the Christian world. A Council called at Ephesus in 431 and
       recognized as the third Œcumenical Council, condemned
       Nestorius and degraded him from his episcopal throne; but a
       minority disputed its procedure and organized a rival Council,
       which retorted anathemas and excommunications against Cyril
       and his friends. The emperor at last interfered and dissolved
       both; but Nestorius, four years later, was exiled to the
       Libyan desert and persecuted remorselessly until he died.
       Meantime the doctrine of Cyril had been carried to another
       stage of development by one of his most ardent supporters, the
       Egyptian monk Eutyches, who maintained that the human nature
       of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature. Both forms of the
       doctrine of one nature in the Son of God seem to have acquired
       somewhat confusedly the name of Monophysite, though the latter
       tenet is more often called Eutychian, from the name of its
       chief promulgator.
    {2249}
       It kindled new fires in the controversy. In 449, a second
       Council at Ephesus, which is called the "Robber Synod" on
       account of the peculiar violence and indecency of its
       proceedings, sustained the Monophysites. But two years later,
       in 451, the vanquished party, supported by Pope Leo the Great,
       at Rome, succeeded in assembling a Council at Chalcedon which
       laid down a definition of the Christian faith affirming the
       existence of two natures in one person, and which nevertheless
       condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism, alike. Their success
       only inflamed the passions of the worshippers of the Virgin as
       the "Mother of God." "Everywhere monks were at the head of the
       religious revolution which threw off the yoke of the Council
       of Chalcedon." In Jerusalem "the very scenes of the Saviour's
       mercies ran with blood shed in his name by his ferocious
       self-called disciples." At Alexandria, a bishop was murdered
       in the baptistery of his church. At Constantinople, for sixty
       years, there went on a succession of bloody tumults and fierce
       revolutionary conspiracies which continually shook the
       imperial throne and disorganized every part of society, all
       turning upon the theological question of one nature or two in
       the incarnate Son of God. The Emperor Zeno "after a vain
       attempt to obtain the opinions of the chief ecclesiastical
       dignitaries, without assembling a new Council, a measure which
       experience had shown to exasperate rather than appease the
       strife, Zeno issued his famous Henoticon, or Edict of Union.
       … It aimed not at the reconcilement of the conflicting
       opinions, but hoped, by avoiding all expressions offensive to
       either party, to allow them to meet together in Christian
       amity." The Henoticon only multiplied the factions in number
       and heated the strife between them. The successor of Zeno,
       Anastasius, became a partisan in the fray, and through much of
       his reign of twenty-seven years the conflict raged more
       fiercely than ever. Constantinople was twice, at least, in
       insurrection. "The blue and green factions of the Circus—such
       is the language of the times—gave place to these more
       maddening conflicts. The hymn of the Angels in Heaven [the
       Trisagion] was the battle-cry on earth." At length the death
       of Anastasius ended the strife. His successor Justin (A. D.
       518), bowed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope
       Hormisdas—and invoked his aid. The Eastern world, exhausted,
       followed generally the emperor's example in taking the
       orthodoxy of Rome for the orthodoxy of Christianity.
       Nestorianism and Monophysitism in their extreme forms were
       driven from the open field in the Christian world, but both
       survived and have transmitted their remains to the present day.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 2, chapters 3-4,
          book 3, chapter 1, and 3.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 47.

          J. Alzog,
          Universal Church History, 2d epoch,
          chapter 2.

          See, also,
          NESTORIANS; JACOBITE CHURCH;
          and MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

    NESTORIANS, The.

       "Within the limits of the Roman empire … this sect was
       rapidly extirpated by persecution [see above, NESTORIAN AND
       MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY]; and even in the patriarchate of
       Antioch, where, as we have seen, the tenets of Nestorius at
       first found greatest favour, it had disappeared as early as
       the time of Justinian [A. D. 527-565]. But another field lay
       open to it in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanidæ, and in
       this it ultimately struck its roots deeply. The Chaldæan
       church, which at the beginning of the fifth century was in a
       flourishing condition, had been founded by missionaries from
       Syria; its primate, or Catholicos, was dependent on the
       patriarch of Antioch, and in respect of language and
       discipline it was closely connected with the Syrian church. It
       is not surprising, therefore, to find that some of its members
       lent a ready ear to the Nestorian doctrines. This was
       especially the case with the church-teachers of the famous
       seminary at Edessa in Mesopotamia. … One of their number,
       Barsumas, who was bishop of the city of Nisibis from 435 to
       489, by his long and active labours contributed most of all to
       the establishment of the Nestorian church in Persia. He
       persuaded the king Pherozes (Firuz) that the antagonism of his
       own sect to the doctrine of the established church of the
       Roman empire would prove a safeguard for Persia. … From that
       time Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity
       tolerated in Persia. … The Catholicos of Chaldæa now threw
       off his dependence on Antioch, and assumed the title of
       Patriarch of Babylon. The school of Edessa, which in 489 was
       again broken up by the Greek emperor, Zeno, was transferred to
       Nisibis, and in that place continued for several centuries to
       be an important centre of theological learning, and especially
       of biblical studies. … In the sixth century the Nestorians
       had established churches from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian
       Sea, and had preached the Gospel to the Medes, the Bactrians,
       the Huns, and the Indians, and as far as the coast of Malabar
       and the island of Ceylon. At a later period, starting from
       Balk and Samarcand, they spread Christianity among the nomad
       Tartar tribes in the remote valleys of the Imaus; and the
       inscription of Siganfu, which was discovered in China, and the
       genuineness of which is considered to be above suspicion,
       describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church in that country
       from the first mission, A. D. 636, to the year in which that
       monument was set up, A. D. 781. In the ninth century, during
       the rule of the caliphs at Bagdad, the patriarch removed to
       that city, and at this period twenty-five metropolitans were
       subject to him. … From the eleventh century onwards the
       prosperity of the Chaldæan church declined, owing to the
       terrible persecutions to which its members were exposed.
       Foremost among these was the attack of Timour the Tartar, who
       almost exterminated them. Within the present century their
       diminished numbers have been still further thinned by
       frightful massacres inflicted by the Kurds. Their headquarters
       now are a remote and rugged valley in the mountains of
       Kurdistan, on the banks of the Greater Zab. … Beyond the
       boundary which separates Turkey from Persia to the southward
       of Mount Ararat, a similar community is settled on the shores
       of Lake Urumia. A still larger colony is found at Mosul, and
       others … elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the Tigris. …
       Of their widely extended missions only one fragment now
       remains, in the Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast
       of India."

          H. F. Tozer,
          The Church and the Eastern Empire,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 47.

    NETAD, Battle of.

          See HUNS: A. D. 453.

    {2250}

       ----------NETHERLANDS: Start--------

    NETHERLANDS.
       The Land.

       "The north-western corner of the vast plain which extends from
       the German ocean to the Ural mountains is occupied by the
       countries called the Netherlands [Low Countries]. This small
       triangle, enclosed between France, Germany, and the sea, is
       divided by the modern kingdoms of Belgium and Holland into two
       nearly equal portions. … Geographically and
       ethnographically, the Low Countries belong both to Gaul and to
       Germany. It is even doubtful to which of the two the Batavian
       island, which is the core of the whole country, was reckoned
       by the Romans. It is, however, most probable that all the
       land, with the exception of Friesland, was considered a part
       of Gaul. Three great rivers—the Rhine, the Meuse, and the
       Scheld—had deposited their slime for ages among the dunes
       and sandbanks heaved up by the ocean around their mouths. A
       delta was thus formed, habitable at last for man. It was by
       nature a wide morass, in which oozy islands and savage forests
       were interspersed among lagoons and shallows; a district lying
       partly below the level of the ocean at its higher tides,
       subject to constant overflow from the rivers, and to frequent
       and terrible inundations by the sea. … Here, within a
       half-submerged territory, a race of wretched icthyophagi dwelt
       upon 'terpen,' or mounds, which they had raised, like beavers,
       above the almost fluid soil. Here, at a later day, the same
       race chained the tyrant Ocean and his mighty streams into
       subserviency, forcing them to fertilize, to render commodious,
       to cover with a beneficent network of veins and arteries, and
       to bind by watery highways with the farthest ends of the
       world, a country disinherited by nature of its rights. A
       region, outcast of ocean and earth, wrested at last from both
       domains their richest treasures. A race, engaged for
       generations in stubborn conflict with the angry elements, was
       unconsciously educating itself for its great struggle with the
       still more savage despotism of man. The whole territory of the
       Netherlands was girt with forests. An extensive belt of
       woodland skirted the sea-coast, reaching beyond the mouths of
       the Rhine. Along the outer edge of this barrier, the dunes
       cast up by the sea were prevented by the close tangle of
       thickets from drifting further inward, and thus formed a
       breastwork which time and art were to strengthen. The groves
       of Haarlem and the Hague are relics of this ancient forest.
       The Badahuenna wood, horrid with Druidic sacrifices, extended
       along the eastern line of the vanished lake of Flevo. The vast
       Hercynian forest, nine days' journey in breadth, closed in the
       country on the German side, stretching from the banks of the
       Rhine to the remote regions of the Dacians, in such vague
       immensity (says the conqueror of the whole country) that no
       German, after traveling sixty days, had ever reached, or even
       heard of, its commencement. On the south, the famous groves of
       Ardennes, haunted by faun and satyr, embowered the country,
       and separated it from Celtic Gaul. Thus inundated by mighty
       rivers, quaking beneath the level of the ocean, belted about
       by hirsute forests, this low land, nether land, hollow land,
       or Holland, seemed hardly deserving the arms of the
       all-accomplished Roman."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          introduction, section 1.

    NETHERLANDS:
       The early inhabitants.

          See BELGÆ; NERVII; BATAVIANS; and FRISIANS.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 69.
       Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

          See BATAVIANS.

    NETHERLANDS: 4-9th Centuries.
       Settlement and domination of the Franks.

          See FRANKS; also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 843-870.
       Partly embraced in the kingdom of Lotharingia.
       The partitioning.

          See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

    NETHERLANDS: (Flanders): A. D. 863-1383.
       The Flemish towns and counts.

          See FLANDERS.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 922-1345.
       The early Counts of Holland.

       "It was in the year 922 that Charles the Simple [of France]
       presented to Count Dirk the territory of Holland, by letters
       patent. This narrow hook of land, destined, in future ages, to
       be the cradle of a considerable empire, stretching through
       both hemispheres, was, thenceforth, the inheritance of Dirk's
       descendants. Historically, therefore, he is Dirk I., Count of
       Holland. … From the time of the first Dirk to the close of
       the 13th century there were nearly four hundred years of
       unbroken male descent, a long line of Dirks and Florences.
       This iron-handed, hot-headed, adventurous race, placed as
       sovereign upon its little sandy hook, making ferocious
       exertions to swell into large consequence, conquering a mile
       or two of morass or barren furze, after harder blows and
       bloodier encounters than might have established an empire
       under more favorable circumstances, at last dies out. The
       countship falls to the house of Avennes, Counts of Hainault.
       Holland, together with Zeland, which it had annexed, is thus
       joined to the province of Hainault. At the end of another half
       century the Hainault line expires. William the Fourth died
       childless in 1355 [1345?]."

          J. L. Motley,
          Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          introduction, sections 5-6.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 13-15th Centuries.
       Relations with the Hanseatic League.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1345-1354.
       The Rise of the Hooks and the Kabeljauws, or Cods.

       "On the death of William IV. [Count of Holland] without issue
       in 1345, his sister, married to the Emperor Louis, became
       Countess of Zealand, Holland, Friezland and Hainault. But her
       husband dying soon afterwards, many of the noblesse, whom she
       had offended by the attempt to restrain their excesses,
       instigated her son to assume the sovereignty. In the
       sanguinary struggle which ensued, the people generally adhered
       to the cause of Margaret." They "looked forward to the
       necessities of a female reign as likely to afford them
       opportunities to win further immunities, as the condition of
       their support against the turbulent nobles. Did not these
       live, like the great fish, by devouring the smaller ones? And
       how could they be checked but by the hooks which, though
       insignificant in appearance, when aptly used would be too
       strong for them. Such was the talk of the people; and from
       these household words arose the memorable epithets, which in
       after years were heard in every civic brawl, and above the din
       and death-cry of many a battle-field. Certain of the nobles
       adhered to the cause of the Hooks, while some of the cities,
       among which were Delft, Haarlem, Dort, and Rotterdam,
       supported the Kabeljauws [or Cods].
    {2251}
       The community was divided into parties rather than into
       classes. … In the exasperation of mutual injury, the primary
       cause of quarrel was soon forgotten. The Hooks were proud of
       the accession of a lord to their ranks; and the Kabeljauws
       were equally glad of the valuable aid which a wealthy and
       populous town was able to afford. The majority of the
       cities,—perhaps the majority of the inhabitants in all of
       them,—favoured the Hook party, as the preponderance of the
       landowners lay in the opposite scale. But no adherence to
       antagonistic principles, or even a systematic profession of
       them, is traceable throughout the varying struggle. … In
       Friezland the two factions were designated by the
       recriminative epithets of 'Vet-Koopers' and
       'Schieringers,'—terms hardly translatable. In the conflict
       which first marshalled the two parties in hostile array, the
       Hooks were utterly defeated;—their leaders who survived were
       banished, their property confiscated, and their dwellings
       razed to the ground. Margaret was forced to take refuge in
       England, where she remained until a short time previous to her
       death in 1354, when the four provinces acknowledged William V.
       as their undisputed lord. The succeeding reigns are chiefly
       characterised by the incessant struggles of the embittered
       factions. … Whatever progress was made during the latter
       half of the 14th century was municipal and commercial. In a
       national view the government was helpless and inefficient,
       entangled by ambitious family alliances with France, England,
       and Germany, and distracted by the rival powers and
       pretensions of domestic factions. Under the administration of
       the ill-fated Jacoba [or Jacqueline] these evils reached their
       full maturity."

          W. T. McCullagh,
          Industrial History of Free Nations,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

    NETHERLANDS: 14-15th Centuries.
       Commercial and industrial superiority.
       Advance in learning and art.

       "What a scene as compared with the rest of Northern Europe,
       and especially with England … must have been presented by
       the Low Countries during the 14th century! In 1370, there are
       3,200 woollen-factories at Malines and on its territory. One
       of its merchants carries on an immense trade with Damascus and
       Alexandria. Another, of Valenciennes, being at Paris during a
       fair, buys up an the provisions exposed for sale in order to
       display his wealth. Ghent, in 1340, contains 40,000 weavers.
       In 1389, it has 189,000 men bearing arms; the drapers alone
       furnish 18,000 in a revolt. In 1380, the goldsmiths of Bruges
       are numerous enough to form in war time an entire division of
       the army. At a repast given by one of the Counts of Flanders
       to the Flemish magistrates, the seats provided for the guests
       being unfurnished with cushions, they quietly folded up their
       sumptuous cloaks, richly embroidered and trimmed with fur, and
       placed them on the wooden benches. When leaving the table at
       the conclusion of the feast, a courtier called their attention
       to the fact that they were going without their cloaks. The
       burgomaster of Bruges replied: 'We Flemings are not in the
       habit of carrying away the cushions after dinner.' …
       Commines, the French chronicler, writing in the 15th century,
       says that the traveller, leaving France and crossing the
       frontiers of Flanders, compared himself to the Israelites when
       they had quitted the desert and entered the borders of the
       Promised Land. Philip the Good kept up a court which surpassed
       every other in Europe for luxury and magnificence. … In all
       such matters of luxury and display, England of the 16th or
       17th century had nothing to compare with the Netherlands a
       hundred or even two hundred years before. After luxury, come
       comfort, intelligence, morality, and learning, which develop
       under very different conditions. In the course of time even
       Italy was outstripped in the commercial race. The conquest of
       Egypt by the Turks, and the discovery of a water passage to
       the Indies, broke up the overland trade with the East, and
       destroyed the Italian and German cities which had flourished
       on it. … Passing from the dominion of the House of Burgundy
       to that of the House of Austria, which also numbered Spain
       among its vast possessions, proved to them in the end an event
       fraught with momentous evil. Still for a time, and from a mere
       material point of view it was an evil not unmixed with good.
       The Netherlanders were better sailors and keener merchants
       than the Spaniards, and, being under the same rulers, gained
       substantial advantages from the close connection. The new
       commerce of Portugal also filled their coffers; so that while
       Italy and Germany were impoverished, they became wealthier and
       more prosperous than ever. … With wealth pouring in from all
       quarters, art naturally followed in the wake of commerce.
       Architecture was first developed, and nowhere was its
       cultivation more general than in the Netherlands."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, &c.,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland and Hainault): A. D. 1417-1430.
       The despoiling of Countess Jaqueline.

       In 1417, Count William VI. of Holland, Hainault and Friesland,
       died, leaving no male heirs, but a daughter, Jacoba, or
       Jaqueline, whom most of the nobles and towns of the several
       states had already acknowledged as the heiress of her father's
       sovereignty. Though barely seventeen years of age, the
       countess Jake, as she was sometimes called, wore a widow's
       weeds. She had been married two years before to John, the
       second son of the king of France, who became presently
       thereafter, by his brother's death, the dauphin of France.
       John had died, a few months before Count William's death, and
       the young countess, fair in person and well endowed in mind,
       was left with no male support, to contend with the rapacity of
       an unscrupulous bishop-uncle (John, called The Godless, Bishop
       of Liege), who strove to rob her of her heritage. "Henry V.
       [of England] had then stood her friend, brought about a
       reconciliation, established her rights and proposed a marriage
       between her and his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was
       then a fine young man of five or six and twenty. … But she
       was a high-spirited, wilful damsel, and preferred her first
       cousin, the Duke of Brabant, whose father was a brother of
       Jean Sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy]. … The young Duke was only
       sixteen, and was a weak-minded, passionate youth. Sharp
       quarrels took place between the young pair; the Duchess was
       violent and headstrong, and accused her husband of allowing
       himself to be governed by favourites of low degree. The Duke
       of Burgundy interfered in vain. … After three years of
       quarrelling, in the July of 1421 Jaqueline rode out early one
       morning, met a knight of Hainault called Escaillon, 'who had
       long been an Englishman at heart,' and who brought her sixty
       horsemen, and galloped off for Calais, whence she came to
       England, where Henry received her with the courtesy due to a
       distressed dame-errant, and she became a most intimate
       companion of the Queen. …
    {2252}
       She loudly gave out that she intended to obtain a separation
       from her husband on the plea of consanguinity, although a
       dispensation had been granted by the Council of Constance, and
       'that she would marry some one who would pay her the respect
       due to her rank.' This person soon presented himself in the
       shape of Humfrey, duke of Gloucester, the King's youngest
       brother, handsome, graceful, accomplished, but far less
       patient and conscientious than any of his three elders."
       Benedict XIII., the anti-pope, was persuaded to pronounce the
       marriage of Jaqueline and John of Brabant null and void; "but
       Henry V. knew that this was a vain sentence, and intimated to
       his brother that he would never consent to his espousing the
       Duchess of Brabant; showing him that the wedlock could not be
       legal, and that to claim the lady's inheritance would lead to
       a certain rupture with the Duke of Burgundy, who could not but
       uphold the cause of his cousin of Brabant." Notwithstanding
       these remonstrances, the Duke Humfrey did marry the seductive
       Jaqueline, early in 1424. "He then sent to demand from the
       Duke of Brabant the possession of the lady's inheritance; and
       on his refusal the Hainaulters espoused whichever party they
       preferred and began a warfare among themselves." Soon
       afterwards the godless bishop of Liege died and "bequeathed
       the rights he pretended to have to Hainault, not to his niece,
       but to the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester in the meantime
       invaded Hainault and carried on a 'bitter war there.' Burgundy
       assembled men-at-arms for its protection; and letters passed
       between the Dukes, ending in a challenge—not between
       Jaqueline's two husbands, who would have seemed the fittest
       persons to have fought out the quarrel, but between Gloucester
       and Burgundy." It was arranged that the question of the
       possession of Hainault should be decided by single combat.
       Humfrey returned to England to make preparations, leaving
       Jaqueline at Mons, with her mother. The latter proved false
       and allowed the citizens of Mons to deliver up the unhappy
       lady to Philip of Burgundy. Her English husband found himself
       powerless to render her much aid, and was possibly indifferent
       to her fate, since another woman had caught his fancy.
       Jaqueline, after a time, escaped from her captivity, and
       revived the war in Hainault, Gloucester sending her 500 men.
       "The Duke of Brabant died, and reports reached her that
       Gloucester had married Eleanor Cobham; but she continued to
       battle for her county till 1428, when she finally came to
       terms with Philippe [of Burgundy], let him garrison her
       fortresses, appointed him her heir, and promised not to marry
       without his consent. A year or two after, however, she married
       a gentleman of Holland called Frank of Burslem, upon which he
       was seized by the Burgundians. To purchase his liberty she
       yielded all her dominions, and only received an annual pension
       until 1436, when she died, having brought about as much strife
       and dissension as any woman of her time."

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos of English History,
          series 2, chapter 33.

          ALSO IN:
          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles
          (translated by Johnes),
          book 1, chapters 164, 181, 234>,
          book 2, chapters 22-32, 48-49.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 1, chapters 5-6.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
       The sovereignty of the House of Burgundy established.

       "Upon the surrender of Holland, Zealand, Friezland, and
       Hainault by Jacoba, Philip [the duke of Burgundy called Philip
       the Good] became possessed of the most considerable states of
       the Netherlands. John, duke of Burgundy, his father, had
       succeeded to Flanders and Artois, in right of his mother
       Margaret, sole heiress of Louis van der Male, count of
       Flanders. In the year 1429, Philip entered into possession of
       the county of Namur, by the death of Theodore, its last native
       prince, without issue, of whom he had purchased it during his
       lifetime for 132,000 crowns of gold. To Namur was added in the
       next year the neighbouring duchy of Brabant, by the death [A.
       D. 1430] of Philip (brother of John, who married Jacoba of
       Holland), without issue; although Margaret, countess-dowager
       of Holland, aunt of the late duke, stood the next in
       succession, since the right extended to females, Philip
       prevailed with the states of Brabant to confer on him, as the
       true heir, that duchy and Limburg, to which the Margraviate of
       Antwerp and the lordship of Mechlin were annexed. … The
       accession of a powerful and ambitious prince to the government
       of the county was anything but a source of advantage to the
       Dutch, excepting, perhaps, in a commercial point of view."

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1451-1453.
       Revolt of Ghent.

          See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1456.
       The Burgundian hand laid on Utrecht.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1473.
       Guelderland taken into the Burgundian dominion.

          See GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
       The severance from Burgundy.
       Accession of the Duchess Mary.
       The grant of the "Great Privilege."

       On the fifth of January, 1477, Charles the Bold of Burgundy
       came to his end at Nancy, and Louis XI. of France laid prompt
       and sure hands on the Burgundian duchy, which remained
       thenceforth united to the French crown. It was the further
       intention of Louis to secure more or less of the Netherland
       domain of the late duke, and he began seizures to that end.
       But the Netherland states much preferred to acknowledge the
       sovereignty of the young duchess Mary, daughter and sole
       heiress of Charles the Bold, provided she would make proper
       terms with them. "Shortly after her accession, the nobles, to
       whose guardianship she had been committed by Charles before
       his departure, summoned a general assembly of the states of
       the Netherlands at Ghent, to devise means for arresting the
       enterprises of Louis, and for raising funds to support the war
       with France, as well as to consider the state of affairs in
       the provinces. … This is the first regular assembly of the
       states-general of the Netherlands. … Charles, and his
       father, Philip, had exercised in the Netherlands a species of
       government far more arbitrary than the inhabitants had until
       then been accustomed to. … It now appeared that a favourable
       opportunity offered itself for rectifying these abuses; and
       the assembly, therefore, made the consideration of them a
       preliminary to the grant of any supplies for the war. … They
       insisted so firmly on this resolution that Mary, finding they
       were determined to refuse any subsidies till their grievances
       were redressed, consented to grant charters of privileges to
       all the states of the Netherlands. That of Holland and Zealand
       [was] commonly called the Great Charter."

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1), with foot-note.

    {2253}

       "The result of the deliberations [of the assembly of the
       states, in 1477] is the formal grant by Duchess Mary of the
       'Groot Privilegie,' or Great Privilege, the Magna Charta of
       Holland. Although this instrument was afterwards violated, and
       indeed abolished, it became the foundation of the republic. It
       was a recapitulation and recognition of ancient rights, not an
       acquisition of new privileges. It was a restoration, not a
       revolution. Its principal points deserve attention from those
       interested in the political progress of mankind. 'The duchess
       shall not marry without consent of the estates of her
       provinces. All offices in her gift shall be conferred on
       natives only. No man shall fill two offices. No office shall
       be farmed. The Great Council and Supreme Court of Holland is
       re-established. Causes shall be brought before it on appeal
       from the ordinary courts. It shall have no original
       jurisdiction of matters within the cognizance of the
       provincial and municipal tribunals. The estates and cities are
       guaranteed in their right not to be summoned to justice beyond
       the limits of their territory. The cities, in common with all
       the provinces of the Netherlands, may hold diets as often and
       at such places as they choose. No new taxes shall be imposed
       but by consent of the provincial estates. Neither the duchess
       nor her descendants shall begin either an offensive or
       defensive war without consent of the estates. In case a war be
       illegally undertaken, the estates are not bound to contribute
       to its maintenance. In all public and legal documents, the
       Netherland language shall be employed. The commands of the
       duchess shall be invalid, if conflicting with the privileges
       of a city. The seat of the Supreme Council is transferred from
       Mechlin to the Hague. No money shall be coined, nor its value
       raised or lowered, but by consent of the estates. Cities are
       not to be compelled to contribute to requests which they have
       not voted. The Sovereign shall come in person before the
       estates, to make his request for supplies.' … Certainly, for
       the fifteenth century, the 'Great Privilege' was a reasonably
       liberal constitution. Where else upon earth, at that day, was
       there half so much liberty as was thus guaranteed?"

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          introduction, section 8.

          ALSO IN:
          L. S. Costello,
          Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
          chapters 28-30.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
       The Austrian marriage of Mary of Burgundy.

       "Several husbands were proposed to the Princess of Burgundy,
       and every one was of opinion there was a necessity of her
       marrying, to defend those territories that she had left to
       her, or (by marrying the dauphin), to recover what she had
       lost.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.

       Several were entirely for this match, and she was as earnest
       for it as anybody, before the letters she had sent by the Lord
       of Humbercourt and the chancellor to the king [Louis XI.] were
       betrayed to the ambassadors from Ghent. Some opposed the
       match, and urged the disproportion of their age, the dauphin
       being but nine years old, and besides engaged to the King of
       England's daughter; and these suggested the son of the Duke of
       Cleves. Others recommended Maximilian, the emperor's son, who
       is at present King of the Romans." Duchess Mary made choice
       presently of Maximilian, then Archduke of Austria, afterwards
       King of the Romans and finally emperor. The husband-elect
       "came to Cologne, where several of the princess's servants
       went to meet him, and carry him money, with which, as I have
       been told, he was but very slenderly furnished; for his father
       was the stingiest and most covetous prince, or person, of his
       time. The Duke of Austria was conducted to Ghent, with about
       700 or 800 horse in his retinue, and this marriage was
       consummated [August 18, 1477], which at first sight brought no
       great advantage to the subjects of the young princess; for,
       instead of his supporting her, she was forced to supply him
       with money. His armies were neither strong enough nor in a
       condition to face the king's; besides which, the humour of the
       house of Austria was not pleasing to the subjects of the house
       of Burgundy, who had been bred up under wealthy princes, that
       had lucrative offices and employments to dispose of; whose
       palaces were sumptuous, whose tables were nobly served, whose
       dress was magnificent, and whose liveries were pompous and
       splendid. But the Germans are of quite a contrary temper;
       boorish in their manners and rude in their way of living."

          Philip de Commines,
          Memoirs,
          book 6, chapter 2 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          L. S. Costello,
          Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
          chapter 31.

          See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
       Maximilian and the Flemings.
       The end of the Hook party in Holland.

       "According to the terms of the marriage treaty between
       Maximilian and Mary, their eldest son, Philip, succeeded to
       the sovereignty of the Netherlands immediately upon the death
       of his mother [March 26, 1482]. As he was at this time only
       four years of age, Maximilian obtained the acknowledgment of
       himself as guardian of the young count's person, and protector
       of his states, by all the provinces except Flanders and
       Guelderland. The Flemings having secured the person of Philip
       at Ghent, appointed a regency." To reduce the Flemings to
       obedience, Maximilian carried on two campaigns in their
       country, during 1484 and 1485, as the result of which Ghent
       and Bruges surrendered. "Maximilian was acknowledged protector
       of Flanders during the minority of Philip, who was delivered
       by the Ghenters into the hands of his father, and by him
       entrusted to the care of Margaret of York, Duchess-dowager of
       Burgundy, until he became of age." Three years later
       (1488)—Maximilian having been, in the meantime, crowned "King
       of the Romans," at Aix la Chapelle, and thus cadetted, so to
       speak, for his subsequent coronation as emperor—the Flemings
       rose again in revolt, Maximilian was at Bruges, and rumor
       accused him of a design to occupy the city with German troops.
       The men of Bruges forestalled the attempt by seizing him
       personally and making him a prisoner. They kept him in durance
       for nearly four months, until he had signed a treaty, agreeing
       to surrender the government of the Netherlands to the young
       Duke Philip, his son; to place the latter under the care of
       the princes of the blood (his relatives on the Burgundian
       side); to withdraw all foreign troops, and to use his
       endeavors to preserve peace with France.
    {2254}
       On these terms Maximilian obtained his liberty; but, meantime,
       his father, the Emperor Frederic, had marched an army to the
       frontiers of Brabant for his deliverance, and the very
       honorable King of the Romans, making haste to the shelter of
       these forces, repudiated with alacrity all the engagements he
       had sworn to. His imperial father led the army he had brought
       into Flanders and laid siege to Ghent; but tired of the
       undertaking after six weeks and returned to Germany, leaving
       his forces to prosecute the siege and the war. The commotions
       in Flanders now brought to life the popular party of the
       "Hooks" in Holland, and war broke out in that province. In
       neither part of the Netherlands were the insurgents
       successful. The Flemings had been helped by France, and when
       the French king abandoned them they were forced to buy a peace
       on humiliating terms and for a heavy price in cash. In
       Holland, the revolt languished for a time, but broke out with
       fresh spirit in 1490, excited by an edict which summarily
       altered the value of the coin. In the next year it took the
       name of the "Casembrotspel," or Bread and Cheese War. This
       insurrection was suppressed in 1492, with the help of German
       troops, and proved only disastrous to the province. "It was
       the last effort made for a considerable time by the Hollanders
       against the increasing power and extortion of their counts.
       … The miserable remnant of the Hook or popular party melted
       so entirely away that we hear of them no more in Holland: the
       county, formerly a power respected in itself, was now become a
       small and despised portion of an overgrown state." In 1494,
       Philip having reached the age of seventeen, and Maximilian
       having become emperor by the death of his father, the latter
       surrendered and the former was installed in the government of
       the Netherlands.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
       Beginning of the Austro-Spanish tyranny.
       Absorption in the vast dominion of Charles V.
       The seventeen Provinces, their independent constitutions and
       their States-General.

       "In 1494, Philip, now 17 years of age, became sovereign of the
       Netherlands. But he would only swear to maintain the
       privileges granted by his grandfather and great-grandfather,
       Charles and Philip, and refused to acquiesce in the Great
       Privilege of his mother. The Estates acquiesced. For a time,
       Friesland, the outlying province of Holland, was severed from
       it. It was free, and it chose as its elective sovereign the
       Duke of Saxony. After a time he sold his sovereignty to the
       House of Hapsburg. The dissensions of the Estates had put them
       at the mercy of an autocratic family. Philip of Burgundy, in
       1496, married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. In
       1500 his son Charles was born, who was afterwards Charles V.,
       Duke of the Netherlands, but also King of Spain, Emperor of
       Germany, King of Jerusalem, and, by the grant of Alexander
       VI., alias Roderic Borgia and Pope, lord of the whole new
       world. Joanna, his mother, through whom he had this vast
       inheritance, went mad, and remained mad during her life and
       his.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

       Charles not only inherited his mother's and father's
       sovereignties, but his grandfather's also.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526].

       … The peril which the liberties of the Netherlands were now
       running was greater than ever. They had been drawn into the
       hands of that dynasty which, beginning with two little Spanish
       kingdoms [Castile and Aragon], had in a generation developed
       into the mightiest of monarchies. … Charles succeeded his
       father Philip as Count of Flanders in 1506. His father, Philip
       the Handsome, was at Burgos in Castile, where he was attacked
       by fever, and died when only 28 years of age. Ten years
       afterwards Charles became King of Spain (1516). When he was 19
       years of age (1519) he was elected emperor.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

       The three nations over whom he was destined to rule hated each
       other cordially. There was antipathy from the beginning
       between Flemings and Spaniards. The Netherlands nobles were
       detested in Spain, the Spaniards in the Low Countries were
       equally abhorred. … Charles was born in Flanders, and during
       his whole career was much more a Fleming than a Spaniard. This
       did not, however, prevent him from considering his Flemish
       subjects as mainly destined to supply his wants, and submit to
       his exactions. He was always hard pressed for money. The
       Germans were poor and turbulent. The conquest and subjection
       of the Moorish population in Spain had seriously injured the
       industrial wealth of that country. But the Flemings were
       increasing in riches, particularly the inhabitants of Ghent.
       They had to supply the funds which Charles required in order
       to carry out the operations which his necessities or his
       policy rendered urgent. He had been taught, and he readily
       believed, that his subjects' money was his own. Now just as
       Charles had come to the empire, two circumstances had occurred
       which have had a lasting influence over the affairs of Western
       Europe. The first of these was the conquest of Egypt by the
       Turks under Selim I (1512-20). … Egypt had for nearly two
       centuries been the only route by which Eastern produce, so
       much valued by European nations, could reach the consumer. …
       Now this trade, trifling to be sure to our present experience,
       was of the highest importance to the trading towns of Italy,
       the Rhine, and the Netherlands. … But the Netherlands had
       two industries which saved them from the losses which affected
       the Germans and Italians. They were still the weavers of the
       world. They still had the most successful fisheries. … The
       other cause was the revolt against the papacy" [the
       Reformation—see PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, and after].

          J. E. T. Rogers,
          The Story of Holland,
          chapters 5-6.

       The seventeen provinces comprehended under the name of the
       Netherlands, as ruled by Charles V., were the four duchies of
       Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Guelderland; the seven
       counties of Artois, Hainault, Flanders, Namur, Zutphen,
       Holland, and Zealand; the five seigniories or lordships of
       Friesland, Mechlin, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; and the
       margraviate of Antwerp. "Of these provinces, the four which
       adjoined the French border, and in which a French dialect was
       spoken, were called Walloon [see WALLOONS]; in the other
       provinces a dialect, more or less resembling German,
       prevailed, that of the midland ones being Flemish, that of the
       northern, Dutch. They differed still more in their laws and
       customs than in language. Each province was an independent
       state, having its own constitution, which secured more liberty
       to those who lived under it than was then commonly enjoyed in
       most other parts of Europe. …
    {2255}
       The only institutions which supplied any links of union among
       the different provinces were the States-General, or assembly
       of deputies sent from each, and the Supreme Tribunal
       established at Mechlin, having an appellate jurisdiction over
       them all. The States-General, however, had no legislative
       authority, nor power to impose taxes, and were but rarely
       convened. … The members of the States-General were not
       representatives chosen by the people, but deputies, or
       ambassadors, from certain provinces. The different provinces
       had also their own States."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 2, pages 221-222.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1512.
       Burgundian provinces included in the Circle of Burgundy.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
       The Reformation in the Provinces.
       The "Placards" and Persecutions of Charles V.
       The Edict of 1550.
       The Planting of the Inquisition.

       "The people of the Netherlands were noted not less for their
       ingenuity shown in the invention of machines and implements,
       and for their proficiency in science and letters, than for
       their opulence and enterprise. It was their boast that common
       laborers, even the fishermen who dwelt in the huts of
       Friesland, could read and write, and discuss the
       interpretation of Scripture. … In such a population, among
       the countrymen of Erasmus, where, too, in previous ages,
       various forms of innovation and dissent had arisen, the
       doctrines of Luther must inevitably find an entrance. They
       were brought in by foreign merchants, 'together with whose
       commodities,' writes the old Jesuit historian Strada, 'this
       plague often sails.' They were introduced with the German and
       Swiss soldiers, whom Charles V. had occasion to bring into the
       country. Protestantism was also transplanted from England by
       numerous exiles who fled from the persecution of Mary. The
       contiguity of the country to Germany and France provided
       abundant avenues for the incoming of the new opinions. 'Nor
       did the Rhine from Germany, or the Meuse from France,' to
       quote the regretful language of Strada, 'send more water into
       the Low Countries, than by the one the contagion of Luther, by
       the other of Calvin, was imported into the same Belgic
       provinces.' The spirit and occupations of the people, the
       whole atmosphere of the country, were singularly propitious
       for the spread of the Protestant movement. The cities of
       Flanders and Brabant, especially Antwerp, very early furnished
       professors of the new faith. Charles V. issued, in 1521, from
       Worms, an edict, the first of a series of barbarous enactments
       or 'Placards,' for the extinguishing of heresy in the
       Netherlands; and it did not remain a dead letter. In 1523, two
       Augustinian monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. …
       The edicts against heresy were imperfectly executed. The
       Regent, Margaret of Savoy, was lukewarm in the business of
       persecution; and her successor, Maria, the Emperor's sister,
       the widowed Queen of Hungary, was still more leniently
       disposed. The Protestants rapidly increased in number.
       Calvinism, from the influence of France, and of Geneva, where
       young men were sent to be educated, came to prevail among
       them. Anabaptists and other licentious or fanatical sectaries,
       such as appeared elsewhere in the wake of the Reformation,
       were numerous; and their excesses afforded a plausible pretext
       for violent measures of repression against all who departed
       from the old faith. In 1550, Charles V. issued a new Placard,
       in which the former persecuting edicts were confirmed, and in
       which a reference was made to Inquisitors of the faith, as
       well as to the ordinary judges of the bishops. This excited
       great alarm, since the Inquisition was an object of extreme
       aversion and dread. The foreign merchants prepared to leave
       Antwerp, prices fell, trade was to a great extent suspended;
       and such was the disaffection excited, that the Regent Maria
       interceded for some modification of the obnoxious decree.
       Verbal changes were made, but the fears of the people were not
       quieted; and it was published at Antwerp in connection with a
       protest of the magistrates in behalf of the liberties which
       were put in peril by a tribunal of the character threatened.
       'And,' says the learned Arminian historian, 'as this affair of
       the Inquisition and the oppression from Spain prevailed more
       and more, all men began to be convinced that they were
       destined to perpetual slavery.' Although there was much
       persecution in the Netherlands during the long reign of
       Charles, yet the number of martyrs could not have been so
       great as 50,000, the number mentioned by one writer, much less
       100,000, the number given by Grotius."

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Reformation,
          chapter 9.

       "His hand [that of Charles V.] planted the inquisition in the
       Netherlands. Before his day it is idle to say that the
       diabolical institution ever had a place there. The isolated
       cases in which inquisitors had exercised functions proved the
       absence and not the presence of the system. … Charles
       introduced and organized a papal inquisition, side by side
       with those terrible 'placards' of his invention, which
       constituted a masked inquisition even more cruel than that of
       Spain. … The number of Netherlanders who were burned,
       strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his
       edicts … has been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished
       authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than
       50,000. The Venetian envoy Navigero placed the number of
       victims in the provinces of Holland and Friesland alone at
       30,000, and this in 1546, ten years before the abdication, and
       five before the promulgation of the hideous edict of 1550. …
       'No one,' said the edict [of 1550], 'shall print, write, copy,
       keep, conceal, sell, buy, or give in churches, streets, or
       other places, any book or writing made by Martin Luther, John
       Ecolampadius, Ulrich Zwinglius, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, or
       other heretics reprobated by the Holy Church; … nor break,
       or otherwise injure the images of the holy virgin or canonized
       saints; … nor in his house hold conventicles, or illegal
       gatherings, or be present at any such in which the adherents
       of the above-mentioned heretics teach, baptize, and form
       conspiracies against the Holy Church and the general welfare.
       … Moreover, we forbid … all lay persons to converse or
       dispute concerning the Holy Scriptures, openly or secretly,
       especially on any doubtful or difficult matters, or to read,
       teach, or expound the Scriptures, unless they have duly
       studied theology and been approved by some renowned
       university; … or to preach secretly, or openly, or to
       entertain any of the opinions of the above-mentioned heretics.
       … Such perturbators of the general quiet are to be executed,
       to wit: the men with the sword and the women to be buried alive,
       if they do not persist in their errors; if they do persist in
       them they are to be executed with fire; all their property in
       both cases being confiscated to the crown.'"

       The horrible edict further bribed informers, by promising to
       them half the goods of a convicted heretic, while, at the same
       time, it forbade, under sharp penalties, any petitioning for
       pardon in favor of such heretics.

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 1, chapter 1,
          and part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
          History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin,
          book 13, chapters 9-11 (volume 7).

    {2265}

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1539-1540.
       The revolt and enslavement of Ghent.

          See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.
       Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V. changing the Relations of
       his Burgundian inheritance to the Empire.

       In the Germanic diet assembled at Augsburg in 1547, after the
       Emperor's defeat of the Protestant princes at Muhlberg (see
       GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552), he was able to exercise his will
       almost without opposition and decree arbitrarily whatever he
       chose. He there "proclaimed the Pragmatic Sanction for the
       Netherlands, whereby his old Burgundian inheritance was
       declared by his own law to be indivisible, the succession
       settled on the house of Hapsburg, it was attached to the
       German empire as a tenth district, had to pay certain
       contributions, but was not to be subject to the Imperial
       Chamber or the Imperial Court of Judicature. He thus secured
       the personal union of these territories with his house, and
       made it the duty of the empire to defend them, while at the
       same time he withdrew them from the jurisdiction of the
       empire; it was a union by which the private interests of the
       house of Hapsburg had everything to gain, but which was of no
       advantage to the empire."

          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          chapter 16.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
       The Abdication of Charles V.
       Accession of Philip II.
       His sworn promises.

       "In the autumn of this year [1555] the world was astonished by
       the declaration of the emperor's intention to resign all his
       vast dominions, and spend the remainder of his days in a
       cloister. … On the 25th of October, the day appointed for
       the ceremony [of the surrender of the sovereignty of the
       Netherlands], the knights of the Golden Fleece, and the
       deputies of all the states of the Netherlands assembled at
       Brussels. … On the day after the emperor's resignation the
       mutual oaths were taken by Philip and the states of Holland;
       the former swore to maintain all the privileges which they now
       enjoyed, including those granted or confirmed at his
       installation as heir in 1549. He afterwards renewed the
       promise made by Charles in the month of May preceding, that no
       office in Holland, except that of stadtholder, should be given
       to foreigners or to Netherlanders of those provinces in which
       Hollanders were excluded from offices. In the January of the
       next year [1556] the emperor resigned the crown of Spain to
       his son, reserving only an annuity of 100,000 crowns, and on
       the 7th of September following, having proceeded to Zealand to
       join the fleet destined to carry him to Spain, he surrendered
       the imperial dignity to his brother Ferdinand." He then
       proceeded to the cloister of St. Just, near Piacenza, where he
       lived in retirement until his death, which occurred August 21,
       1558.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stirling,
          Cloister Life of Charles V.

          O. Delepierre,
          Historical Difficulties,
          chapter 10.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559.
       Opening of the dark and bloody reign of Philip II. of Spain.
       His malignity.
       His perfidy.
       His evil and plotting industry.

       "Philip, bred in this [Spanish] school of slavish
       superstition, taught that he was the despot for whom it was
       formed, familiar with the degrading tactics of eastern
       tyranny, was at once the most contemptible and unfortunate of
       men. … He was perpetually filled with one idea—that of his
       greatness; he had but one ambition—that of command; but one
       enjoyment—that of exciting fear. … Deceit and blood were
       his greatest, if not his only, delights. The religious zeal
       which he affected, or felt, showed itself but in acts of
       cruelty; and the fanatic bigotry which inspired him formed the
       strongest contrast to the divine spirit of Christianity. …
       Although ignorant, he had a prodigious instinct of cunning. He
       wanted courage, but its place was supplied by the harsh
       obstinacy of wounded pride. All the corruptions of intrigue
       were familiar to him; yet he often failed in his most
       deep-laid designs, at the very moment of their apparent
       success, by the recoil of the bad faith and treachery with
       which his plans were overcharged. Such was the man who now
       began that terrible reign which menaced utter ruin to the
       national prosperity of the Netherlands. … Philip had only
       once visited the Netherlands before his accession to sovereign
       power. … Every thing that he observed on this visit was
       calculated to revolt both [his opinions and his prejudices].
       The frank cordiality of the people appeared too familiar. The
       expression of popular rights sounded like the voice of
       rebellion. Even the magnificence displayed in his honour
       offended his jealous vanity. From that moment he seems to have
       conceived an implacable aversion to the country, in which
       alone, of all his vast possessions, he could not display the
       power or inspire the terror of despotism. The sovereign's
       dislike was fully equalled by the disgust of his subjects. …
       Yet Philip did not at first act in a way to make himself more
       particularly hated. He rather, by an apparent consideration
       for a few points of political interest and individual
       privilege, and particularly by the revocation of some of the
       edicts against heretics, removed the suspicions his earlier
       conduct had excited; and his intended victims did not perceive
       that the despot sought to lull them to sleep, in the hopes of
       making them an easier prey. Philip knew well that force alone
       was insufficient to reduce such a people to slavery. He
       succeeded in persuading the states to grant him considerable
       subsidies, some of which were to be paid by instalments during
       a period of nine years. That was gaining a great step towards
       his designs. … At the same time he sent secret agents to
       Rome, to obtain the approbation of the pope to his insidious
       but most effective plan for placing the whole of the clergy in
       dependence upon the crown. He also kept up the army of
       Spaniards and Germans which his father had formed on the
       frontiers of France; and although he did not remove from their
       employments the functionaries already in place, he took care
       to make no new appointments to office among the natives of the
       Netherlands. … To lead his already, deceived subjects the
       more surely into the snare, he announced his intended
       departure on a short visit to Spain; and created for the
       period of his absence a provisional government, chiefly
       composed of the leading men among the Belgian nobility.
    {2257}
       He flattered himself that the states, dazzled by the
       illustrious illusion thus prepared, would cheerfully grant to
       this provisional government the right of levying taxes during
       the temporary absence of the sovereign. He also reckoned on
       the influence of the clergy in the national assembly, to
       procure the revival of the edicts against heresy, which he had
       gained the merit of suspending. … As soon as the states had
       consented to place the whole powers of government in the hands
       of the new administration for the period of the king's
       absence, the royal hypocrite believed his scheme secure, and
       flattered himself he had established an instrument of durable
       despotism. … The edicts against heresy, soon adopted
       [including a re-enactment of the terrible edict of 1550—see
       above], gave to the clergy an almost unlimited power over the
       lives and fortunes of the people. But almost all the
       dignitaries of the church being men of great respectability
       and moderation, chosen by the body of the inferior clergy,
       these extraordinary powers excited little alarm. Philip's
       project was suddenly to replace these virtuous ecclesiastics
       by others of his own choice [through a creation of new
       bishoprics], as soon as the states broke up from their annual
       meeting; and for this intention he had procured the secret
       consent and authority of the court of Rome. In support of
       these combinations, the Belgian troops were completely broken
       up and scattered in small bodies over the country. … To
       complete the execution of this system of perfidy, Philip
       convened an assembly of all the states at Ghent, in the month
       of July, 1559. … Anthony Perrenotte de Granvelle, bishop of
       Arras [afterwards cardinal], who was considered as Philip's
       favorite counsellor, but who was in reality no more than his
       docile agent, was commissioned to address the assembly in the
       name of his master, who spoke only Spanish. His oration was
       one of cautious deception." It announced the appointment of
       Margaret, duchess of Parma, a natural daughter of Charles V.,
       and therefore half-sister of Philip, to preside as regent over
       the government of the Netherlands during the absence of the
       sovereign. It also urged with skilful plausibility certain
       requests for money on the part of the latter. "But
       notwithstanding all the talent, the caution, and the mystery
       of Philip and his minister, there was among the nobles one man
       [William of Nassau, prince of Orange and stadtholder, or
       governor, of Holland, Zealand, and Utrecht] who saw through
       all. Without making himself suspiciously prominent, he
       privately warned some members of the states of the coming
       danger. Those in whom he confided did not betray the trust.
       They spread among the other deputies the alarm, and pointed
       out the danger to which they had been so judiciously awakened.
       The consequence was, a reply to Philip's demand, in vague and
       general terms, without binding the nation by any pledge; and
       an unanimous entreaty that he would diminish the taxes,
       withdraw the foreign troops, and entrust no official
       employments to any but natives of the country. The object of
       this last request was the removal of Granvelle, who was born
       in Franche-Comte. Philip was utterly astounded at all this. In
       the first moment of his vexation he imprudently cried out,
       'Would ye, then, also bereave me of my place; I, who am a
       Spaniard?' But he soon recovered his self-command, and resumed
       his usual mask; expressed his regret at not having sooner
       learned the wishes of the state; promised to remove the
       foreign troops within three months; and set off for Zealand,
       with assumed composure, but filled with the fury of a
       discovered traitor and a humiliated despot." In August, 1559,
       he sailed for Spain.

          T. C. Grattan,
          History of the Netherlands,
          chapter 7.

       "Crafty, saturnine, atrabilious, always dissembling and
       suspecting, sombre, and silent like night when brooding over
       the hatching storm, he lived shrunk within himself, with only
       the fellowship of his gloomy thoughts and cruel resolves. …
       There is something terrific in the secrecy, dissimulation and
       dogged perseverance with which Philip would, during a series
       of years, meditate and prepare the destruction of one man, or
       of a whole population, and something still more awful in the
       icy indifference, the superhuman insensibility, the
       accumulated cold-blooded energy of hoarded-up vengeance with
       which, at the opportune moment, he would issue a dry sentence
       of extermination. … He seemed to take pleasure in
       distilling, slowly and chemically, the poison which,
       Python-like, he darted at every object which he detested or
       feared, or which he considered an obstacle in his path."

          C. Gayarre,
          Philip II. of Spain,
          chapter 1.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.
       The Spanish troops, the new bishoprics,
       and the shadow of the Inquisition.
       The appeal of Brabant to its ancient "Joyeuse Entrée."

       "The first cause of trouble, after Philip's departure from the
       Netherlands, arose from the detention of the Spanish troops
       there. The king had pledged his word … that they should
       leave the country by the end of four months, at farthest. Yet
       that period had long since passed, and no preparations were
       made for their departure. The indignation of the people rose
       higher and higher at the insult thus offered by the presence
       of these detested foreigners. It was a season of peace. No
       invasion was threatened from abroad; no insurrection existed
       at home. … Granvelle himself, who would willingly have
       pleased his master by retaining a force in the country on
       which he could rely, admitted that the project was
       impracticable. 'The troops must be withdrawn,' he wrote, 'and
       that speedily, or the consequence will be an insurrection.'
       … The Prince of Orange and Count Egmont threw up the
       commands intrusted to them by the king. They dared no longer
       hold them, as the minister added, it was so unpopular. … Yet
       Philip was slow in returning an answer to the importunate
       letters of the regent and the minister; and when he did reply,
       it was to evade their request. … The regent, however, saw
       that, with or without instructions, it was necessary to act.
       … The troops were ordered to Zealand, in order to embark for
       Spain. But the winds proved unfavorable. Two months longer
       they were detained, on shore or on board the transports. They
       soon got into brawls with the workmen employed on the dikes;
       and the inhabitants, still apprehensive of orders from the
       king countermanding the departure of the Spaniards, resolved,
       in such an event, to abandon the dikes, and lay the country
       under water! Fortunately, they were not driven to this
       extremity.
    {2258}
       In January, 1561, more than a year after the date assigned by
       Philip, the nation was relieved of the presence of the
       intruders. … This difficulty was no sooner settled than it
       was followed by another scarcely less serious." Arrangements
       had been made for "adding 13 new bishoprics to the four
       already existing in the Netherlands. … The whole affair had
       been kept profoundly secret by the government. It was not till
       1561 that Philip disclosed his views, in a letter to some of
       the principal nobles in the council of state. But, long before
       that time, the project had taken wind, and created a general
       sensation through the country. The people looked on it as an
       attempt to subject them to the same ecclesiastical system
       which existed in Spain. The bishops, by virtue of their
       office, were possessed of certain inquisitorial powers, and
       these were still further enlarged by the provisions of the
       royal edicts. … The present changes were regarded as part of
       a great scheme for introducing the Spanish Inquisition into
       the Netherlands. … The nobles had other reasons for opposing
       the measure. The bishops would occupy in the legislature the
       place formerly held by the abbots, who were indebted for their
       election to the religious houses over which they presided. The
       new prelates, on the contrary, would receive their nomination
       from the crown; and the nobles saw with alarm their own
       independence menaced by the accession of an order of men who
       would naturally be subservient to the interests of the
       monarch. … But the greatest opposition arose from the manner
       in which the new dignitaries were to be maintained. This was
       to be done by suppressing the offices of the abbots, and by
       appropriating the revenues of their houses to the maintenance
       of the bishops. … Just before Philip's departure from the
       Netherlands, a bull arrived from Rome authorizing the erection
       of the new bishoprics. This was but the initiatory step. Many
       other proceedings were necessary before the consummation of
       the affair. Owing to impediments thrown in the way by the
       provinces, and the habitual tardiness of the court of Rome,
       nearly three years elapsed before the final briefs were
       expedited by Pius IV."

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Philip II.,
          book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

       "Against the arbitrary policy embodied in the edicts, the new
       bishoprics and the foreign soldiery, the Netherlanders
       appealed to their ancient constitutions. These charters were
       called 'handvests', in the vernacular Dutch and Flemish,
       because the sovereign made them fast with his hand. As already
       stated, Philip had made them faster than any of the princes of
       his house had ever done, so far as oath and signature could
       accomplish that purpose, both as hereditary prince in 1549,
       and as monarch in 1555. … Of these constitutions, that of
       Brabant, known by the title of the 'joyeuse entrée' 'blyde
       inkomst,' or blythe entrance, furnished the most decisive
       barrier against the present wholesale tyranny. First and
       foremost, the 'joyous entry' provided, 'that the prince of the
       land should not elevate the clerical state higher than of old
       has been customary and by former princes settled; unless by
       consent of the other two estates, the nobility and the
       cities.' Again, 'the prince can prosecute no one of his
       subjects, nor any foreign resident, civilly or criminally,
       except in the ordinary and open courts of justice in the
       province, where the accused may answer and defend himself with
       the help of advocates.' Further, 'the prince shall appoint no
       foreigners to office in Brabant.' Lastly 'should the prince,
       by force or otherwise, violate any of these privileges, the
       inhabitants of Brabant, after regular protest entered, are
       discharged of their oaths of allegiance, and, as free,
       independent, and unbound people, may conduct themselves
       exactly as seems to them best.' Such were the leading
       features, so far as they regarded the points now at issue, of
       that famous constitution which was so highly esteemed in the
       Netherlands, that mothers came to the province in order to
       give birth to their children, who might thus enjoy, as a
       birthright, the privileges of Brabant. Yet the charters of the
       other provinces ought to have been as effective against the
       arbitrary course of the government. 'No foreigner,' said the
       constitution of Holland, 'is eligible as councillor,
       financier, magistrate, or member of a court. Justice can be
       administered only by the ordinary tribunals and magistrates.
       The ancient laws and customs shall remain inviolable. Should
       the prince infringe any of these provisions, no one is bound
       to obey him.' These provisions from the Brabant and Holland
       charters are only cited as illustrative of the general spirit
       of the provincial constitutions. Nearly all the provinces
       possessed privileges equally ample, duly signed and sealed."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          E. E. Crowe,
          Cardinal Granvelle
          (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
       Beginning of organized resistance to the tyranny
       and persecution of Philip.
       The signing of the Compromise.
       The League of the Gueux.

       William of Orange now "claimed, in the name of the whole
       country, the convocation of the states-general. This assembly
       alone was competent to decide what was just, legal, and
       obligatory for each province and every town. … The ministers
       endeavored to evade a demand which they were at first
       unwilling openly to refuse. But the firm demeanor and
       persuasive eloquence of the prince of Orange carried before
       them all who were not actually bought by the crown; and
       Granvelle found himself at length forced to avow that an
       express order from the king forbade the convocation of the
       states, on any pretext, during his absence. The veil was thus
       rent asunder, which had in some measure concealed the
       deformity of Philip's despotism. The result was a powerful
       confederacy among all who held it odious, for the overthrow of
       Granvelle, to whom they chose to attribute the king's conduct.
       … Those who composed this confederacy against the minister
       were actuated by a great variety of motives. … It is
       doubtful if any of the confederates except the prince of
       Orange clearly saw that they were putting themselves in direct
       and personal opposition to the king himself. William alone,
       clear-sighted in politics and profound in his views, knew, in
       thus devoting himself to the public cause, the adversary with
       whom he entered the lists. This great man, for whom the
       national traditions still preserve the sacred title of
       'father' (Vader-Willem), and who was in truth not merely the
       parent but the political creator of the country, was at this
       period in his 30th year. … Philip, … driven before the
       popular voice, found himself forced to the choice of throwing
       off the mask at once, or of sacrificing Granvelle.
    {2259}
       An invincible inclination for manœuvring and deceit decided
       him on the latter measure; and the cardinal, recalled but not
       disgraced, quitted the Netherlands on the 10th of March, 1564.
       The secret instructions to the government remained unrevoked;
       the president Viglius succeeded to the post which Granvelle
       had occupied; and it was clear that the projects of the king
       had suffered no change. Nevertheless some good resulted from
       the departure of the unpopular minister. The public
       fermentation subsided; the patriot lords reappeared at court;
       and the prince of Orange acquired an increasing influence in
       the council and over the government. … It was resolved to
       dispatch a special envoy to Spain, to explain to Philip the
       views of the council. … The count of Egmont, chosen by the
       council for this important mission, set out for Madrid in the
       month of February, 1565. Philip received him with profound
       hypocrisy; loaded him with the most flattering promises; sent
       him back in the utmost elation: and when the credulous count
       returned to Brussels, he found that the written orders, of
       which he was the bearer, were in direct variance with every
       word which the king had uttered. These orders were chiefly
       concerning the reiterated subject of the persecution to be
       inflexibly pursued against the religious reformers. Not
       satisfied with the hitherto established forms of punishment,
       Philip now expressly commanded that the more revolting means
       decreed by his father in the rigor of his early zeal, such as
       burning, living burial, and the like, should be adopted. …
       Even Viglius was terrified by the nature of Philip's commands;
       and the patriot lords once more withdrew from all share in the
       government, leaving to the duchess of Parma and her ministers
       the whole responsibility of the new measures. They were at
       length put into actual and vigorous execution in the beginning
       of the year 1566. The inquisitors of the faith, with their
       familiars, stalked abroad boldly in the devoted provinces,
       carrying persecution and death in their train. Numerous but
       partial insurrections opposed these odious intruders. Every
       district and town became the scene of frightful executions or
       tumultuous resistance."

          T. C. Grattan,
          History of the Netherlands,
          chapter 7.

       In November, 1565, a meeting of Flemish nobles was held at
       Culenborg House, Brussels, where they formed a league, in
       which Philip de Marnix, Lord of Ste. Aldegonde, Count Louis of
       Nassau, a younger brother of the Prince of Orange, and
       Viscount Brederode, were the foremost leaders. "In a meeting
       held at Breda, in January 1566, the league promulgated their
       views in a paper called the Compromise, attributed to the hand
       of Ste. Aldegonde. The document contained a severe
       denunciation of the inquisition as an illegal, pernicious and
       iniquitous tribunal; the subscribers swore to defend one
       another against any attack that might be made upon them; and
       declared, at the same time, that they did not mean to throw
       off their allegiance to the King. … In the course of two
       months the Compromise was signed by about 2,000 persons,
       including many Catholics; but only a few of the great nobles
       could be prevailed on to subscribe it. … The Prince of
       Orange at first kept aloof from the league, and at this period
       Egmont, who was of a more impulsive temper, seemed to act the
       leading part; but the nation relied solely upon William. The
       latter gave at least a tacit sanction to the league in the
       spring of 1566, by joining the members of it in a petition to
       the Regent which he had himself revised."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).

       "The league had its origin in banquets, and a banquet gave it
       form and perfection. … Brederode entertained the
       confederates in Kuilemberg House; about 300 guests assembled;
       intoxication gave them courage, and their audacity rose with
       their numbers. During the conversation, one of their number
       happened to remark that he had overheard the Count of
       Barlaimont whisper in French to the regent, who was seen to
       turn pale on the delivery of the petitions, that 'she need not
       be afraid of a band of beggars (gueux).' … Now, as the very
       name for their fraternity was the very thing which had most
       perplexed them, an expression was eagerly caught up, which,
       while it cloaked the presumption of their enterprise in
       humility, was at the same time appropriate to them as
       petitioners. Immediately they drank to one another under this
       name, and the cry 'Long live the gueux!' was accompanied with
       a general shout of applause. … What they had resolved on in
       the moment of intoxication they attempted, when sober, to
       carry into execution. … In a few days, the town of Brussels,
       swarmed with ash-gray garments, such as were usually worn by
       mendicant friars and penitents. Every confederate put his
       whole family and domestics in this dress. Some carried wooden
       bowls thinly overlaid with plates of silver, cups of the same
       kind, and wooden knives; in short, the whole paraphernalia of
       the beggar tribe, which they either fixed round their hats or
       suspended from their girdles. … Hence the origin of the name
       'Gueux,' which was subsequently borne in the Netherlands by
       all who seceded from popery, and took up arms against the
       king."

          F. Schiller,
          History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
          book 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 2, chapters 3-6 (volume 1).

          F. von Raumer,
          History of the 16th and 17th Centuries
          illustrated by original documents,
          letter 16 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
       Field preaching under arms.
       The riots of the Image-breakers.
       Philip's schemes of revenge.
       Discouragement and retirement of Orange.
       Blindness of Egmont and Horn, and their fate.

       "While the Privy Council was endeavouring to obtain a
       'Moderation' of the Edicts, and … effected that the heretics
       should be no longer burnt but hung, and that the Inquisition
       should proceed 'prudently, and with circumspection,' a
       movement broke out among the people which mocked at all
       Edicts. The open country was suddenly covered with thousands
       of armed noblemen, citizens, and peasants, who assembled in
       large crowds in the open air to listen to some heretical
       preacher, Lutheran, Calvinist, or even an Anabaptist, and to
       hold forbidden services, with prayers and hymns, in the mother
       tongue. They sallied forth with pistols, arquebuses, flails,
       and pitchforks; the place of meeting was marked out like a
       camp, and surrounded by guards; from 10,000 to 20,000
       assembled, the armed men outside, the women and children
       within.
    {2260}
       After the immense choir had sung a psalm, one of the
       excommunicated preachers appeared between two pikes (according
       to the 'Moderation' a price was set upon the head of everyone of
       them), and expounded the new doctrine from the Scriptures; the
       assembly listened in devout silence, and when the service was
       ended separated quietly, but defiantly. This was repeated day
       after day throughout the country, and nobody dared to attack
       the armed field preachers. The Regent was in a painful
       situation; she was always having it proclaimed that the Edicts
       were in force, but nobody cared. … It was all in vain unless
       foreign troops came to enforce obedience, and these she had
       neither power nor funds to procure. The King hesitated in his
       usual fashion, and left the Regent to the torments of
       powerlessness and uncertainty. Meanwhile the universal
       excitement bore fatal fruit. Instead of the dignified
       preachings and peaceful assemblies of May, in June and July
       there were wild excesses and furious mobs. Orange had just
       persuaded the Regent to permit the field preaching in the open
       country, if they avoided the towns, when the first great
       outbreak occurred in Antwerp. Two days after a great
       procession, on the 18th of August, 1566, at which the Catholic
       clergy of Antwerp had made a pompous display to the annoyance
       of the numerous Protestants, the beautiful cathedral was
       invaded by a furious mob, who destroyed without mercy all the
       images, pictures, and objects of art that it contained. This
       demolition of images, the stripping of churches, desecration
       of chapels, and destruction of all symbols of the ancient
       faith, spread from Antwerp to other places, Tournay,
       Valenciennes, &c. It was done with a certain moderation, for
       neither personal violence nor theft took place anywhere,
       though innumerable costly articles were lying about. Still,
       these fanatical scenes not only excited the ire of Catholics,
       but of every religious man; in Antwerp, especially, the
       seafaring mob had rushed upon everything that had been held
       sacred for centuries. In her distress the Regent wished to
       flee from Brussels, but Orange, Egmont, and Horn compelled her
       to remain, and induced her to proclaim the Act of the 25th of
       August, by which an armistice was decided on between Spain and
       the Beggars. In this the Government conceded the abolition of
       the Inquisition and the toleration of the new doctrines, and
       the Beggars declared that for so long as this promise was kept
       their league was dissolved. In consideration of this, the
       first men in the country agreed to quell the disturbances in
       Flanders, Antwerp, Tournay; and Malines, and to restore peace.
       Orange effected this in Antwerp like a true statesman, who
       knew how to keep himself above party spirit; but in Flanders,
       Egmont, on the contrary, went to work like a brutal soldier;
       he stormed against the heretics like Philip's Spanish
       executioners, and the scales fell from the eyes of the
       bitterly disappointed people. Meanwhile a decision had been
       come to at Madrid. … When at length the irresolute King had
       determined to proclaim an amnesty, though it was really rather
       a proscription, and to promise indulgence, while he was
       assuring the Pope by protocol before notaries that he never
       would grant any, the news came of the image riots of August,
       and a report from the Duchess in which she humbly begged the
       King's pardon for having allowed a kind of religious peace to
       be extorted from her, but she was entirely innocent; they had
       forced it from her as a prisoner in her palace, and there was
       one comfort, that the King was not bound by a promise made
       only in her name. Philip's rage was boundless. … He was
       resolved upon fearful revenge, even when he was writing that
       he should know how to restore order in his provinces by means
       of grace and mercy. … Well-informed as Orange was, he
       understood the whole situation perfectly; he knew that while
       the Regent was heaping flattery upon him, she and Philip were
       compassing his destruction; that her only object could be to
       keep the peace until the Spanish preparations were complete,
       and meanwhile, if possible, to compromise him with the people.
       He wrote to Egmont, and laid the dangers of their situation
       before him, and communicated his resolve either to escape
       Philip's revenge by flight, or to join with his friends in
       armed resistance to the expected attack of the Spanish army.
       But Egmont in his unhappy blindness had resolved to side with
       the Government which was more than ever determined on his
       destruction, and the meeting at Dendermonde, October, 1566,
       when Orange consulted him, Louis of Nassau, and Hogstraaten,
       as to u plan of united action, was entirely fruitless. …
       Admiral Horn, who had staked large property in the service of
       the Emperor and King, and had never received the least return
       in answer to his just demands, gave up his office, and, like a
       weary philosopher, retired into solitude. Left entirely alone,
       Orange thought of emigrating; in short, the upper circle of
       the previous party of opposition no longer existed. But it was
       not so with the mad leaders of the Beggars. While the zealous
       inhabitants of Valenciennes, incited by two of the most
       dauntless Calvinistic preachers, undertook to defend
       themselves against the royal troops with desperate bravery,
       Count Brederode went about the country with a clang of sabres,
       exciting disturbances in order to give the heretics at
       Valenciennes breathing-time by a happy diversion. … All that
       Philip wanted to enable him to gain the day was an
       unsuccessful attempt at revolt. The attack upon images and the
       Beggars' volunteer march did more for the Government than all
       Granvella's system; … drove every one who favoured the
       Catholics and loved peace into the arms of the Government.,
       The reaction set in with the sanguinary defeat of the rebels
       at Valenciennes, who never again even made an attempt at
       resistance. Orange gave up the liberties of his country for
       lost. … Stating that he could never take the new oath of
       fealty which was required, because it would oblige him to
       become the executioner of his Protestant countrymen, he
       renounced his offices and dignities, … made a last attempt
       to save his friend Egmont, … and retired to Dillenburg, the
       ancient property of the family. He wished to be spared for
       better times; he saw the storm coming, and was too cool-headed
       to offer himself as the first sacrifice. In fact, just when he
       was travelling towards Germany, Duke Alba [more commonly
       called Alva], the hangman of the Netherlands, was on his way
       to his destination." Alva arrived in August, 1567, with an
       army of 10,000 carefully picked veterans, fully empowered to
       make the Netherlands a conquered territory and deal with it as
       such. His first important act was the treacherous seizure and
       imprisonment of Egmont and Horn. Then the organization of
       terror began. The imprisonment and the mockery of a trial of
       the two most distinguished victims was protracted until the
       5th of June, 1568, when they were beheaded in the great square
       at Brussels.

          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          chapters 22-23.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 2, chapters 6-10,
          and part 3, chapters 1-2.

          F. Schiller,
          History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
          books 3-4.

    {2261}

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
       The Council of Blood.

       "In the same despatch of the 9th September [1567], in which
       the Duke communicated to Philip the capture of Egmont and
       Horn, he announced to him his determination to establish a new
       court for the trial of crimes committed during the recent
       period of troubles. This wonderful tribunal was accordingly
       created with the least possible delay. It was called the
       Council of Troubles, but it soon acquired the terrible name,
       by which it will be forever known in history, of the
       Blood-Council. It superseded all other institutions. Every
       court, from those of the municipal magistracies up to the
       supreme councils of the provinces, were forbidden to take
       cognisance in future of any cause growing out of the late
       troubles. The Council of State, although it was not formally
       disbanded, fell into complete desuetude, its members being
       occasionally summoned into Alva's private chambers in an
       irregular manner, while its principal functions were usurped
       by the Blood-Council. Not only citizens of every province, but
       the municipal bodies, and even the sovereign provincial
       Estates themselves, were compelled to plead, like humble
       individuals, before this new and extraordinary tribunal. It is
       unnecessary to allude to the absolute violation which was thus
       committed of all charters, laws, and privileges, because the
       very creation of the Council was a bold and brutal
       proclamation that those laws and privileges were at an end.
       … So well … did this new and terrible engine perform its
       work, that in less than three months from the time of its
       erection, 1,800 human beings had suffered death by its summary
       proceedings; some of the highest, the noblest, and the most
       virtuous in the land among the number; nor had it then
       manifested the slightest indication of faltering in its dread
       career. Yet, strange to say, this tremendous court, thus
       established upon the ruins of all the ancient institutions of
       the country, had not been provided with even a nominal
       authority from any source whatever. The King had granted it no
       letters patent or charter, nor had even the Duke of Alva
       thought it worth while to grant any commissions, either in his
       own name or as Captain-General, to any of the members
       composing the board. The Blood-Council was merely an informal
       club, of which the Duke was perpetual president, while the
       other members were all appointed by himself. Of these
       subordinate councillors, two had the right of voting, subject,
       however, in all cases, to his final decision, while the rest
       of the number did not vote at all. It had not, therefore, in
       any sense, the character of a judicial, legislative, or
       executive tribunal, but was purely a board of advice by which
       the bloody labours of the Duke were occasionally lightened as
       to detail, while not a feather's weight of power or of
       responsibility was removed from his shoulders. He reserved for
       himself the final decision upon all causes which should come
       before the Council, and stated his motives for so doing with
       grim simplicity. 'Two reasons,' he wrote to the King, 'have
       determined me thus to limit the power of the tribunal; the
       first that, not knowing its members, I might be easily
       deceived by them; the second, that the men of law only condemn
       for crimes which are proved; whereas your Majesty knows that
       affairs of state are governed by very different rules from the
       laws which they have here.' It being, therefore, the object of
       the Duke to compose a body of men who would be of assistance
       to him in condemning for crimes which could not be proved, and
       in slipping over statutes which were not to be recognised, it
       must be confessed that he was not unfortunate in the
       appointments which he made to the office of councillors. …
       No one who was offered the office refused it. Noircarmes and
       Berlaymont accepted with very great eagerness. Several
       presidents and councillors of the different provincial
       tribunals were appointed, but all the Netherlanders were men
       of straw. Two Spaniards, Del Rio and Vargas, were the only
       members who could vote, while their decisions, as already
       stated, were subject to reversal by Alva. Del Rio was a man
       without character or talent, a mere tool in the hands of his
       superiors, but Juan de Vargas was a terrible reality. No
       better man could have been found in Europe, for the post to
       which he was thus elevated. To shed human blood was, in his
       opinion, the only important business and the only exhilarating
       pastime of life. … It was the duty of the different
       subalterns, who, as already stated, had no right of voting, to
       prepare reports upon the cases. Nothing could be more summary.
       Information was lodged against a man, or against a hundred
       men, in one document. The Duke sent the papers to the Council,
       and the inferior councillors reported at once to Vargas. If
       the report concluded with a recommendation of death to the man
       or the hundred men in question, Vargas instantly approved it,
       and execution was done upon the man, or the hundred men,
       within 48 hours. If the report had any other conclusion, it
       was immediately sent back for revision, and the reporters were
       overwhelmed with reproaches by the President. Such being the
       method of operation, it may be supposed that the councillors
       were not allowed to slacken in their terrible industry. The
       register of every city, village, and hamlet throughout the
       Netherlands showed the daily lists of men, women, and children
       thus sacrificed at the shrine of the demon who had obtained
       the mastery over this unhappy land. It was not often that an
       individual was of sufficient importance to be tried—if trial
       it could be called—by himself. It was found more expeditious
       to send them in batches to the furnace. Thus, for example, on
       the 4th of January, 84 inhabitants of Valenciennes were
       condemned; on another day, 95 miscellaneous individuals from
       different places in Flanders; on another, 46 inhabitants of
       Malines; on another, 35 persons from different localities, and
       so on. … Thus the whole country became a charnel-house; the
       death-bell tolled hourly in every village; not a family but
       was called to mourn for its dearest relatives, while the
       survivors stalked listlessly about, the ghosts of their former
       selves, among the wrecks of their former homes. The spirit of
       the nation, within a few months after the arrival of Alva,
       seemed hopelessly broken. The blood of its best and bravest
       had already stained the scaffold; men to whom it had been
       accustomed to look for guidance and protection, were dead, in
       prison, or in exile. Submission had ceased to be of any avail,
       flight was impossible, and the spirit of vengeance had
       alighted at every fireside.
    {2262}
       The mourners went daily about the streets, for there was
       hardly a house which had not been made desolate. The
       scaffolds, the gallows, the funeral piles which had been
       sufficient in ordinary times, furnished now an entirely
       inadequate machinery for the incessant executions. Columns and
       stakes in every street, the door-posts of private houses, the
       fences in the fields, were laden with human carcases,
       strangled, burned, beheaded. The orchards in the country bore
       on many a tree the hideous fruit of human bodies. Thus the
       Netherlands were crushed, and, but for the stringency of the
       tyranny which had now closed their gates, would have been
       depopulated."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568.
       Stupendous death-sentence of the Inquisition.
       The whole population condemned.

       "Early in the year, the most sublime sentence of death was
       promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation
       of the world. The Roman tyrant wished that his enemies' heads
       were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at
       a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of
       all his Netherland subjects upon a single neck, for the same
       fell purpose. Upon the 16th February, 1568, a sentence of the
       Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands
       to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few
       persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of
       the King, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the
       Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant
       execution without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is
       probably the most concise death-warrant that was ever framed.
       Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were
       sentenced to the scaffold in three lines; and as it was well
       known that these were not harmless thunders, like some bulls
       of the Vatican, but serious and practical measures which it
       was intended should be enforced, the horror which they
       produced may be easily imagined. It was hardly the purpose of
       Government to compel the absolute completion of the wholesale
       plan in all its length and breadth, yet in the horrible times
       upon which they had fallen, the Netherlanders might be excused
       for believing that no measure was too monstrous to be
       fulfilled. At any rate, it was certain that when all were
       condemned, any might at a moment's warning be carried to the
       scaffold, and this was precisely the course adopted by the
       authorities. … Under this new decree, the executions
       certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest
       positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in
       a single letter to Philip, coolly estimated the number of
       executions which were to take place immediately after the
       expiration of Holy Week, 'at 800 heads.' Many a citizen,
       convicted of a hundred thousand florins, and of no other
       crime, saw himself suddenly tied to a horse's tail, with his
       hands fastened behind him, and so dragged to the gallows. But
       although wealth was an unpardonable sin, poverty proved rarely
       a protection. Reasons sufficient could always be found for
       dooming the starveling laborer as well as the opulent burgher.
       To avoid the disturbances created in the streets by the
       frequent harangues or exhortations addressed to the bystanders
       by the victims on their way to the scaffold, a new gag was
       invented. The tongue of each prisoner was screwed into an iron
       ring, and then seared with a hot iron. The swelling and
       inflammation, which were the immediate result, prevented the
       tongue from slipping through the ring, and of course
       effectually precluded all possibility of speech."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
       The arming of Revolt and beginning of War
       by the Prince of Orange.
       Alva's successes, brutalities, and senseless taxation.
       Quarrels with England and destruction of Flemish trade.

       "So unprecedented already was the slaughter that even in the
       beginning of March 1568, when Alva had been scarcely six
       months in the country, the Emperor Maximilian, himself a Roman
       Catholic, addressed a formal remonstrance to the king on the
       subject, as his dignity entitled him to do, since the
       Netherlands were a part of the Germanic body. It received an
       answer which was an insult to the remonstrant from its
       defiance of truth and common sense, and which cut off all hope
       from the miserable Flemings. Philip declared that what he had
       done had been done 'for the repose of the Provinces,' … and
       almost on the same day he published a new edict, confirming a
       decree of the Inquisition which condemned all the inhabitants
       of the Netherlands to death as heretics, with the exception of
       a few persons who were named [see above]. … In their utter
       despair, the Flemings implored the aid of the Prince of
       Orange, who … had quitted the country. … He was now
       residing at Dillenbourg, in Nassau, in safety from Philip's
       threats, and from the formal sentence which, in addition to
       the general condemnation of the whole people, the Council of
       Blood had just pronounced against him by name. But he resolved
       that in such an emergency it did not become him to weigh his
       own safety against the claims his countrymen had on his
       exertions. After a few weeks energetically spent in levying
       troops and raising money to maintain them, he published a
       document which he entitled his 'Justification,' and which
       stated his own case and that of the Provinces with a most
       convincing clearness; and at the end of April he took the
       field at the head of a small force, composed of French
       Huguenots, Flemish exiles, … and German mercenaries. …
       Thus in the spring of 1568 began that terrible war which for
       40 years desolated what, in spite of great natural
       disadvantages, had hitherto been one of the most prosperous
       countries of Europe. … To dwell on many of its details …
       would require volumes. … And, indeed, the pitched battles
       were few. At the outset [May 23, 1568] Count Louis of Nassau,
       the prince's brother, defeated and slew Count Aremberg, the
       Spanish governor of the province of Groningen, very nearly on
       the spot [near the convent of Heiliger-Lee, or the Holy Lion]
       on which, in the palmy days of Rome, the fierce valor of
       Arminius had annihilated the legions whose loss was so deeply
       imprinted on the heart of Augustus; and Alva had avenged the
       disaster by so complete a rout of Louis at Jemmingen, that
       more than half of the rebel army was slaughtered on the field,
       and Louis himself only escaped a capture, which would have
       delivered him to the scaffold, by swimming the Ems, and
       escaping with a mere handful of troops, all that were left of
       his army, into Germany. But after dealing this blow … Alva
       rarely fought a battle in the open field.
    {2263}
       He preferred showing the superiority of his generalship by
       defying the endeavours of the prince and his brothers to bring
       him to action, miscalculating, indeed, the eventual
       consequences of such tactics, and believing that the
       protraction of the war must bring the rebels to his
       sovereign's feet by the utter exhaustion of their resources;
       while the event proved that it was Spain which was exhausted
       by the contest, that kingdom being in fact so utterly
       prostrated by continued draining of men and treasure which it
       involved, that her decay may be dated from the moment when
       Alva reached the Flemish borders. His career in the
       Netherlands seemed to show that, warrior though he was,
       persecution was more to his taste than even victory.
       Victorious, indeed, he was, so far as never failing to reduce
       every town which he besieged, and to baffle every design of
       the prince which he anticipated. … Every triumph which he
       gained was sullied by a ferocious and deliberate cruelty, of
       which the history of no other general in the world affords a
       similar example. … Whenever Alva captured a town, he himself
       enjoined his troops to show no mercy either to the garrison or
       to the peaceful inhabitants. Every atrocity which greed of
       rapine, wantonness of lust, and blood-thirsty love of
       slaughter could devise was perpetrated by his express
       direction. … He had difficulties to encounter besides those
       of his military operations, and such as he was less skilful in
       meeting. He soon began to be in want of money. A fleet laden
       with gold and silver was driven by some French privateers into
       an English harbour, where Elizabeth at once laid her hands on
       it. If it belonged to her enemies, she had a right, she said,
       to seize it: if to her friends, to borrow it (she had not
       quite decided in which light to regard the Spaniards, but the
       logic was irresistible, and her grasp irremovable), and, to
       supply the deficiency, Alva had recourse to expedients which
       injured none so much as himself. To avenge himself on the
       Queen, he issued a proclamation [March, 1569] forbidding all
       commercial intercourse between the Netherlands and England;
       … but his prohibition damaged the Flemings more than the
       English merchants, and in so doing inflicted loss upon
       himself. … For he at the same time endeavoured to compel the
       States to impose, for his use, a heavy tax on every
       description of property, on every transfer of property, and
       even on every article of merchandise [the tenth penny, or ten
       per cent.] as often as it should be sold: the last impost, in
       the Provinces which were terrified into consenting to it, so
       entirely annihilating trade that it even roused the
       disapproval of his own council; and that, finding themselves
       supported by that body, even those Provinces which had
       complied, retracted their assent. … After a time [1572] he
       was forced first to compromise his demands for a far lower sum
       than that at which he had estimated the produce of his taxes,
       and at last to renounce even that. He was bitterly
       disappointed and indignant, and began to be weary of his
       post."

          C. D. Yonge,
          Three Centuries of Modern History,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 3, chapters 2-7 (volume 2).

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
       The Beggars of the Sea and their capture of Brill.
       Rapid Revolution in Holland and Zealand, but wholly in the
       name of the King and his Stadtholder, William of Orange.
       The Provisional Government organized.

       In the spring of 1572, Alva having re-established friendly
       relations with Queen Elizabeth, all the cruisers of the
       rebellious Netherlanders—"Beggars of the Sea" as they had
       styled themselves—were suddenly expelled from English ports,
       where they had previously found shelter and procured supplies.
       The consequence was unexpected to those who brought it about,
       and proved most favorable to the patriotic cause. Desperately
       driven by their need of some harbor of refuge, the fleet of
       these adventurers made an attack upon the important seaport of
       Brill, took it with little fighting and held it stubbornly.
       Excited by this success, the patriotic burghers of Flushing,
       on the isle of Walcheren, soon afterwards rose and expelled
       the Spanish garrison from their town. "The example thus set by
       Brill and Flushing was rapidly followed. The first half of the
       year 1572 was distinguished by a series of triumphs rendered
       still more remarkable by the reverses which followed at its
       close. … Enkhuizen, the key to the Zuyder Zee, the principal
       arsenal, and one of the first commercial cities in the
       Netherlands, rose against the Spanish Admiral, and hung out
       the banner of Orange on its ramparts. The revolution effected
       here was purely the work of the people—of the mariners and
       burghers of the city. Moreover, the magistracy was set aside
       and the government of Alva repudiated without shedding one
       drop of blood, without a single wrong to person or property.
       By the same spontaneous movement, nearly all the important
       cities of Holland and Zealand raised the standard of him in
       whom they recognized their deliverer. The revolution was
       accomplished under nearly similar circumstances everywhere.
       With one fierce bound of enthusiasm the nation shook, off its
       chain. Oudewater, Dort, Harlem, Leyden, Gorcum, Loewenstein,
       Gouda, Medenblik, Horn, Alkmaar, Edam, Monnikendam,
       Purmerende, as well as Flushing, Veer, and Enkhuizen, all
       ranged themselves under the government of Orange as lawful
       stadholder for the King. Nor was it in Holland and Zealand
       alone that the beacon fires of freedom were lighted. City
       after city in Gelderland, Overyssel, and the See of Utrecht,
       all the important towns of Friesland, some sooner, some later,
       some without a struggle, some after a short siege, some with
       resistance by the functionaries of government, some by
       amicable compromise, accepted the garrisons of the Prince and
       formally recognized his authority. Out of the chaos which a
       long and preternatural tyranny had produced, the first
       struggling elements of a new and a better world began to
       appear. … Not all the conquests thus rapidly achieved in the
       cause of liberty were destined to endure, nor were any to be
       retained without a struggle. The little northern cluster of
       republics, which had now restored its honor to the ancient
       Batavian name, was destined, however, for a long and vigorous
       life. From that bleak isthmus the light of freedom was to
       stream through many years upon struggling humanity in Europe,
       a guiding pharos across a stormy sea; and Harlem, Leyden,
       Alkmaar—names hallowed by deeds of heroism such as have not
       often illustrated human annals, still breathe as
       trumpet-tongued and perpetual a defiance to despotism as
       Marathon, Thermopylae, or Salamis.
    {2264}
       A new board of magistrates had been chosen in all the redeemed
       cities by popular election. They were required to take an oath
       of fidelity to the King of Spain, and to the Prince of Orange
       as his stadholder; to promise resistance to the Duke of Alva,
       the tenth penny, and the Inquisition; 'to support every man's
       freedom and the welfare of the country; to protect widows,
       orphans, and miserable persons, and to maintain justice and
       truth.' Diedrich Sonoy arrived on the 2nd June at Enkhuizen.
       He was provided by the Prince with a commission, appointing
       him Lieutenant-Governor of North Holland or Waterland. Thus,
       to combat the authority of Alva, was set up the authority of
       the King. The stadholderate over Holland and Zealand, to which
       the Prince had been appointed in 1559, he now reassumed. Upon
       this fiction reposed the whole provisional polity of the
       revolted Netherlands. … The people at first claimed not an
       iota more of freedom than was secured by Philip's coronation
       oath. There was no pretence that Philip was not sovereign, but
       there was a pretence and a determination to worship God
       according to conscience, and to reclaim the ancient political
       'liberties' of the land. So long as Alva reigned, the Blood
       Council, the Inquisition, and martial law, were the only codes
       or courts, and every charter slept. To recover this practical
       liberty and these historical rights, and to shake from their
       shoulders a most sanguinary government, was the purpose of
       William and of the people. No revolutionary standard was
       displayed. The written instructions given by the Prince to his
       lieutenant Sonoy were to 'see that the Word of God was
       preached, without, however, suffering any hindrance to the
       Roman Church in the exercise of its religion.' … The Prince
       was still in Germany, engaged in raising troops and providing
       funds."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.
       Capture of Mons by Louis of Nassau and
       its recovery by the Spaniards.
       Spanish massacres at Mechlin, Zutphen and Naarden.
       The siege and capture of Haarlem.

       "While William of Orange was in Germany, raising money and
       troops, he still directed the affairs of the Netherlands. His
       prospects were again brightened by the capture, by his gallant
       brother Louis of Nassau, of the important city of Mons. …
       This last startling blow forced Alva to immediate action. He
       at once sent his son, Don Frederic, to lay siege to Mons. Soon
       after, the Duke of Medina Cœli, Alva's successor as governor
       of the Netherlands [to whom, however, Alva did not surrender
       his authority], arrived safely with his fleet, but another
       Spanish squadron fell with its rich treasures into the hands
       of the rebels. Alva was now so pressed for money that he
       agreed to abolish the useless tenth-penny tax, if the
       states-general of the Netherlands would grant him a million
       dollars a year. He had summoned the states of Holland to meet
       at the Hague on the 15th of July, but they met at Dort to
       renounce his authority, at the summons of William of Orange,
       who had raised an army in Germany, but was without means to
       secure the necessary three months' payment in advance. While
       still owning allegiance to the king, the states recognized
       Orange as stadtholder, empowered him to drive out the Spanish
       troops, and to maintain religious freedom. … Treating the
       Emperor Maximilian's peace orders as useless, the prince
       marched his army of 24,000 men to the relief of Mons. Most of
       the Netherland cities on the way accepted his authority, and
       everything looked favorable for his success, when an
       unforeseen and terrible calamity occurred. The French king,
       Charles IX., whose troops had been routed before Mons [by the
       Spaniards], had promised to furnish further aid to the
       provinces. Admiral Coligny was to join the forces of Orange
       with 15,000 men. The frightful massacre of St. Bartholomew in
       Paris, on the 24th of August, … was a terrible blow to the
       prince. It broke up all his plans. He had reached the
       neighborhood of Mons, which he was trying to reinforce, when a
       night attack was made by the Spaniards on his lines, September
       11. … Obliged to leave his gallant brother Louis to his fate
       in Mons, Orange narrowly escaped being killed on his retreat.
       … Deserted by the cities that had been so earnest in his
       cause, sorrowful, but not despairing for his country, William
       had only his trust in God and his own destiny to sustain him.
       As Holland was the only province that clung to the hero
       patriot, he went there expecting and prepared to die for
       liberty. Louis of Nassau was forced, on the 21st of September,
       to abandon Mons to the Spaniards, who allowed Noircarmes …
       to massacre and pillage the inhabitants contrary to the terms
       of surrender. This wretch killed Catholics and Protestants
       alike, in order to secure their riches for himself. … The
       city of Mechlin, which had refused to admit a garrison of his
       troops, was even more brutally ravaged by Alva in order to
       obtain gold. … Alva's son, Don Frederic, now proved an apt
       pupil of his father, by almost literally executing his command
       to kill every man and burn every house in the city of Zutphen,
       which had opposed the entrance of the king's troops. The
       massacre was terrible and complete. The cause of Orange
       suffered still more by the cowardly flight of his
       brother-in-law, Count Van den Berg, from his post of duty in
       the provinces of Gelderland and Overyssel. By this desertion
       rugged Friesland was also lost to the patriot side. Holland
       alone held out against the victorious Spaniards. The little
       city of Naarden at first stoutly refused to surrender, but
       being weak was obliged to yield without striking a blow. Don
       Frederic's agent, Julian Romero, having promised that life and
       property should be spared, the people welcomed him and his
       soldiers at a grand feast on the 2d of December. Hardly was
       this over when 500 citizens, who had assembled in the town
       hall, were warned by a priest to prepare for death. This was
       the signal for the entrance of the Spanish troops, who
       butchered everyone in the building. They then rushed furiously
       through the streets, pillaging and then setting fire to the
       houses. As the inmates came forth, they were tortured and
       killed by their cruel foes. … Alva wrote boastfully to the
       king that 'they had cut the throats of the burghers and all
       the garrison, and had not left a mother's son alive.' He
       ascribed this success to the favor of God in permitting the
       defence of so feeble a city to be even attempted. … As the
       city of Haarlem was the key to Holland, Don Frederic resolved
       to capture it at any cost. But the people were so bent upon
       resistance that they executed two of their magistrates for
       secretly negotiating with Alva. …
    {2265}
       Ripperda, the commandant of the Haarlem garrison, cheered
       soldiers and people by his heroic counsels, and through the
       efforts of Orange the city was placed under patriot rule.
       Amsterdam, which was in the enemy's hands, was ten miles
       distant, across a lake traversed by a narrow causeway, and the
       prince had erected a number of forts to command the frozen
       surface. As a thick fog covered the lake in these December
       days, supplies of men, provisions, and ammunition were brought
       into the city in spite of the vigilance of the besiegers. The
       sledges and skates of the Hollanders were very useful in this
       work. But against Don Frederic's army of 30,000 men, nearly
       equalling the entire population of Haarlem, the city with its
       extensive but weak fortifications had only a garrison of about
       4,000. The fact that about 300 of these were respectable
       women, armed with sword, musket, and dagger, shows the heroic
       spirit of the people. The men were nerved to fresh exertions
       by these Amazons, who, led by their noble chief, the Widow
       Kenau Hasselaer, fought desperately by their side, both within
       and without the works. The banner of this famous heroine, who
       has been called the Joan of Arc of Haarlem, is now in the City
       Hall. A vigorous cannonade was kept up against the city for
       three days, beginning December 18, and men, women, and
       children worked incessantly in repairing the shattered walls.
       They even dragged the statues of saints from the churches to
       fill up the gaps, to the horror of the superstitious
       Spaniards. The brave burghers repelled their assaults with all
       sorts of weapons. Burning coals and boiling oil were hurled at
       their heads, and blazing pitch-hoops were skilfully caught
       about their necks. Astonished by this terrible resistance,
       which cost him hundreds of lives, Don Frederic resolved to
       take the city by siege." On the last day of January. 1573, Don
       Frederic having considerably shattered an outwork called the
       ravelin, ordered a midnight assault, and the Spaniards carried
       the fort. "They mounted the walls expecting to have the city
       at their mercy. Judge of their amazement to find a new and
       stronger fort, shaped like a half-moon, which had been
       secretly constructed during the siege, blazing away at them
       with its cannon. Before they could recover from their shock,
       the ravelin, which had been carefully undermined, blew up, and
       sent them crushed and bleeding into the air. The Spaniards
       outside, terrified at these outbursts, retreated hastily to
       their camp, leaving hundreds of dead beneath the walls. Two
       assaults of veteran soldiers, led by able generals, having
       been repelled by the dauntless burghers of Haarlem, famine
       seemed the only means of forcing its surrender. Starvation in
       fact soon threatened both besiegers and besieged. Don Frederic
       wished to abandon the contest, but Alva threatened to disown
       him as a son if he did so. … There was soon a struggle for
       the possession of the lake, which was the only means of
       conveying supplies to the besieged. In the terrible
       hand-to-hand fight which followed the grappling of the rival
       vessels, on the 28th of May, the prince's fleet, under Admiral
       Brand, was totally defeated. … During the month of June the
       wretched people of Haarlem had no food but linseed and
       rapeseed, and they were soon compelled to eat dogs, cats,
       rats, and mice. When these gave out they devoured shoe-leather
       and the boiled hides of horses and oxen, and tried to allay
       the pangs of hunger with grass and weeds. The streets were
       full of the dead and the dying." Attempts at relief by Orange
       were defeated. "As a last resort the besieged resolved to form
       a solid column, with the women and children, the aged and
       infirm, in the centre, to fight their way out; but Don
       Frederic, fearing the city would be left in ruins, induced
       them to surrender on the 12th of July, under promise of mercy.
       This promise was cruelly broken by a frightful massacre of
       2,000 people, which gave great joy to Alva and Philip."

          A. Young,
          History of the Netherlands,
          chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Watson,
          History of Philip II.,
          books 11-12.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
       Siege and deliverance of Alkmaar.
       Displacement of Alva.
       Battle of Mookerhyde and death of Louis of Nassau.
       Siege and relief of Leyden.
       The flooding of the land.
       Founding of Leyden University.

       After the surrender of Haarlem, a mutiny broke out among the
       Spanish troops that had been engaged in the siege, to whom 28
       months' arrears of pay were due. "It was appeased with great
       difficulty at the end of seven weeks, when Alva determined to
       make a decisive attack on Holland both by land and water, and
       with this view commanded his son, Don Frederic di Toledo, to
       march to the siege of Alkmaar, and repaired in person to
       Amsterdam. … Don Frederic laid siege to Alkmaar at the head
       of 16,000 able and efficient troops; within the town were
       1,300 armed burghers and 800 soldiers, as many perhaps as it
       was at that time capable of containing. With this handful of
       men the citizens of Alkmaar defended themselves no less
       resolutely than the Haarlemmers had done. The fierce
       onslaughts of the Spaniards were beaten back with uniform
       success on the part of the besieged; the women and girls were
       never seen to shrink from the fight, even where it was
       hottest, but unceasingly supplied the defenders with stones
       and burning missiles, to throw amongst their enemies. … But
       as there were no means of conveying reinforcements to the
       besieged from without, and their supplies began to fail, they
       resolved, after a month's siege, on the desperate measure of
       cutting through the dykes. Some troops sent by Sonnoy having
       effected this, and opened the sluices, the whole country was
       soon deluged with water. Don Frederic, astounded at this novel
       mode of warfare, and fearing that himself and his whole army
       would be drowned, broke up his camp in haste, and fled, rather
       than retreated, to Amsterdam. It seemed almost as though the
       blessing which the Prince of Orange had promised his people
       had come upon them. The capture of Geertruydenberg, about this
       time, by one of his lieutenants, was followed by a naval
       victory, as signal as it was important. The Admiral Bossu, to
       whom was given the command of the [Spanish] fleet at
       Amsterdam, having sailed through the Pampus with the design of
       occupying the Zuyderzee, and thus making himself master of the
       towns of North Holland, encountered the fleet of those towns,
       consisting of 24 vessels, commanded by Admiral Dirkson,
       stationed in the Zuyderzee to await his arrival." After
       several days of skirmishing, the Dutch fleet forced a close
       fight, "which lasted with little intermission from the
       afternoon of the 11th of October to midday of the 12th, during
       which time two of the royalist ships were sunk and a
       third captured.
    {2266}
       "The remainder fled or surrendered, Bossu, himself, being
       taken prisoner. "On intelligence of the issue of the battle,
       Alva quitted Amsterdam in haste and secrecy. This success
       delivered the towns of North Holland from the most imminent
       danger, and rendered the possession of Amsterdam nearly
       useless to the royalists." Alva was now forced to call a
       meeting of the states-general, in the hope of obtaining a vote
       of money. "Upon their assembling at Brussels, the states of
       Holland despatched an earnest and eloquent address, exhorting
       them to emancipate themselves from Spanish slavery and the
       cruel tyranny of Alva, which the want of unanimity in the
       provinces had alone enabled him to exercise. … Their
       remonstrance appears to have been attended with a powerful
       effect, since the states-general could neither by threats or
       remonstrances be induced to grant the smallest subsidy. …
       Alva, having become heartily weary of the government he had
       involved in such irretrievable confusion, now obtained his
       recall; his place was filled by Don Louis de Requesens, grand
       commander of Castile. In the November of this year, Alva
       quitted the Netherlands, leaving behind him a name which has
       become a bye-word of hatred, scorn, and execration. … During
       the six years that he had governed the Netherlands, 18,000
       persons had perished by the hand of the executioner, besides
       the numbers massacred at Naarden, Zutphen, and other conquered
       cities." The first undertaking of the new governor was an
       attempt to raise the siege of Middleburg, the Spanish garrison
       in which had been blockaded by the Gueux for nearly two years;
       but the fleet of 40 ships which he fitted out for the purpose
       was defeated, at Romers-waale, with a loss of ten vessels.
       "The surrender of Middleburg immediately followed, and with it
       that of Arnemuyden, which put the Gueux in possession of the
       principal islands of Zealand, and rendered them masters of the
       sea." But these successes were counterbalanced by a disaster
       which attended an expedition led from Germany by Louis of
       Nassau, the gallant but unfortunate brother of the Prince of
       Orange. His army was attacked and utterly destroyed by the
       Spaniards (April 14, 1574) at the village of Mookerheyde, or
       Mook, near Nimeguen, and both Louis and his brother Henry of
       Nassau were slain. "After raising the siege of Alkmaar, the
       Spanish forces, placed under the command of Francesco di
       Valdez on the departure of Don Frederic di Toledo, had for
       some weeks blockaded Leyden; but were recalled in the spring
       of this year to join the rest of the army on its march against
       Louis of Nassau. From that time the burghers of Leyden … had
       not only neglected to lay up any fresh stores of corn or other
       provision, but to occupy or destroy the forts with which the
       enemy had encompassed the town. This fact coming to the
       knowledge of Don Louis, he once more dispatched Valdez to
       renew the siege at the head of 8,000 troops. … Mindful of
       Haarlem and Alkmaar, the Spanish commander … brought no
       artillery, nor made any preparations for assault, but, well
       aware that there were not provisions in the town sufficient
       for three months, contented himself with closely investing it
       on all sides, and determined to await the slow but sure
       effects of famine." In this emergency, the States of Holland
       "decreed that all the dykes between Leyden and the Meuse and
       Yssel should be cut through, and the sluices opened at
       Rotterdam and Schiedam, by which the waters of those rivers,
       overflowing the valuable lands of Schieland and Rhynland,
       would admit of the vessels bringing succours up to the very
       gates of Leyden. The damage was estimated at 600,000 guilders.
       … The cutting through the dykes was a work of time and
       difficulty, as well from the labour required as from the
       continual skirmishes with the enemy. … Even when completed,
       it appeared as if the vast sacrifice were utterly unavailing.
       A steady wind blowing from the north-east kept back the
       waters. … Meanwhile the besieged, who for some weeks heard
       no tidings of their deliverers, had scarcely hope left to
       enable them to sustain the appalling sufferings they endured.
       … 'Then,' says the historian, who heard it from the mouths
       of the sufferers, 'there was no food so odious but it was
       esteemed a dainty.' … The siege had now lasted five months.
       … Not a morsel of food, even the most filthy and loathsome,
       remained … when, on a sudden, the wind veered to the
       north-west, and thence to the south-west; the waters of the
       Meuse rushed in full tide over the land, and the ships rode
       triumphantly on the waves. The Gueux, attacking with vigour
       the forts on the dykes, succeeded in driving out the garrisons
       with considerable slaughter. … On the … 3rd of October …
       Valdez evacuated all the forts in the vicinity. … In memory
       of this eventful siege, the Prince and States offered the
       inhabitants either to found an university or to establish a
       fair. They chose the former; but the States … granted both:
       the fair of Leyden was appointed to be held on the 1st of
       October in every year, the 3rd being ever after held as a
       solemn festival; and on the 8th of February in the next year,
       the university received its charter from the Prince of Orange
       in the name of King Philip. Both proved lasting monuments."

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapters 8-9 (volumes 1-2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 4, chapters 1-2 (volume 2).

          W. T. Hewett,
          The University of Leiden
          (Harper's Magazine, March, 1881).

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          series 5, chapter 16.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
       Congress at Breda.
       Offer of sovereignty to the English Queen.
       Death of Requesens.
       Mutiny of the Soldiery.
       The Spanish Fury.
       Alliance of Northern and Southern provinces under
       the Pacification of Ghent and the Union of Brussels.
       Arrival of Don John of Austria.

       "The bankrupt state of Philip II.'s exchequer, and the
       reverses which his arms had sustained, induced him to accept
       … the proffered mediation of the Emperor Maximilian, which
       he had before so arrogantly rejected, and a Congress was held
       at Breda from March till June 1575. But the insurgents were
       suspicious, and Philip was inflexible; he could not be induced
       to dismiss his Spanish troops, to allow the meeting of the
       States-General, or to admit the slightest toleration in
       matters of religion; and the contest was therefore renewed
       with more fury than ever. The situation of the patriots became
       very critical when the enemy, by occupying the islands of
       Duyveland and Schouwen, cut off the communication between
       Holland and Zealand; especially as all hope of succour from
       England had expired.
    {2267}
       Towards the close of the year envoys were despatched to
       solicit the aid of Elizabeth, and to offer her, under certain
       conditions, the sovereignty of Holland and Zealand. Requesens
       sent Champagny to counteract these negociations, which ended
       in nothing. The English Queen was afraid of provoking the
       power of Spain, and could not even be induced to grant the
       Hollanders a loan. The attitude assumed at that time by the
       Duke of Alençon, in France, also prevented them from entering
       into any negociations with that Prince. In these trying
       circumstances, William the Silent displayed the greatest
       firmness and courage. It was now that he is said to have
       contemplated abandoning Holland and seeking with its
       inhabitants a home in the New World, having first restored the
       country to its ancient state of a waste of waters; a thought,
       however, which he probably never seriously entertained, though
       he may have given utterance to it in a moment of irritation or
       despondency. … The unexpected death of Requesens, who
       expired of a fever, March 5th 1576, after a few days' illness,
       threw the government into confusion. Philip II. had given
       Requesens a carte blanche to name his successor, but the
       nature of his illness had prevented him from filling it up.
       The government therefore devolved to the Council of State, the
       members of which were at variance with one another; but Philip
       found himself obliged to intrust it 'ad interim' with the
       administration, till a successor to Requesens could be
       appointed. Count Mansfeld was made commander-in-chief, but was
       totally unable to restrain the licentious soldiery. The
       Spaniards, whose pay was in arrear, had now lost all
       discipline. After the raising of the siege of Leyden they had
       beset Utrecht and pillaged and maltreated the inhabitants,
       till Valdez contrived to furnish their pay. No sooner had
       Requesens expired than they broke into open mutiny, and acted
       as if they were entire masters of the country. After wandering
       about some time and threatening Brussels, they seized and
       plundered Alost, where they established themselves; and they
       were soon afterwards joined by the Walloon and German troops.
       To repress their violence, the Council of State restored to
       the Netherlanders the arms of which they had been deprived,
       and called upon them by a proclamation to repress force by
       force; but these citizen-soldiers were dispersed with great
       slaughter by the disciplined troops in various rencounters.
       Ghent, Utrecht, Valenciennes, Maestricht were taken and
       plundered by the mutineers; and at last the storm fell upon
       Antwerp, which the Spaniards entered early in November, and
       sacked during three days. More than 1,000 houses were burnt,
       8,000 citizens are said to have been slain, and enormous sums
       in ready money were plundered. The whole damage was estimated
       at 24,000,000 florins. The horrible excesses committed in this
       sack procured for it the name of the 'Spanish Fury.' The
       government was at this period conducted in the name of the
       States of Brabant. On the 5th of September, De Hèze, a young
       Brabant gentleman who was in secret intelligence with the
       Prince of Orange, had, at the head of 500 soldiers, entered
       the palace where the Council of State was assembled, and
       seized and imprisoned the members. William, taking advantage
       of the alarm created at Brussels by the sack of Antwerp,
       persuaded the provisional government to summon the
       States-General, although such a course was at direct variance
       with the commands of the King. To this assembly all the
       provinces except Luxemburg sent deputies. The nobles of the
       southern provinces, although they viewed the Prince of Orange
       with suspicion, feeling that there was no security for them so
       long as the Spanish troops remained in possession of Ghent,
       sought his assistance in expelling them; which William
       consented to grant only on condition that an alliance should
       be effected between the northern and the southern, or Catholic
       provinces of the Netherlands. This proposal was agreed to, and
       towards the end of September Orange sent several thousand men
       from Zealand to Ghent, at whose approach the Spaniards, who
       had valorously defended themselves for two months under the
       conduct of the wife of their absent general Mondragon,
       surrendered, and evacuated the citadel. The proposed alliance
       was now converted into a formal union by the treaty called the
       Pacification of Ghent, signed November 8th 1576; by which it
       was agreed, without waiting for the sanction of Philip, whose
       authority however was nominally recognised, to renew the edict
       of banishment against the Spanish troops, to procure the
       suspension of the decrees against the Protestant religion, to
       summon the States-General of the northern and southern
       provinces, according to the model of the assembly which had
       received the abdication of Charles V., to provide for the
       toleration and practise of the Protestant religion in Holland
       and Zealand, together with other provisions of a similar
       character. About the same time with the Pacification of Ghent,
       all Zealand, with the exception of the island of Tholen, was
       recovered from the Spaniards. … It was a mistake on the part
       of Philip II. to leave the country eight months with only an
       'ad interim' government. Had he immediately filled up the
       vacancy … the States could not have seized upon the
       government, and the alliance established at Ghent would not
       have been effected, by which an almost independent
       commonwealth had been erected. But Philip seems to have been
       puzzled as to the choice of a successor; and his selection, at
       length, of his brother Don John of Austria [a natural son of
       Charles V.], caused a further considerable delay. … The
       state of the Netherlands compelled Don John to enter them, not
       with the pomp and dignity becoming the lawful representative
       of a great monarch, but stealthily, like a traitor or
       conspirator. In Luxemburg alone, the only province which had
       not joined the union, could he expect to be received; and he
       entered its capital a few days before the publication of the
       treaty of Ghent, in the disguise of a Moorish slave, and in
       the train of Don Ottavio Gonzaga, brother of the Prince of
       Melfi. Having neither money nor arms, he was obliged to
       negociate with the provincial government in order to procure
       the recognition of his authority. At the instance of the
       Prince of Orange, the States insisted on the withdrawal of the
       Spanish troops, the maintenance of the treaty of Ghent, an act
       of amnesty for past offences, the convocation of the
       States-General, and an oath from Don John that he would
       respect all the charters and customs of the country. The new
       governor was violent, but the States were firm, and in January
       1577 was formed the Union of Brussels, the professed objects
       of which were, the immediate expulsion of the Spaniards, and
       the execution of the Pacification of Ghent; while at the same
       time the Catholic religion and the royal authority were to be
       upheld.
    {2268}
       This union, which was only a more popular repetition of the
       treaty of Ghent, soon obtained numberless signatures. …
       Meanwhile Rodolph II., the new Emperor of Germany, had offered
       his mediation, and appointed the Bishop of Liege to use his
       good offices between the parties; who, with the assistance of
       Duke William of Juliers, brought, or seemed to bring, the new
       governor to a more reasonable frame of mind. … Don John
       yielded all the points in dispute, and embodied them in what
       was called the Perpetual Edict, published March 12th, 1577.
       The Prince of Orange suspected from the first that these
       concessions were a mere deception."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 3, chapters 7-9 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
          Don John of Austria,
          volume 2, chapters 4-5.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
       The administration of Don John.
       Orange's well-founded distrust.
       Emancipation of Antwerp.
       Battle of Gemblours.
       Death of Don John and appointment of Parma.
       Corruption of Flemish nobles.
       Submission of the Walloon provinces.
       Pretensions of the Duke of Anjou.
       Constitution and declared independence of the Dutch Republic.

       "It now seemed that the Netherlands had gained all they asked
       for, and that everything for which they had contended had been
       conceded. The Blood Council of Alva had almost extirpated the
       Reformers, and an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of
       the Low Countries, with the exception of the Hollanders and
       Zelanders, belonged to the old Church, provided the
       Inquisition was done away with, and a religious peace was
       accorded. But Don John had to reckon with the Prince of
       Orange. In him William had no confidence. He could not forget
       the past. He believed that the signatures and concessions of
       the governor and Philip were only expedients to gain time, and
       that they would be revoked or set aside as soon as it was
       convenient or possible to do so. … He had intercepted
       letters from the leading Spaniards in Don John's employment,
       in which, when the treaty was in course of signature, designs
       were disclosed of keeping possession of all the strong places
       in the country, with the object of reducing the patriots in
       detail. … Above all, William distrusted the Flemish nobles.
       He knew them to be greedy, fickle, treacherous, ready to
       betray their country for personal advantage, and to ally
       themselves blindly with their natural enemies. … As events
       proved, Orange was in the right. Hence he refused to recognize
       the treaty in his own states of Holland and Zeland. As soon as
       it was published and sent to him, William, after conference
       with these states, published a severe criticism on its
       provisions. … In all seeming however Don John was prepared
       to carry out his engagements. He got together with difficulty
       the funds for paying the arrears due to the troops, and sent
       them off by the end of April. He caressed the people and he
       bribed the nobles. He handed over the citadels to Flemish
       governors, and entered Brussels on May 1st. Everything pointed
       to success and mutual good will. But we have Don John's
       letters, in which he speaks most unreservedly and most
       unflatteringly of his new friends, and of his designs on the
       liberties of the Netherlands. And all the while that Philip
       was soothing and flattering his brother, he had determined on
       ruining him, and on murdering the man [Escovedo] whom that
       brother loved and trusted. About this time, too, we find that
       Philip and his deputy were casting about for the means by
       which they might assassinate the Prince of Orange, 'who had
       bewitched the whole people!' An attempt of Don John to get
       possession of the citadel of Antwerp for himself failed, and
       the patriots gained it. The merchants of Antwerp 'agreed to
       find the pay still owing to the soldiers, on condition of
       their quitting the city. But while they were discussing the
       terms, a fleet of Zeland vessels came sailing up the Scheldt.
       Immediately a cry was raised, 'The Beggars are coming,' and
       the soldiers fled in dismay [August 1, 1577]. Then the
       Antwerpers demolished the citadel, and turned the statue of
       Alva again into cannon. After these events, William of Orange
       put an end to negotiations with Don John. Prince William was
       in the ascendant. But the Catholic nobles conspired against
       him, and induced the Archduke Matthias, brother of the German
       Emperor Rodolph, to accept the place of governor of the
       Netherlands in lieu of Don John. He came, but Orange was made
       the Ruwaard of Brabant, with full military power. It was the
       highest office which could be bestowed on him. The 'Union of
       Brussels' followed and was a confederation of all the
       Netherlands. But the battle of Gemblours was fought in
       February, 1578, and the patriots were defeated. Many small
       towns were captured, and it seemed that in course of time the
       governor would recover at least a part of his lost authority.
       But in the month of September, Don John was seized with a
       burning fever, and died on October 1st. … The new governor
       of the Netherlands, son of Ottavio Farnese, Prince of Parma,
       and of Margaret of Parma, sister of Philip of Spain, was a
       very different person from any of the regents who had hitherto
       controlled the Netherlands. He was, or soon proved himself to
       be, the greatest general of the age, and he was equally,
       according to the statesmanship of the age, the most
       accomplished and versatile statesman. He had no designs beyond
       those of Philip, and during his long career in the
       Netherlands, from October, 1578, to December, 1592, he served
       the King of Spain as faithfully and with as few scruples as
       Philip could have desired. … Parma was religious, but he had
       no morality whatever. … He had no scruple in deceiving,
       lying, assassinating, and even less scruple in saying or
       swearing that he had done none of these things. … He had an
       excellent judgment of men, and indeed he had experience of the
       two extremes, of the exceeding baseness of the Flemish nobles,
       and of the lofty and pure patriotism of the Dutch patriots.
       Nothing indeed was more unfortunate for the Dutch than the
       belief which they entertained, that the Flemings who had been
       dragooned into uniformity, could be possibly stirred to
       patriotism. Alva had done his work thoroughly. It is possible
       to extirpate a reformation. But the success of the process is
       the moral ruin of those who are the subjects of the
       experiment. Fortunately for Parma, there was a suitor for the
       Netherland sovereignty, in the person of the very worst prince
       of the very worst royal family that ever existed in Europe,
       i. e., the Duke of Anjou, of the house of Valois.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

    {2269}

       This person was favoured by Orange, probably because he had
       detected Philip's designs on France, and thought that national
       jealousy would induce the French government, which was
       Catherine of Medici, to favour the low countries. Besides,
       Parma had a faction in every Flemish town, who were known as
       the Malcontents, who were the party of the greedy and
       unscrupulous nobles. And, besides Anjou, there was the party
       of another pretender, John Casimir, of Poland. He, however,
       soon left them. Parma quickly found in such dissensions plenty
       of men whom he could usefully bribe. He made his first
       purchases in the Walloon district, and secured them. The
       provinces here were Artois, Hainault, Lille, Douay, and
       Orchies. They were soon permanently reunited to Spain. On
       January 20, 1570, the Union of Utrecht, which was virtually
       the Constitution of the Dutch Republic, was agreed to. It was
       greater in extent on the Flemish side than the Dutch Republic
       finally remained, less on that of Friesland [comprising
       Holland, Zeland, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, and the Frisian
       provinces]. Orange still had hopes of including most of the
       Netherland seaboard, and he still kept up the form of
       allegiance to Philip. The principal event of the year was the
       siege and capture of Maestricht [with the slaughter of almost
       its entire population of 34,000]. … Mechlin also was
       betrayed by its commander, De Bours, who reconciled himself to
       Romanism, and received the pay for his treason from Parma at
       the same time. In March, 1580, a similar act of treason was
       committed by Count Renneberg, the governor of Friesland, who
       betrayed its chief city, Groningen. … In the same year,
       1580, was published the ban of Philip. This instrument, drawn
       up by Cardinal Granvelle, declared Orange to be a traitor and
       miscreant, made him an outlaw, put a heavy price on his head
       (25,000 gold crowns), offered the assassin the pardon of any
       crime, however heinous, and nobility, whatever be his rank.
       … William answered the ban by a vigorous appeal to the
       civilized world. … Renneberg, the traitor, laid siege to
       Steenwyk, the principal fortress of Drenthe, at the beginning
       of 1581. … In February, John Norris, the English general,
       … relieved the town. Renneberg raised the siege, was
       defeated in July by the same Norris, and died, full of
       remorse, a few days afterwards. But the most important event
       in 1581 was the declaration of Dutch Independence formally
       issued at the Hague on the 26th of July. By this instrument,
       Orange, though most unwillingly, felt himself obliged to
       accept the sovereignty over Holland and Zeland, and whatever
       else of the seven provinces was in the hands of the patriots.
       The Netherlands were now divided into three portions. The
       Walloon provinces in the south were reconciled to Philip and
       Parma. The middle provinces were under the almost nominal
       sovereignty of Anjou, the northern were under William. …
       Philip's name was now discarded from public documents … ;
       his seal was broken, and William was thereafter to conduct the
       government in his own name. The instrument was styled an 'Act
       of Abjuration.'"

          J. E. T. Rogers,
          The Story of Holland,
          chapters 11-12.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 5, chapters 4-5,
          and part 6, chapters 1-4.

          Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
          Don John of Austria,
          volume 2, chapters 8-10.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
       Refusal of the sovereignty of the United Provinces by Orange.
       Its bestowal upon the Duke of Anjou.
       Base treachery of Anjou.
       The "French Fury" at Antwerp.
       Assassination of the Prince of Orange.

       "What, then, was the condition of the nation, after this great
       step [the Act of Abjuration] had been taken? It stood, as it
       were, with its sovereignty in its hand, dividing it into two
       portions, and offering it, thus separated, to two distinct
       individuals. The sovereignty of Holland and Zealand had been
       reluctantly accepted by Orange. The sovereignty of the United
       Provinces had been offered to Anjou, but the terms of
       agreement with that Duke had not yet been ratified. The
       movement was therefore triple, consisting of an abjuration and
       of two separate elections of hereditary chiefs; these two
       elections being accomplished in the same manner by the
       representative bodies respectively of the united provinces and
       of Holland and Zealand. … Without a direct intention on the
       part of the people or its leaders to establish a republic, the
       Republic established itself. Providence did not permit the
       whole country, so full of wealth, intelligence, healthy
       political action—so stocked with powerful cities and an
       energetic population, to be combined into one free and
       prosperous commonwealth. The factious ambition of a few
       grandees, the cynical venality of many nobles, the frenzy of
       the Ghent democracy, the spirit of religious intolerance, the
       consummate military and political genius of Alexander Farnese,
       the exaggerated self-abnegation and the tragic fate of Orange,
       all united to dissever this group of flourishing and kindred
       provinces. The want of personal ambition on the part of
       William the Silent inflicted, perhaps, a serious damage upon
       his country. He believed a single chief requisite for the
       united states; he might have been, but always refused to
       become that chief; and yet he has been held up for centuries
       by many writers as a conspirator and a self-seeking intriguer.
       … 'These provinces,' said John of Nassau, 'are coming very
       unwillingly into the arrangement with the Duke of Alençon
       [soon afterwards made Duke of Anjou]. The majority feel much
       more inclined to elect the Prince, who is daily, and without
       intermission, implored to give his consent. … He refuses
       only on this account—that it may not be thought that,
       instead of religious freedom for the country, he has been
       seeking a kingdom for himself and his own private advancement.
       Moreover, he believes that the connexion with France will be
       of more benefit to the country and to Christianity.' … The
       unfortunate negotiations with Anjou, to which no man was more
       opposed than Count John, proceeded therefore. In the meantime,
       the sovereignty over the united provinces was provisionally
       held by the national council, and, at the urgent solicitation
       of the states-general, by the Prince. The Archduke Matthias,
       whose functions were most unceremoniously brought to an end by
       the transactions which we have been recording, took his leave
       of the states, and departed in the month of October. … Thus
       it was arranged that, for the present, at least, the Prince
       should exercise sovereignty over Holland and Zealand; although
       he had himself used his utmost exertions to induce those
       provinces to join the rest of the United Netherlands in the
       proposed election of Anjou.
    {2270}
       This, however, they sternly refused to do. There was also a
       great disinclination felt by many in the other states to this
       hazardous offer of their allegiance, and it was the personal
       influence of Orange that eventually carried the measure
       through. … By midsummer [1581] the Duke of Anjou made his
       appearance in the western part of the Netherlands. The Prince
       of Parma had recently come before Cambray with the intention
       of reducing that important city. On the arrival of Anjou,
       however, … Alexander raised the siege precipitately and
       retired towards Tournay," to which he presently laid siege,
       and which was surrendered to him in November.

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 6, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

       Meantime, the Duke of Anjou had visited England, paying court
       to Queen Elizabeth, whom he hoped to marry, but who declined
       the alliance after making the acquaintance of her suitor.
       "Elizabeth made all the reparation in her power, by the
       honours paid him on his dismissal. She accompanied him as far
       as Canterbury, and sent him away under the convoy of the earl
       of Leicester, her chief favourite; and with a brilliant suite
       and a fleet of fifteen sail. Anjou was received at Antwerp
       with equal distinction; and was inaugurated there on the 19th
       of February [1582] as Duke of Brabant, Lothier, Limbourg, and
       Guelders, with many other titles, of which he soon proved
       himself unworthy. … During the rejoicings which followed
       this inauspicious ceremony, Philip's proscription against the
       Prince of Orange put forth its first fruits. The latter gave a
       grand dinner in the chateau of Antwerp, which he occupied, on
       the 18th of March, the birth-day of the duke of Anjou." As he
       quitted the dining hall, he was shot in the cheek by a young
       man who approached him with the pretence of offering a
       petition, and who proved to be the tool of a Spanish merchant
       at Antwerp, with whom Philip of Spain had contracted for the
       procurement of the assassination. The wound inflicted was
       severe but not fatal. "Within three months, William was able
       to accompany the duke of Anjou in his visits to Ghent, Bruges,
       and the other chief towns of Flanders; in each of which the
       ceremony of inauguration was repeated. Several military
       exploits now took place [the most important of them being the
       capture of Oudenarde, after a protracted siege, by the Prince
       of Parma]. … The duke of Anjou, intemperate, inconstant, and
       unprincipled, saw that his authority was but the shadow of
       power. … The French officers, who formed his suite and
       possessed all his confidence, had no difficulty in raising his
       discontent into treason against the people with whom he had
       made a solemn compact. The result of their councils was a
       deep-laid plot against Flemish liberty; and its execution was
       ere-long attempted. He sent secret orders to the governors of
       Dunkirk, Bruges, Termonde, and other towns, to seize on and
       hold them in his name; reserving for himself the infamy of the
       enterprise against Antwerp. To prepare for its execution, he
       caused his numerous army of French and Swiss to approach the
       city." Then, on the 17th of January, 1583, with his body guard
       of 200 horse, he suddenly attacked and slew the Flemish guards
       at one of the gates and admitted the troops waiting outside.
       "The astonished but intrepid citizens, recovering from their
       confusion, instantly flew to arms. All differences in religion
       or politics were forgotten in the common danger to their
       freedom. … The ancient spirit of Flanders seemed to animate
       all. Workmen, armed with the instruments of their various
       trades, started from their shops and flung themselves upon the
       enemy. … The French were driven successively from the
       streets and ramparts. … The duke of Anjou saved himself by
       flight, and reached Termonde. His loss in this base enterprise
       [known as the French Fury] amounted to 1,500; while that of
       the citizens did not exceed 80 men. The attempts
       simultaneously made on the other towns succeeded at Dunkirk
       and Termonde; but all the others failed. The character of the
       Prince of Orange never appeared so thoroughly great as at this
       crisis. With wisdom and magnanimity rarely equalled and never
       surpassed, he threw himself and his authority between the
       indignation of the country and the guilt of Anjou; saving the
       former from excess and the latter from execration. The
       disgraced and discomfited duke proffered to the states excuses
       as mean as they were hypocritical. … A new treaty was
       negotiated, confirming Anjou in his former station, with
       renewed security against any future treachery on his part. He
       in the mean time retired to France," where he died, June 10,
       1584. Exactly one month afterwards (July 10), Prince William
       was murdered, in his house, at Delft, by Balthazar Gerard, one
       of the many assassins whom Philip II. and Parma had so
       persistently sent against him. He was shot as he placed his
       foot upon the first step of the great stair in his house,
       after dining in a lower apartment, and he died in a few
       moments.

          T. C. Grattan,
          History of the Netherlands,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
          chapters 26, 29, 31-32 (volume 5-6).

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
       Limits of the United Provinces and the Spanish Provinces.
       The Republican constitution of the United Provinces,
       and the organization of their government.
       Disgraceful surrender of Ghent.
       Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spanish king.

       At the time of the assassination of the Prince of Orange, "the
       limit of the Spanish or 'obedient' Provinces, on the one hand,
       and of the United Provinces on the other, cannot … be
       briefly and distinctly stated. The memorable treason—or, as
       it was called, the 'reconciliation' of the Walloon Provinces
       in the year 1583-4—had placed the Provinces of Hainault,
       Arthois, Douay, with the flourishing cities, Arras,
       Valenciennes, Lille, Tournay, and others—all Celtic
       Flanders, in short—in the grasp of Spain. Cambray was still
       held by the French governor, Seigneur de Balagny, who had
       taken advantage of the Duke of Anjou's treachery to the
       States, to establish himself in an unrecognized but practical
       petty sovereignty, in defiance both of France and Spain; while
       East Flanders and South Brabant still remained a disputed
       territory, and the immediate field of contest. With these
       limitations, it may be assumed, for general purposes, that the
       territory of the United States was that of the modern Kingdom
       of the Netherlands, while the obedient Provinces occupied what
       is now the territory of Belgium. …
    {2271}
       What now was the political position of the United Provinces at
       this juncture? The sovereignty which had been held by the
       Estates, ready to be conferred respectively upon Anjou and
       Orange, remained in the hands of the Estates. There was no
       opposition to this theory. … The people, as such, claimed no
       sovereignty. … What were the Estates? … The great
       characteristic of the Netherland government was the
       municipality. Each Province contained a large number of
       cities, which were governed by a board of magistrates, varying
       in number from 20 to 40. This college, called the Vroedschap
       (Assembly of Sages), consisted of the most notable citizens,
       and was a self-electing body—a close corporation—the members
       being appointed for life, from the citizens at large. Whenever
       vacancies occurred from death or loss of citizenship, the
       college chose new members—sometimes immediately, sometimes by
       means of a double or triple selection of names, the choice of
       one from among which was offered to the stadtholder [governor,
       or sovereign's deputy] of the province. This functionary was
       appointed by the Count, as he was called, whether Duke of
       Bavaria or of Burgundy, Emperor, or King. After the abjuration
       of Philip [1581], the governors were appointed by the Estates
       of each Province. The Sage-Men chose annually a board of
       senators, or schepens, whose functions were mainly judicial;
       and there were generally two, and sometimes three,
       burgomasters, appointed in the same way. This was the popular
       branch of the Estates. But, besides this body of
       representatives, were the nobles, men of ancient lineage and
       large possessions, who had exercised, according to the general
       feudal law of Europe, high, low, and intermediate jurisdiction
       upon their estates, and had long been recognized as an
       integral part of the body politic, having the right to appear,
       through delegates of their order, in the provincial and in the
       general assemblies. Regarded as a machine for bringing the
       most decided political capacities into the administration of
       public affairs, and for organizing the most practical
       opposition to the system of religious tyranny, the Netherland
       constitution was a healthy, and, for the age, an enlightened
       one. … Thus constituted was the commonwealth upon the death
       of William the Silent. The gloom produced by that event was
       tragical. Never in human history was a more poignant and
       universal sorrow for the death of any individual. The despair
       was, for a brief season, absolute; but it was soon succeeded
       by more lofty sentiments. … Even on the very day of the
       murder, the Estates of Holland, then sitting at Delft, passed
       a resolution 'to maintain the good cause, with God's help, to
       the uttermost, without sparing gold or blood.' … The next
       movement, after the last solemn obsequies had been rendered to
       the Prince, was to provide for the immediate wants of his
       family. For the man who had gone into the revolt with almost
       royal revenues, left his estate so embarrassed that his
       carpets, tapestries, household linen—nay, even his silver
       spoons, and the very clothes of his wardrobe—were disposed of
       at auction for the benefit of his creditors. He left eleven
       children—a son and daughter by the first wife, a son and
       daughter by Anna of Saxony, six daughters by Charlotte of
       Bourbon, and an infant, Frederic Henry, born six months before
       his death. The eldest son, Philip William, had been a captive
       in Spain for seventeen years, having been kidnapped from
       school, in Leyden, in the year 1567. He had already become …
       thoroughly Hispaniolized under the masterly treatment of the
       King and the Jesuits. … The next son was Maurice, then 17
       years of age. … Grandson of Maurice of Saxony, whom he
       resembled in visage and character, he was summoned by every
       drop of blood in his veins to do life-long battle with the
       spirit of Spanish absolutism, and he was already girding
       himself for his life's work. … Very soon afterwards the
       States General established a State Council, as a provisional
       executive board, for the term of three months, for the
       Provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, and such
       parts of Flanders and Brabant as still remained in the Union.
       At the head of this body was placed young Maurice, who
       accepted the responsible position, after three days'
       deliberation. … The Council consisted of three members from
       Brabant, two from Flanders, four from Holland, three from
       Zeeland, two from Utrecht, one from Mechlin, and three from
       Friesland—eighteen in all. They were empowered and enjoined
       to levy troops by land and sea, and to appoint naval and
       military officers; to establish courts of admiralty, to expend
       the moneys voted by the States, to maintain the ancient
       privileges of the country, and to see that all troops in
       service of the Provinces made oath of fidelity to the Union.
       Diplomatic relations, questions of peace and war, the
       treaty-making power, were not entrusted to the Council,
       without the knowledge and consent of the States General, which
       body was to be convoked twice a year by the State Council. …
       Alexander of Parma … was swift to take advantage of the
       calamity which had now befallen the rebellious Provinces. …
       In Holland and Zeeland the Prince's blandishments were of no
       avail. … In Flanders and Brabant the spirit was less noble.
       Those provinces were nearly lost already. Bruges [which had
       made terms with the King early in 1584] seconded Parma's
       efforts to induce its sister-city Ghent to imitate its own
       baseness in surrendering without a struggle; and that
       powerful, turbulent, but most anarchical little commonwealth
       was but too ready to listen to the voice of the tempter. …
       Upon the 17th August [1584] Dendermonde surrendered. … Upon
       the 7th September Vilvoorde capitulated, by which event the
       water-communication between Brussels and Antwerp was cut off,
       Ghent, now thoroughly disheartened, treated with Parma
       likewise; and upon the 17th September made its reconciliation
       with the King. The surrender of so strong and important a
       place was as disastrous to the cause of the patriots as it was
       disgraceful to the citizens themselves. It was, however, the
       result of an intrigue which had been long spinning. … The
       noble city of Ghent—then as large as Paris, thoroughly
       surrounded with moats, and fortified with bulwarks, ravelins,
       and counterscarps, constructed of earth, during the previous
       two years, at great expense, and provided with bread and meat,
       powder and shot, enough to last a year—was ignominiously
       surrendered. The population, already a very reduced and
       slender one for the great extent of the place and its former
       importance, had been estimated at 70,000.
    {2272}
       The number of houses was 35,000, so that, as the inhabitants
       were soon farther reduced to one-half, there remained but one
       individual to each house. On the other hand, the 25
       monasteries and convents in the town were repeopled. … The
       fall of Brussels was deferred till March, and that of Mechlin
       (19th July, 1585), and of Antwerp [see below] (19th August,
       1585), till Midsummer of the following year; but the surrender
       of Ghent foreshadowed the fate of Flanders and Brabant. Ostend
       and Sluys, however, were still in the hands of the patriots,
       and with them the control of the whole Flemish coast. The
       command of the sea was destined to remain for centuries with
       the new republic."

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapter 1 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
       The Siege and surrender of Antwerp.
       Decay of the city.

       "After the fall of Ghent, Farnese applied himself earnestly to
       the siege of Antwerp, one of the most memorable recorded in
       history. The citizens were animated in their defence by the
       valour and talent of Ste Aldegonde. It would be impossible to
       detail with minuteness in this general history the various
       contrivances resorted to on either side for the attack and the
       defence; and we must therefore content ourselves with briefly
       adverting to that stupendous monument of Farnese's military
       genius, the bridge which he carried across the Scheldt, below
       Antwerp, in order to cut off the communication of the city
       with the sea and the maritime provinces. From the depth and
       wideness of the river, the difficulty of finding the requisite
       materials, and of transporting them to the place selected in
       the face of an enemy that was superior on the water, the
       project was loudly denounced by Farnese's officers as
       visionary and impracticable; yet in spite of all these
       discouragements and difficulties, as the place seemed
       unapproachable in the usual way, he steadily persevered, and
       at last succeeded in an undertaking which, had he failed,
       would have covered him with perpetual ridicule. The spot fixed
       upon for the bridge was between Ordam and Kalloo, where the
       river is both shallower and narrower than at other parts. The
       bridge consisted of piles driven into the water to such
       distance as its depth would allow; which was 200 feet on the
       Flanders side and 900 feet on that of Brabant. The interval
       between the piles, which was 12 feet broad, was covered with
       planking; but at the extremities towards the centre of the
       river the breadth was extended to 40 feet, thus forming two
       forts, or platforms, mounted with cannon. There was still,
       however, an interstice in the middle of between 1,000 and
       1,100 feet, through which the ships of the enemy, favoured by
       the wind and tide, or by the night, could manage to pass
       without any considerable loss, and which it therefore became
       necessary to fill up. This was accomplished by mooring across
       it the hulls of 32 vessels, at intervals of about 20 feet
       apart, and connecting them together with planks. Each vessel
       was planted with artillery and garrisoned by about 30 men;
       while the bridge was protected by a flota of vessels moored on
       each side, above and below, at a distance of about 200 feet.
       During the construction of the bridge, which lasted half a
       year, the citizens of Antwerp viewed with dismay the progress
       of a work that was not only to deprive them of their maritime
       commerce, but also of the supplies necessary for their
       subsistence and defence. At length they adopted a plan
       suggested by Gianbelli, an Italian engineer, and resolved to
       destroy the bridge by means of fire-ships, which seem to have
       been first used on this occasion. Several such vessels were
       sent down the river with a favourable tide and wind, of which
       two were charged with 6,000 or 7,000 lbs. of gunpowder each,
       packed in solid masonry, with various destructive missiles.
       One of these vessels went ashore before reaching its
       destination; the other arrived at the bridge and exploded with
       terrible effect. Curiosity to behold so novel a spectacle had
       attracted vast numbers of the Spaniards, who lined the shores
       as well as the bridge. Of these 800 were killed by the
       explosion, and by the implements of destruction discharged
       with the powder; a still greater number were maimed and
       wounded, and the bridge itself was considerably damaged.
       Farnese himself was thrown to the earth and lay for a time
       insensible. The besieged, however, did not follow up their
       plan with vigour. They allowed Farnese time to repair the
       damage, and the Spaniards, being now on the alert, either
       diverted the course of the fire-ships that were subsequently
       sent against them, or suffered them to pass the bridge through
       openings made for the purpose. In spite of the bridge,
       however, the beleaguered citizens might still have secured a
       transit down the river by breaking through the dykes between
       Antwerp and Lillo, and sailing over the plains thus laid under
       water, for which purpose it was necessary to obtain possession
       of the counter-dyke of Kowenstyn; but after a partial success,
       too quickly abandoned by Hohenlohe and Ste Aldegonde, they
       were defeated in a bloody battle which they fought upon the
       dyke. Antwerp was now obliged to capitulate; and as Farnese
       was anxious to put an end to so long a siege, it obtained more
       favourable terms than could have been anticipated (August 17th
       1585). The prosperity of this great commercial city received,
       however, a severe blow from its capture by the Spaniards. A
       great number of the citizens, as well as of the inhabitants of
       Brabant and Flanders, removed to Amsterdam and Middelburg."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2).

       The downfall of the prosperity of the great capital "was
       instantaneous. The merchants and industrious citizens all
       wandered away from the place which had been the seat of a
       world-wide traffic. Civilization and commerce departed, and in
       their stead were the citadel and the Jesuits."

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          F. Schiller,
          Siege of Antwerp.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
       Proffered sovereignty of the United Provinces
       declined by France and England.
       Delusive English succors.
       The queen's treachery and Leicester's incompetency.
       Useless battle at Zutphen.

       "It was natural that so small a State, wasted by its
       protracted struggles, should desire, more earnestly than ever,
       an alliance with some stronger power; and it was from among
       States supposed to have sympathies with Protestants, that such
       an alliance was sought. From the Protestant countries of
       Germany there was no promise of help; and the eyes of the
       Dutch diplomatists were therefore turned towards France and
       England. In France, the Huguenots, having recovered from St.
       Bartholomew, now enjoyed toleration; and were a rising and
       hopeful party, under the patronage of Henry of Navarre.
    {2273}
       If the king of France would protect Holland from Philip, and
       extend to its people the same toleration which he allowed his
       own subjects, Holland offered him the sovereignty of the
       united provinces. This tempting offer was declined: for a new
       policy was now to be declared, which united France and Spain
       in a bigoted crusade against the Protestant faith. The League,
       under the Duke de Guise, gained a fatal ascendency over the
       weak and frivolous king, Henry III., and held dominion in
       France. … Nor was the baneful influence of the League
       confined to France: it formed a close alliance with Philip and
       the Pope, with whom it was plotting the overthrow of
       Protestant England, the subjection of the revolted provinces
       of Spain, and the general extirpation of heresy throughout
       Europe. … The only hope of the Netherlands was now in
       England, which was threatened by a common danger; and envoys
       were sent to Elizabeth with offers of the sovereignty, which
       had been declined by France. So little did the Dutch statesmen
       as yet contemplate a republic, that they offered their country
       to any sovereign, in return for protection. Had bolder
       counsels prevailed, Elizabeth might, at once, have saved the
       Netherlands, and placed herself at the head of the Protestants
       of Europe. She saw her own danger, if Philip should recover
       the provinces: but she held her purse-strings with the grasp
       of a miser: she dreaded an open rupture with Spain; and she
       was unwilling to provoke her own Catholic subjects. Sympathy
       with the Protestant cause, she had none. … She desired to
       afford as much assistance as would protect her own realm
       against Philip, at the least possible cost, without
       precipitating a war with Spain. She agreed to send men and
       money: but required Flushing, Brill, and Rammekens to be held
       as a security for her loans. She refused the sovereignty of
       the States: but she despatched troops to the Netherlands, and
       sent her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, to command them. As
       she had taken the rebellious subjects of Spain under her
       protection, Philip retaliated by the seizure of British ships.
       Spanish vengeance was not averted, while the Netherlands
       profited little by her aid."

          Sir T. E. May,
          Democracy in Europe,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

       Leicester sailed for the Hague in the middle of December,
       1585, having been preceded by 8,000 English troops, eager to
       prevent or revenge the fall of Antwerp. "Had there been good
       faith and resolution, and had Lord Grey, or Sir Richard
       Bingham, or Sir John Norris been in command, 20,000 Dutch and
       English troops might have taken the field in perfect
       condition. The States would have spent their last dollar to
       find them in everything which soldiers could need. They would
       have had at their backs the enthusiastic sympathy of the
       population, while the enemy was as universally abhorred; and
       Parma, exhausted by his efforts in the great siege, with his
       chest empty, and his ranks thinned almost to extinction, could
       not have encountered them with a third of their numbers. A
       lost battle would have been followed by a renewed revolt of
       the reconciled Provinces, and Elizabeth, if she found peace so
       necessary to her, might have dictated her own conditions." But
       months passed and nothing was done, while Queen Elizabeth was
       treacherously negotiating with agents of Spain. In the summer
       of 1586, "half and more than half of the brave men who had
       come over in the past September were dead. Their places were
       taken by new levies gathered in haste upon the highways, or by
       mutinous regiments of Irish kernes, confessed Catholics, and
       led by a man [Sir William Stanley] who was only watching an
       opportunity to betray his sovereign. … Gone was now the
       enthusiasm which had welcomed the landing of Leicester. In the
       place of it was suspicion and misgiving, distracted councils,
       and divided purposes. Elizabeth while she was diplomatising
       held her army idle. Parma, short-handed as he was, treated
       with his hand upon his sword, and was for ever carving slice
       on slice from the receding frontiers of the States. At the
       time of Leicester's installation he was acting on the Meuse.
       He held the river as far as Venloo. Venloo and Grave were in
       the hands of the patriots, both of them strong fortresses, the
       latter especially. … After the fall of Antwerp these two
       towns were Parma's next object. The siege of Grave was formed
       in January. In April Colonel Norris and Count Hohenlohe forced
       the Spanish lines and threw in supplies; but Elizabeth's
       orders prevented further effort. Parma came before the town in
       person in June, and after a bombardment which produced little
       or no effect, Grave, to the surprise of everyone, surrendered.
       Count Hemart, the governor, was said to have been corrupted,
       by his mistress. Leicester hanged him; but Hemart's gallows
       did not recover Grave or save Venloo, which surrendered also
       three weeks later. The Earl, conscious of the disgrace, yet
       seeing no way to mend it, … was willing at last to play into
       his mistress's hands. He understood her [Queen Elizabeth] at
       last, and saw what she was aiming at. 'As the cause is now
       followed,' he wrote to her on the 27th of June, 'it is not
       worth the cost or the danger. … They [the Netherlanders]
       would rather have lived with bread and drink under your
       Majesty's protection than with all their possessions under the
       King of Spain. It has almost broken their hearts to think your
       Majesty should not care any more for them. But if you mean
       soon to leave them they will be gone almost before you hear of
       it. I will do my best, therefore, to get into my hands three
       or four most principal places in North Holland, so as you
       shall rule these men, and make war and peace as you list. Part
       not with Brill for anything. With these places you can have
       what peace you will in an hour, and have your debts and
       charges readily answered. But your Majesty must deal
       graciously with them at present, and if you mean to leave them
       keep it to yourself.' … No palliation can be suggested, of
       the intentions to which Leicester saw that she was still
       clinging, and which he was willing to further in spite of his
       oath to be loyal to the States. … The incapacity of
       Leicester … was growing evident. He had been used as a lay
       figure to dazzle the eyes of the Provinces, while both he and
       they were mocked by the secret treaty. The treaty was hanging
       fire. … The Queen had … so far opened her eyes as to see
       that she was not improving her position by keeping her army
       idle; and Leicester, that he might not part with his
       government in entire disgrace, having done absolutely nothing,
       took the field for a short campaign in the middle of August
       [1586].
    {2274}
       Parma had established himself in Gelderland, at Zutphen, and
       Duesberg. The States held Deventer, further down the Issel;
       but Deventer would probably fall as Grave and Venloo had
       fallen if the Spaniards kept their hold upon the river;
       Leicester therefore proposed to attempt to recover Zutphen.
       Everyone was delighted to be moving. … The Earl of Essex,
       Sir William Russell, Lord Willoughby, and others who held no
       special commands, attached themselves to Leicester's staff;
       Sir Philip Sidney obtained leave of absence from Flushing; Sir
       John Norris and his brother brought the English contingent of
       the States army; Sir William Stanley had arrived with his
       Irishmen; and with these cavaliers glittering about him, and
       9,000 men, Leicester entered Gelderland. Duesberg surrendered
       to him without a blow; Norris surprised a fort outside
       Zutphen, which commanded the river and straitened the
       communications of the town." Parma made an attempt, on the
       morning of September 22, to throw supplies into the town, and
       Leicester's knights and gentlemen, forewarned of this project
       by a spy, "Volunteered for an ambuscade to cut off the convoy.
       … Parma brought with him every man that he could spare, and
       the ambuscade party were preparing unconsciously to encounter
       4,000 of the best troops in the world. They were in all about
       500. … The morning was misty. The waggons were heard coming,
       but nothing could be seen till a party of horse appeared at
       the head of the train where the ambuscade was lying. Down
       charged the 500, much as in these late years 600 English
       lancers charged elsewhere, as magnificently and as uselessly.
       … Never had been a more brilliant action seen or heard of,
       never one more absurd and profitless. For the ranks of the
       Spanish infantry were unbroken, the English could not touch
       them, could not even approach them, and behind the line of
       their muskets the waggons passed steadily to the town. … A
       few, not many, had been killed; but among those whose lives
       had been flung away so wildly was Philip Sidney. He was struck
       by a musket ball on his exposed thigh, as he was returning
       from his last charge," and died a few weeks later. "Parma
       immediately afterwards entered Zutphen unmolested. …
       Leicester's presence was found necessary in England. With the
       natural sympathy of one worthless person for another, he had
       taken a fancy to Stanley, and chose to give him an independent
       command; and leaving the government to the Council of the
       States, and the army again without a chief, he sailed in
       November for London."

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England: The Reign of Elizabeth,
          chapter 33 (volume 6).

          ALSO IN:
          Correspondence of Leicester during his
          Government of the Low Countries
          (Camden Society 27).

          W. Gray,
          Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney,
          chapter 10.

          C. R. Markham,
          The Fighting Veres,
          chapters 7-8.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.
       The ruin of the Spanish Provinces.
       Great prosperity of the United Provinces.
       Siege and capture of Sluys.
       The last of Leicester.

       "Though the United Provinces were distracted by domestic
       dissensions and enfeebled by mutual distrust, their condition,
       compared with that portion of the Netherlands reduced under
       the yoke of Spain, was such as to afford matter of deep
       gratulation and thankfulness. The miseries of war had visited
       the latter unhappy country in the fullest measure; multitudes
       of its inhabitants had fled in despair; and the sword, famine,
       and pestilence, vied with each other in destroying the
       remainder. … The rich and smiling pastures, once the
       admiration and envy of the less favoured countries of Europe,
       were now no more; woods, roads, and fields, were confounded in
       one tangled mass of copse and brier. In the formerly busy and
       wealthy towns of Flanders and Brabant, Ghent, Antwerp, and
       Bruges, members of noble families were seen to creep from
       their wretched abodes in the darkness of night to beg their
       bread, or to search the streets for bones and offal. A
       striking and cheering contrast is the picture presented by the
       United Provinces. The crops had, indeed, failed there also,
       but the entire command of the sea which they preserved, and
       the free importation of corn, secured plentiful supplies. …
       They continued to carry on, under Spanish colours, a lucrative
       half-smuggling traffic, which the government of that nation
       found it its interest to connive at and encourage. The war,
       therefore, instead of being, as usual, an hindrance to
       commerce, rather gave it a new stimulus; the ports were
       crowded with vessels. … Holland and Zealand had now for more
       than ten years been delivered from the enemy. … The security
       they thus offered, combined with the freedom of religion, and
       the activity of trade and commerce, drew vast multitudes to
       their shores; the merchants and artisans expelled, on account
       of their religion, from the Spanish Netherlands, transferred
       thither the advantages of their enterprise and skill. … The
       population of the towns became so overflowing that it was
       found impossible to build houses fast enough to contain it.
       … The miserable condition of the Spanish Netherlands, and
       the difficulty of finding supplies for his troops, caused the
       Duke of Parma to delay taking the field until late in the
       summer [1587]; when, making a feint attack upon Ostend, he
       afterwards … commenced a vigorous siege of Sluys. In order
       to draw him off from this undertaking, Maurice, with the Count
       of Hohenlohe, marched towards Bois-le-Duc. … The danger of
       Sluys hastened the return of the Earl of Leicester to the
       Netherlands, who arrived in Ostend with 7,000 foot and 500
       horse. … Sluys had been besieged seven weeks, and the
       garrison was reduced from 1,600 men to scarcely half that
       number, when Leicester made an attempt to master the fort of
       Blankenburg, in the neighbourhood of the enemy's camp; but on
       intelligence that Parma was approaching to give him battle, he
       hastily retreated to Ostend," and Sluys was surrendered. "The
       loss of Sluys exasperated the dissensions between Leicester
       and the States into undisguised and irreconcilable hostility."
       He was soon afterwards recalled to England, and early in the
       following year the queen required him to resign his command
       and governorship in the Netherlands. In the meantime, the
       English queen had reopened negotiations with Parma, who
       occupied her attention while his master, Philip II. of Spain,
       was preparing the formidable Armada which he launched against
       England the next year

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 3, chapters 2-3 (volume 2).

    {2275}

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
       Successes of Prince Maurice.
       Departure of Parma to France.
       His death.
       Appointment of Archduke Albert to the Government.

       "The destruction of the great Spanish Armada by the English in
       1588 infused new hopes into all the enemies of Spain, and
       animated the Dutch with such courage, that Maurice led his
       army against that of the Duke of Parma, and forced him to
       raise the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, at that time garrisoned by
       a portion of Leicester's army under the command of Sir Francis
       Vere. … The young Stadtholder was induced by this success to
       surprise the Castle of Blyenbeck, which was yielded to his
       arms in 1589; and the following year [March 1] he got
       possession of Breda by a 'ruse de guerre,'"—having introduced
       70 men into the town by concealing them in a boat laden with
       turf. "The Duke of Parma was now recalled from the Low
       Countries into France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1590], and the old
       Peter Ernest, Count de Mansfeld, succeeded to the government
       of the Low Countries. … Maurice defeated the Spanish army in
       the open field at Caervorden, and took Nimeguen [October 21,
       1591] and Zutphen [May 30, 1591; also, Deventer, June 10, of
       the same year]. … These successes added greatly to the
       reputation of Count Maurice, who now made considerable
       progress, so that in the year 1591 the Dutch saw their
       frontiers extended, and had well-grounded hopes of driving the
       Spaniards out of Friesland in another campaign. … The death
       of the Prince of Parma [which occurred December 3, 1592]
       delivered the Confederates from a formidable adversary; but
       old Count Mansfeld, at the head of an army of 30,000 men, took
       the field against them. Maurice, however, in 1593,
       notwithstanding this covering force, sat down before
       Gertruydenberg, advantageously situated on the frontier of
       Brabant." The siege was regarded as a masterpiece of the
       military art of the day, and the city was brought to surrender
       at the end of three months. "With the useful aid of Sir
       Francis Vere and the English, Maurice afterwards took
       Gronenburg and Grave, which formed part of his own patrimony.
       The Duke of Parma was succeeded in the government of the
       Netherlands by the Archduke Albert, a younger son of the
       Emperor Maximilian, who was married to Isabella, daughter of
       King Philip."

          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
          Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
          pages 25-28.

          ALSO IN:
          C. R. Markham,
          The Fighting Veres,
          part 1, chapters 10-15.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1597.
       Spanish operations in Northern France.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
       Steady decline of Spanish power.
       Sovereignty of the provinces made over to the Infanta
       Isabella and the Archduke, her husband.
       Death of Philip II.
       Negotiations for peace.
       A twelve years' truce agreed upon.
       Acknowledgment of the independence of the republic.

       "Philip's French enterprise had failed. The dashing and
       unscrupulous Henry of Navarre had won his crown, by conforming
       to the Catholic faith. …

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

       Great was the shock given by his politic apostacy to the
       religious sentiments of Europe: but it was fatal to the
       ambition of Philip; and again the Netherlands could count upon
       the friendship of a king of France. Their own needs were
       great: but the gallant little republic still found means to
       assist the Protestant champion against their common enemy, the
       king of Spain. In the Netherlands the Spanish power was
       declining. The feeble successors of Parma were no match for
       Maurice of Nassau and the republican leaders: the Spanish
       troops were starving and mutinous: the provinces under Spanish
       rule were reduced to wretchedness and beggary. Cities and
       fortresses fell, one after another, into the hands of the
       stadtholder. The Dutch fleet joined that of England in a raid
       upon Spain itself, captured and sacked Cadiz [see SPAIN: A. D.
       1596], raised the flag of the republic on the battlements of
       that famous city; and left the Spanish fleet burning in the
       harbour. Other events followed, deeply affecting the fortunes
       of the republic. Philip at length made peace with Henry of
       Navarre, and was again free to coerce his revolted provinces.
       But his accursed rule was drawing to a close. In 1598 he made
       over the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the Infanta
       Isabella and her affianced husband, the Archduke Albert, who
       had cast aside his cardinal's hat, his archbishopric, and his
       priestly vows of celibacy, for a consort so endowed. Philip
       had ceased to reign in the Netherlands; and a few months
       afterwards [September 13, 1598] he closed his evil life, in
       the odour of sanctity. … The tyrant was dead: the little
       republic, which he had scourged so cruelly, was living and
       prosperous. … Far different was the lot of the ill-fated
       provinces still in the grasp of the tyrant. The land lay waste
       and desolate: its inhabitants had tied to England or Holland,
       or were reduced to want and beggary. … That the republic
       should have outlived its chief oppressor was an event of happy
       augury: but years of trial and danger were still to be passed
       through. The victory of Nieuport [gained July 2, 1600, by an
       army of Dutch and English over the superior forces of the
       Archduke Albert] raised Prince Maurice's fame, as a soldier,
       to its highest point; and the gallant defence of Ostend, for
       upwards of three years [against a siege, conducted by the
       Spanish general Spinola, to which its garrison finally
       succumbed in 1604, when the town was a heap of ruins, and
       after 100,000 men are said to have been sacrificed on both
       sides] … proved that the courage and endurance of his
       soldiers had not declined during the protracted war [while
       Sluys was taken by the Prince the same year]. At sea the Dutch
       fleets won new victories over the Spaniards and Portuguese;
       and privateers made constant ravages upon the enemy's
       commerce. But there were also failures and reverses, on the
       side of the republic, dissensions among its leaders, and
       anxieties concerning the attitude of foreign States. And thus,
       with varied fortunes, this momentous war had now continued for
       upwards of forty years. … On both sides there was a desire
       for peace. The Dutch would accept nothing short of
       unconditional independence: the Spaniards almost despaired of
       reducing them to subjection, while they dreaded more
       republican victories at sea, and the extension of Dutch
       maritime enterprise in the East. Overtures for peace were
       first made cautiously and secretly by the archdukes ['this was
       the title of the archduke and archduchess'], and received by
       the States with grave distrust. Jealous and haughty was the
       bearing of the republic, in the negotiations which ensued. The
       states-general, in full session, represented Holland, and
       received the Spanish envoys. The independence of the States
       was accepted, on both sides, as the basis of any treaty: but,
       as a preliminary to the negotiations, the republic insisted
       upon its formal recognition, as a free and equal State, in
       words dictated by itself. …
    {2276}
       At length an armistice was signed, in order to arrange the
       terms of a treaty of peace. It was a welcome breathing time:
       but peace was still beset with difficulties and obstacles. The
       Spaniards were insincere: they could not bring themselves to
       treat seriously, and in good faith, with heretics and rebels:
       they desired the re-establishment of the Church of Rome; and
       they claimed the exclusive right of trading with the East and
       West Indies. The councils of the republic were also divided.
       Barneveldt, the civilian, was bent upon peace: Prince Maurice,
       the soldier, was burning for the renewal of the war. But
       Barneveldt and the peace party prevailed, and negotiations
       were continued. Again and again, the armistice was renewed:
       but a treaty of peace seemed as remote as ever. At length
       [April 9, 1609], after infinite disputes, a truce for twelve
       years was agreed upon. In form it was a truce, and not a
       treaty of peace: but otherwise the republic gained every point
       upon which it had insisted. Its freedom and independence were
       unconditionally recognised: it accepted no conditions
       concerning religion: it made no concessions in regard to its
       trade with the Indies. The great battle for freedom was won:
       the republic was free: its troubles and perils were at an end.
       Its oppressors had been the first to sue for peace: their
       commissioners had treated with the states-general at the
       Hague; and they had yielded every point for which they had
       been waging war for nearly half a century."

          Sir T. E. May,
          Democracy in Europe,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 3, chapters 3-4 (volume 2).

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapters 30-52 (volumes 3-4).

          Douglas Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland England, and America,
          chapter 18 (volume 2).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
       Rise and growth of Eastern trade.
       Formation of the Dutch East India Company.

       "Previous to their assertion of national independence, the
       commerce of the Dutch did not extend beyond the confines of
       Europe. But new regions of traffic were now to open to their
       dauntless enterprise. It was in 1594 that Cornelius Houtman,
       the son of It brewer at Gouda, returned from Lisbon, where,
       having passed the preceding year, he had seen the gorgeous
       produce of the East piled on the quays of the Tagus. His
       descriptions fired the emulation of his friends at Amsterdam,
       nine of whom agreed to join stock and equip a little flotilla
       for a voyage round the Cape of Good Hope; Houtman undertook
       the command, and thus the marvellous commerce of the Dutch in
       India began. The influence which their trade with India and
       their settlements there exerted in maturing and extending the
       greatness of the Dutch, has often been overrated. It was a
       source, indeed, of infinite pride, and for a time of rapid and
       glittering profit; but it was attended with serious drawbacks,
       both of national expenditure and national danger. … From the
       outset they were forced to go armed. The four ships that
       sailed on the first voyage of speculation from Amsterdam, in
       1595, were fitted out for either war or merchandise. They were
       about to sail into hitherto interdicted waters; they knew that
       the Portuguese were already established in the Spice Islands,
       whither they were bound; and Portugal was then a dependency of
       Spain. On their arrival at Java, they had, consequently, to
       encounter open hostility both from Europeans and the natives
       whom the former influenced against them. At Bali, however,
       they were better received; and, in 1597, they reached home
       with a rich cargo of spices and Indian wares. It was a proud
       and joyous day in Amsterdam when their return was known. …
       From various ports of Zealand and Holland 80 vessels sailed
       the following year to America, Africa, and India. Vainly the
       Portuguese colonists laboured to convince the native princes
       of the East that the Dutch were a mere horde of pirates with
       whom no dealings were safe. Their businesslike and punctilious
       demeanour, and probably, likewise, the judiciously selected
       cargoes with which they freighted their ships outwards,
       whereby they were enabled to offer better terms for the silk,
       indigo, and spice they wished to buy, rapidly disarmed the
       suspicion of several of the chiefs. … In 1602 the celebrated
       East India Company was formed under charter granted by the
       States-General,—the original capital being 6,000,000
       guilders, subscribed by the merchants of Delft, Rotterdam,
       Hoorn, Enkhuysen, Middleberg, but above all Amsterdam. They
       established factories at many places, both on the continent of
       India and in the islands; but their chief depot was fixed at
       Bantam," until, dissatisfied with certain taxes imposed on
       them by the lord of Bantam, they looked elsewhere for a
       station. "The sovereign of Java gladly offered them a
       settlement not above 100 miles distant, with full permission
       to erect such buildings as they chose, and an engagement that
       pepper (the chief spice thence exported) should be sent out of
       his dominions toll-free. These terms were accepted. Jocatra, a
       situation very propitious for traffic, was chosen as the site
       of their future factory. Warehouses of stone and mortar
       quickly rose; and dwellings, to the number of 1,000, were in a
       short time added. All nations had leave to settle and trade
       within its walls; and this was the origin of Batavia. In six
       years the Company sent out 46 vessels, of which 43 returned in
       due course laden with rich cargoes. … By the books of the
       Company it appeared that, during the next eleven years, they
       maintained 30 ships in the Eastern trade, manned by 5,000
       seamen. … Two hundred per cent. was divided by the
       proprietors of the Company's stock on their paid-up capital in
       sixteen years. … But of all the proud results of their
       Indian commerce, that which naturally afforded to the Dutch
       the keenest sense of exultation, was the opportunity it
       afforded them of thoroughly undermining the once exclusive
       trade of Spain, not with foreign nations merely, but with her
       own colonies, and even at home. The infatuated policy of her
       government had prepared the way for her decline. … In the
       space of a few years the Dutch had taken and rifled 11 Spanish
       galleons, 'carkets and other huge ships, and made about 40 of
       them unserviceable.' So crippled was their colonial trade
       that, even for their own use, the Spaniards were obliged to
       buy nutmegs, cloves, and mace, from their hated rivals."

          W. T. McCullagh,
          Industrial History of Free Nations,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          D. McPherson,
          Annals of Commerce,
          volume 2, pages 206-296.

          J. Yeats,
          Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
          part 3, chapters 3-4.

    {2277}

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
       Calvinistic persecution of Arminianism.
       The hunting down of John of Barneveldt by Prince Maurice.
       Synod of Dort.

       Calvin's doctrine of predestination was strongly expressed in
       what was called the Heidelberg Catechism. "A synod of the
       pastors of Holland had decreed that this must be signed by all
       their preachers, and be to them what the Thirty-nine Articles
       are to the English Church and the Confession of Augsburg to
       the Lutherans. Many preachers hesitated to pledge themselves
       to doctrines that they did not think Scriptural nor according
       to primitive faith, and still more, not accordant with the
       eternal mercy of God. Of these Jacob Hermann, a minister of
       Amsterdam, or as he Latinised his name, Arminius, was the
       foremost, and under his influence a number of clergy refused
       their signature. The University of Leyden in 1603 chose
       Arminius as their Professor of Theology. The opposite party,
       in great wrath, insisted on holding a synod, and the
       States-General gave permission, but at first only on condition
       that there should be a revision of the confession of faith and
       catechism. The ministers refused, but the States-General
       insisted, led by John Barneveldt, then Advocate and Keeper of
       the Seals, who declared in their name that as 'foster fathers
       and protectors of the churches to them every right belonged.'
       It was an Erastian sentiment, but this opinion was held by all
       reformed governments, including the English, and Barneveldt
       spoke in the hope of mitigating Calvinistic violence. The
       Advocate of the States-General was in fact their mouthpiece.
       They might vote, but no one expressed their decisions at home
       or abroad save the Advocate; and Barneveldt, both from
       position and character, was thus the chief manager of civil
       affairs, and an equal if not a superior power to Maurice of
       Nassau, the Stadtholder and commander-in-chief, and recently,
       by the death of his elder brother, Prince of Orange. The
       question had even been mooted of giving him the sovereignty,
       but to this Barneveldt was strongly averse. Maurice knew very
       little about the argument, and his real feelings were
       Arminian, though jealousy of Barneveldt made him favour the
       opposite party, whose chief champion was Jacob Gomer, or
       Gomerus as he called himself. King James, though really
       holding with the Arminians, disliked Barneveldt, and therefore
       threw all the weight of England into the scale against them.
       Arguments were held before Maurice and before the university,
       in which three champions on the one side were pitted against
       three on the other, but nothing came of them but a good deal
       of audacious profanity, till Arminius, in ministering to the
       sick during a visitation of the plague at Amsterdam, caught
       the disease and died. He was so much respected that the
       University of Leyden pensioned his widow. They chose a young
       Genevese, named Conrad Voorst or Vorstius, as his successor.
       Voorst had written two books, one on the nature of God,
       Tractatus Theologicus de Deo, and the other, Exegesis
       Apologetica, in which (by Fuller's account) there was a
       considerable amount of materialism, and likewise what amounted
       to a denial of the Divine Omniscience, being no doubt a
       reaction from extreme Calvinism. King James met with the book,
       and was horrified at its statements. He conceived himself
       bound to interfere both as protector to the States—which he
       said had been cemented with English blood—and because the
       University of Leyden was much frequented by the youth of
       England and Scotland, who often completed their legal studies
       there. He ordered Sir Ralf Winwood, his ambassador at the
       Hague, to deliver a sharp remonstrance to the States, and to
       read them a catalogue of the dangerous and blasphemous errors
       that he had detected, recommending the States to protest
       against the appointment, and burn the books. Barneveldt was
       much distressed, and uncertain whether James really was
       speaking out of zeal for orthodoxy, or to have an excuse for a
       quarrel. Letters and arguments passed without number. …
       Leyden supported the professor it had invited, and, together
       with Barneveldt, felt that to expel a man whom they had
       chosen, at the bidding of a foreign sovereign, was almost
       accepting a yoke like that of the Inquisition. … Maurice, on
       the other hand, was glad to set the English King against
       Barneveldt, and to represent that support of the foes of
       strict Calvinism meant treachery to the Republic and a
       betrayal to Spain. Winwood, on the King's part, insisted on
       Vorstius's dismissal and banishment. … Maurice's own
       preacher, Uytenbogen, wrote a remonstrance on behalf of the
       Arminians, who were therefore sometimes termed Remonstrants,
       while the Gomerists, from their answer, were called
       Counter-Remonstrants. Unfortunately, political jealousy of
       Barneveldt on the part of Maurice caused the influence of
       Uytenbogen to decline. Most of the preachers and of the
       populace held to the Counter-Remonstrants and their
       old-fashioned Calvinism, most of the nobles and magistrates
       were Remonstrants. The question began to branch into a second,
       namely, whether the state had power to control the faith of
       all its subjects, and whether when it convoked a synod it
       could control its decisions, or was bound to enforce them
       absolutely and without question. … Whichever party was
       predominant in a place turned the other out of church. Appeals
       were made to the Stadtholder, and he became angry. The
       States-General at large, with Barneveldt to speak for them,
       were Remonstrant; the states of Holland were
       Counter-Remonstrant; and one of the questions thus at issue
       was how far the power of the general government outweighed
       that of a particular state. … By steps here impossible to
       follow, Maurice destroyed the ascendency of Barneveldt, and
       the reports that the old statesman was playing into the hands
       of Spain grew more and more current. The magistrates of the
       Arminian persuasion found themselves depending for protection
       on the Waartgelders, a sort of burgher militia, who
       endeavoured to keep the peace between the furious mobs who
       struggled on either side. Accusations flew about freely that
       now Maurice, now Barneveldt wanted the sovereignty. England
       favoured the former; and after Henri IV. was dead, French
       support little availed the latter, but rather did him harm.
       Maurice did not scruple to raise the popular cry that there
       were two factions in Holland, for Orange or for Spain, though
       he must have known that there never had been a more steady foe
       of Spain than the old statesman. The public, however,
       preferred the general to the statesman, and bit by bit Maurice
       succeeded in exchanging Remonstrant magistrates for
       Counter-Remonstrant, or, as Barneveldt explained the matter to
       Sir Dudley Carleton, who had become ambassador from England,
       Puritan for double Puritan. … Sunday, the 17th of July,
       1617, Uytenbogen preached against the assembly of a national
       synod, knowing well that it would only confirm and narrow the
       cruel doctrine. Maurice, who was bent on the synod came out in
       a rage. …
    {2278}
       Barneveldt on this moved the States-General to refuse their
       consent to the synod as inconsistent with their laws. This was
       carried by a majority, and was called the Sharp Resolve. …
       The High Council by a majority of one set aside the Sharp
       Resolve, and decided for the synod. Barneveldt had a severe
       illness, during which Maurice's influence made progress,
       assisted by detestable accusations that the Advocate was in
       league with the Spaniards. At last Maurice mastered Utrecht,
       hitherto the chief hold of Arminianism. He disbanded the
       Waartgelders, and when the States-General came together in the
       summer of 1618, he had all prepared for sweeping his
       adversaries from his path. On the 29th of August, as
       Barneveldt was going to take his place at the States-General,
       he was told by a chamberlain that the Prince wished to speak
       with him, and in Maurice's ante-room was arrested by a
       lieutenant of the guard and locked up. In exactly the same
       manner was arrested his friend and supporter Pensionary
       Rambolt Hoogenboets, who had protested against the decree by
       which the High Council reversed that of the States-General,
       and Hugo Van Groot, or, as he called himself, Hugo Grotius,
       one of the greatest scholars who ever lived, especially in
       jurisprudence, and a strong adherent of the Advocate. … The
       synod met at Dordrecht [or Dort] in January, 1619, and lasted
       till April. The Calvinists carried the day completely, and
       Arminians were declared heretics, schismatics, incapable of
       preaching, or of acting as professors or schoolmasters, unless
       they signed the Heidelberg Catechism and Netherland
       Confession, which laid down the hard-and-fast doctrine that
       predestination excluded all free will on man's part, but
       divided the human race into vessels of wrath and vessels of
       mercy, without power on their own part to reverse the doom.
       … The trial of Barneveldt was going on at the same time with
       the Synod of Dordrecht after he had been many months in
       prison. Twenty-four commissioners were appointed, twelve from
       Holland, and two from each of the other states, and most of
       them were personal enemies of the prisoner. Before them he was
       examined day by day for three months, without any indictment;
       no witnesses, no counsel on either side; nor was he permitted
       pen and ink to prepare his defence, nor the use of his books
       and papers." Barneveldt and his family protested against the
       flagrant injustice and illegality of the so-called trial, but
       refused to sue for pardon, which Maurice was determined they
       should do. "It was submission that he wanted, not life"; but
       as the submission was not yielded he coldly exacted the life.
       Barneveldt was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded by the
       sword. The sentence was executed on the same day it was
       pronounced, May 12, 1619. Grotius was condemned to perpetual
       imprisonment, but made his escape, by the contrivance of his
       wife, in 1621.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          series 6, chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          Life and Death of John of Barneveld,
          chapters 14-22 (volume 2).

          J. Arminius,
          Works, etc.; edited by Nichols,
          volume 1.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D.1608-1620.
       Residence of the exiled Independents who afterwards founded
       Plymouth Colony in New England.

          See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
       The founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
       Henry Hudson's voyage of exploration.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1610-1614.
       Possession taken of New Netherland (New York).

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1621.
       Incorporation of the Dutch West India Company.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
       End of the Twelve Years Truce.
       Renewal of war.
       Death of Prince Maurice.
       Reversion of the sovereignty of the Spanish Provinces to
       the king of Spain.

       "In 1621, the twelve years' truce being expired, the King of
       Spain and the Archdukes offered to renew it, on the condition
       that the States would acknowledge their ancient sovereigns,
       one of whom, the Archduke Albert, died this year. Even if the
       States had been inclined to negotiate, the will of Maurice was
       in the ascendant, and the war was renewed. The Dutch, it is
       true, were now entirely insulated. James of England was making
       overtures to Spain and being cajoled. France, who had wished
       to save Barneveldt, was unfriendly in consequence of the
       manner in which her intercession had been treated. The Dutch
       party which was opposed to Maurice was exasperated, and the
       great counsellor was no more there to advise his country in
       its emergencies. The safety of Holland lay in the fact that
       the wars of religion were being waged on a wider and more
       distant field, for a larger stake, and with larger armies. Not
       content with murdering Barneveldt, Maurice took care to ruin
       his family. But at last, and just before his death in 1625,
       Maurice, in the bitterness of disappointment, said, 'As long
       as the old rascal was alive, we had counsels and money; now we
       can find neither one nor the other.' … The memory of
       Barneveldt was avenged, even though his reputation has not
       been rehabilitated. Frederic Henry, half-brother of Maurice,
       was at once made Captain and Admiral-General of the States,
       and soon after Stadtholder. … Very speedily the controversy
       which had threatened to tear Holland asunder was silenced by
       mutual consent, except in synods and presbyteries. In a few
       years, Holland became, as far as the government was concerned,
       the most tolerant country in the world, the asylum of those
       whom bigotry hunted from their native land. Hence it became
       the favourite abode of those wealthy and enterprising Jews,
       who greatly increased its wealth by aiding its external and
       internal commerce."

          J. E. T. Rogers,
          Story of Holland,
          chapter 26.

       "Marquis Spinola commenced the campaign by the siege of.
       Bergen-op-Zoom, with a considerable Spanish army, in 1622, but
       Maurice was enabled to meet him with the united forces of
       Mansfeld, Brunswick [see GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623], and his
       own, and obliged the Marquis to raise the siege. He afterwards
       encountered Don Gonsalvo de Cordova, who endeavoured to stay
       their passage into Germany with a Spanish force near Fleurus;
       but he also was defeated. After this, however, Prince Maurice
       could effect nothing considerable, but maintained his ground
       solely by acting on the defensive during the entire year 1623.
       … He could not prevent the capture [by Spinola] of Breda,
       one of the strongest fortifications of the Low Countries. …
       The mortification at being unable to relieve this place during
       a long blockade of six months preyed upon the mind of Prince
       Maurice, whose health had already begun to give way. … An
       access of fever obliged him to quit the field and withdraw to
       the Hague, where he died in 1625, at the age of 58 years."

          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
          Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
          page 47.

    {2279}

       The new Stadtholder, Prince Frederic Henry, made every effort
       to raise the siege of Breda, but without success, and the
       place was surrendered (June 2, 1625) to the Spaniards. In the
       next year little was accomplished on either side; but in 1627
       the Prince took Grol, after a siege of less than one month. In
       1628 the Dutch Admiral Piet Heyn captured one of the Spanish
       silver-fleets, with a cargo, largely pure silver, valued at
       12,000,000 florins. In 1629 the king of Spain and the
       Archduchess made overtures of peace, with offers of a renewed
       truce for 24 years. "But no sooner did the negotiations become
       public than they encountered general and violent opposition,"
       especially from the West India Company, which found the war
       profitable, and from the ministers of the church. At the same
       time the operations of the war assumed more activity. The
       Prince laid siege to Bois-le-Duc, a Brabant town deemed
       impregnable, and the Spaniards, to draw him away, invaded
       Guelderland, and captured Amersfoort, near Utrecht. They laid
       waste the country, and were compelled to retire, without
       interrupting the siege of Bois-le-Duc, which presently was
       surrendered. In 1631 the Prince undertook the siege of
       Dunkirk, which had long been a rendezvous of pirates,
       troublesome to the commerce of all the surrounding nations;
       but on the approach of a Spanish relieving force, the deputies
       of the States, who had authority over the commander, required
       him to relinquish the undertaking. In 1632, the Prince
       achieved a great success, in the siege and reduction of
       Maestricht, which he accomplished, notwithstanding his lines
       were attacked by a Spanish army of 24,000 men, and by an army
       from Germany, under the Imperial general Pappenheim, who
       brought 16,000 men to assist in raising the siege. In the face
       of these two armies, Maestricht was forced to capitulate, and
       the fall of Limburg followed. Peace negotiations were reopened
       the same year, but came to nothing, and they were followed
       shortly by the death of the Archduchess Isabella. "At her
       death, the Netherlands, in pursuance of the terms of the
       surrender made by Philip II., reverted to the King of Spain,
       who placed the government, after it had been administered a
       short time by a commission, in the hands of the Marquis of
       Aitona, commander-in-chief of the army, until the arrival of
       his brother Ferdinand, cardinal and archbishop of Toledo
       [known as 'the Cardinal Infant'], whom he had, during the
       lifetime of the Archduchess, appointed her successor."

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. R. Markham,
          The Fighting Veres,
          part 2, chapter 4.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1623.
       The massacre of Amboyna.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1624-1661.
       Conquests in Brazil and their loss.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1625.
       The Protestant alliance in the Thirty Years War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1635.
       Alliance with France against Spain and Austria.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
       The Cardinal Infant in the government
       of the Spanish Provinces.
       His campaigns against the Dutch and French.
       Invasion of France.
       Dutch capture of Breda.

       In 1635, the Archduchess Isabella having recently died, it was
       thought expedient in Spain "that a member of the royal family
       should be intrusted with the administration of the Netherlands
       [Spanish Provinces]. This appointment was accordingly
       conferred on the Cardinal Infant [Ferdinand, son of Philip
       III.], who was at that time in Italy, where he had collected a
       considerable army. With this force, amounting to about 12,000
       men, he had passed in the preceding year through Germany, on
       his route to the Netherlands, and, having formed a junction
       with the Imperialists, under the King of Hungary, he greatly
       contributed to the victory gained over the Swedes and German
       Protestants, at Nordlingen. …

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

       The Cardinal Infant entered on the civil and military
       government of the Spanish Netherlands nearly at the time when
       the seizure of the Elector of Treves had called forth from
       France an open declaration of war. By uniting the newly raised
       troops which he had brought with him from Italy to the veteran
       legions of the provinces, he found himself at the head of a
       considerable military force. At the same time, an army of
       20,000 French was assembled under the inspection of their king
       at Amiens, and was intrusted to Chatillon, and Mareschal Brezé
       the brother-in-law of Richelieu. … It was intended, however,
       that this army should form a junction with the Dutch at
       Maestricht, after which the troops of both nations should be
       placed under the orders of Frederic Henry, Prince of Orange,
       who had inherited all the military talents of his ancestors.
       In order to counteract this movement, the Cardinal Infant
       separated his army into two divisions. One was ordered to
       confront the Dutch, and the other, under Prince Thomas of
       Savoy, marched to oppose the progress of the French. This
       latter division of the Spaniards encountered the enemy at
       Avein, in the territory of Liege; but though it had taken up a
       favourable position, it was totally defeated, and forced to
       retreat to Namur. The French army then continued its march
       with little farther interruption, and effected its intended
       union with the Dutch in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. After
       this junction, the Prince of Orange assumed the command of the
       allied army, which now stormed and sacked Tillemont, where
       great cruelties were committed. … The union of the two
       armies spread terror throughout the Spanish Netherlands, and
       the outrages practised at Tillemont gave the Catholics a
       horror at the French name and alliance. … The Flemings,
       forgetting their late discontents with the Spanish government,
       now made the utmost efforts against their invaders. … The
       Spanish prince … contrived to elude a general engagement.
       … His opponents … were obliged to employ their arms in
       besieging towns. It was believed for some time that they
       intended to invest Brussels, but the storm fell on Louvain."
       The Emperor now sent from Germany a force of 18,000 men, under
       Piccolomini, "to the succour of the Cardinal Infant.
    {2280}
       The slowness of all the operations of the Prince of Orange
       afforded sufficient time for these auxiliaries to cut off the
       French supplies of provisions, and advance to the relief of
       Louvain. On the intelligence of their approach, the
       half-famished French abandoned the siege, and, after suffering
       severely in their retreat, retired to recruit at Ruremonde.
       The Dutch afforded them no assistance, and showed them but
       little sympathy in their disasters. Though the Dutch hated
       Spain, they were jealous of France, and dreaded an increase of
       its power in the Netherlands. … Mareschals Chatillon and
       Brezé, who were thus in a great measure the victims of the
       policy of their allies, were under the necessity of leading
       back beyond the Meuse, to Nimeguen, the wretched remains of
       their army, now reduced to 9,000 men. … After the departure
       of the French, the exertions of the Prince of Orange were
       limited, during this season, to an attempt for the recovery of
       the strong fortress of Skink, which had recently been reduced
       by the Spaniards. The Cardinal Infant, availing himself of the
       opportunity thus presented to him, quickly regained, by aid of
       the Austrian reinforcements, his superiority in the field. He
       took several fortresses from the Dutch, and sent to the
       frontiers of France detachments which levied contributions
       over great part of Picardy and Champagne. … Encouraged by
       these successes, Olivarez [the Spanish minister] redoubled his
       exertions, and now boldly planned invasions of France from
       three different quarters"—to enter Picardy on the north,
       Burgundy on the east, and Guienne at the south. "Of all these
       expeditions, the most successful, at least for a time, was the
       invasion of Picardy, which, indeed, had nearly proved fatal to
       the French monarchy. By orders of the Cardinal Infant, his
       generals, Prince Thomas of Savoy, Piccolomini, and John de
       Vert, or Wert, … began their march at the head of an army
       which exceeded 30,000 men, and was particularly strong in
       cavalry. … No interruption being … offered by the Dutch,
       the Spanish generals entered Picardy [1636], and seized almost
       without resistance on La Capelle and Catelet, which the French
       ministry expected would have occupied their arms for some
       months. The Count de Soissons, who was already thinking more
       of his plots against Richelieu than the defence of his
       country, did nothing to arrest the progress of the Spaniards,
       till they arrived at the Somme," and there but little. They
       forced the passage of the river with slight difficulty, and
       "occupied Roye, to the south of the Somme, on the river Oise;
       and having thus obtained an entrance into France, spread
       themselves over the whole country lying between these rivers.
       The smoke of the villages to which they set fire was seen from
       the heights in the vicinity of Paris; and such in that capital
       was the consternation consequent on these events that it seems
       probable, had the Spanish generals marched straight on Paris,
       the city would have fallen into their hands." But Prince
       Thomas was not bold enough for the exploit, and prudently
       "receded with his army to form the siege of Corbie. This town
       presented no great resistance to his arms, but the time
       occupied by its capture allowed the Parisians to recover from
       their consternation, and to prepare the means of defence."
       They raised an army of 60,000 men, chiefly apprentices and
       artisans of the capital, before which Prince Thomas was
       obliged to retreat. "The French quickly recovered all those
       fortified places in Picardy which had been previously lost by
       the incapacity, or, as Richelieu alleged, by the treachery of
       their governors. But they could not prevent the Spaniards from
       plundering and desolating the country as they retired. … The
       Cardinal Infant was obliged to remain on the defensive for
       some time after his retreat from Picardy to the Netherlands,
       which were anew invaded by a French force, under the Cardinal
       La Valette, a younger son of the Duke d'Epernon. But even
       while restricting his operations to defence, the Infant could
       not prevent the capture by the French of Ivry and Landreci in
       Hainault. While opposing the enemy in that quarter, he
       received intelligence of an unexpected attempt on Breda by the
       Dutch [1637]. He immediately hastened to its relief; but the
       Prince of Orange having rapidly collected 6,000 or 7,000
       peasants, whom he had employed in forming intrenchments and
       drawing lines of circumvallation, was so well fortified on the
       arrival of the Cardinal Infant, who had crossed the Scheldt at
       Antwerp, and approached with not fewer than 25,000 men, that
       that Prince, in despair of forcing the enemy's camp, or in any
       way succouring Breda, marched towards Guelderland. In that
       province he took Venlo and Ruremonde; but Breda, as he had
       anticipated, surrendered to the Dutch after a siege of nine
       weeks. … Its capture greatly relieved the Dutch in Brabant,
       who now, for many years, had been checked by an enemy in the
       heart of their territories. … Early in the year 1638, the
       Infant resumed offensive operations, and again rendered
       himself formidable to his enemies. He frustrated the attempts
       which the Dutch had concerted against Antwerp. … In person
       he beat off the army of the Prince of Orange, who had invested
       Gueldres; and, about the same time, his active generals;
       Prince Thomas of Savoy and Piccolomini, compelled the French
       to raise the siege of St. Omer."

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoirs of Spain from 1621 to 1700,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1643.
       Invasion of France by the Spaniards and their defeat at Rocroi.
       Loss of Thionville and the line of the Moselle.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; and 1643.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
       French campaign in Flanders, under Orleans and Enghien (Conde).
       Siege and capture of Dunkirk.

       "In 1645, Orleans led the [French] army into Flanders, and
       began the campaign with the capture of Mardyck. A few weeks of
       leisurely siege resulted in the conquest of some towns, and by
       the first of September Gaston sought rest at the Court. As it
       was now well towards the end of the season, the Hollanders
       were at last ready to cooperate, and they joined the French
       under Gassion and Rantzau. But the allied armies did little
       except march and countermarch, and at the end of the year the
       Spaniards surprised the French garrison at Mardyck and retook
       the only place of importance they had lost. … Gaston was,
       however, well content even with the moderate glory of such
       warfare. In 1646 he commanded an army of 35,000 men, one
       portion of which was led by Enghien himself. The Hollanders
       were under arms unusually early, but they atoned for this by
       accomplishing nothing. The French laid siege to Courtrai,
       which in due time surrendered, and they then spent three weeks
       in a vigorous siege of Mardyck.
    {2281}
       This place was finally captured for the second time in
       fourteen months. It was now late in August, and Orleans was
       ready to rest from a campaign which had lasted three months.
       … By the departure of Gaston the Duke of Enghien was left
       free to attempt some important movement, and his thoughts
       turned upon the capture of the city of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was
       situated on the shore of the North Sea, in a position that
       made it alike important and formidable to commerce. … Its
       harbor leading to a canal in the city where a fleet might
       safely enter, and its position near the shores of France and
       the British Channel, had rendered it a frequent retreat for
       pirates. The cruisers that captured the ships of the merchants
       of Havre and Dieppe, or made plundering expeditions along the
       shores of Picardy and Normandy, found safe refuge in the
       harbor of Dunkirk. Its name was odious through northern
       France, alike to the shipper and the resident of the towns
       along the coast. The ravages of the pirates of Dunkirk are
       said to have cost France as much as a million a year. … The
       position of Dunkirk was such that it seemed to defy attack,
       and the strangeness and wildness of its approaches added
       terror to its name. It was surrounded by vast plains of sand,
       far over which often spread the waters of the North Sea, and
       its name was said to signify the church of the dunes. Upon
       them the fury of the storms often worked strange changes. What
       had seemed solid land would be swallowed up in some tempest.
       What had been part of the ocean would be left so that men and
       wagons could pass over what the day before had been as
       inaccessible as the Straits of Dover. An army attempting a
       siege would find itself on these wild dunes far removed from
       any places for supplies, and exposed to the utmost severity of
       storm and weather. Tents could hardly be pitched, and the
       changing sands would threaten the troops with destruction. The
       city was, moreover, garrisoned by 3,000 soldiers, and by 3,000
       of the citizens and 2,000 sailors. … The ardor of Enghien
       was increased by these difficulties, and he believed that with
       skill and vigor the perils of a siege could be overcome. This
       plan met the warm approval of Mazarin. … Enghien advanced
       with his army of about 15,000 men, and on the 10th of
       September the siege began. It was necessary to prevent
       supplies being received by sea. Tromp, excited to hearty
       admiration of the genius of the young general, sailed with ten
       ships into the harbor, and cut off communications. Enghien, in
       the meantime, was pressing the circumvallation of the city
       with the utmost vigor. … Half fed, wet, sleepless, the men
       worked on, inspired by the zeal of their leader. Piccolomini
       attempted to relieve the city, but he could not force
       Enghien's entrenchments, except by risking a pitched battle,
       and that he did not dare to venture. Mines were now carried
       under the city by the besiegers, and a great explosion made a
       breach in the wall. The French and Spanish met, but the smoke
       and confusion were so terrible that both sides at last fell
       back in disorder. The French finally discovered that the
       advantage was really theirs, and held the position. Nothing
       now remained but a final and bloody assault, but Leyde did not
       think that honor required him to await this. He agreed that if
       he did not receive succor by the 10th of October, the city
       should be surrendered. Piccolomini dared not risk the last
       army in Flanders in an assault on Enghien's entrenchments,
       and, on October 11th, the Spanish troops evacuated the town. A
       siege of three weeks had conquered obstacles of man and
       nature, and destroyed the scourge of French commerce."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Condé,
          chapter 2.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
       Final Negotiation of Peace between Spain and the
       United Provinces.

       "The late campaign had been so unfortunate [to the Spaniards]
       that they felt their only possibility of obtaining reasonable
       terms, or of continuing the war with the hope of a change in
       fortune, was to break the alliance between Holland and
       France. A long debt of gratitude, assistance rendered in the
       struggle with Spain when assistance was valuable, the treaty
       of 1635 renewed in 1644, forbade Holland making a peace,
       except jointly with France. On the other hand, the
       States-General were weary of war, and jealous of the power and
       ambition of the French. … This disposition was skilfully
       fostered by the Spanish envoys. Pau and Knuyt,
       plenipotentiaries from Holland to the Congress at Münster
       [where, in part, the negotiations of the Peace of Westphalia
       were in progress—see GERMANY: A. D. 1648], were gained to the
       Spanish interest, as Mazarin claimed, by the promise to each
       of 100,000 crowns. But, apart from bribes, the Spanish used
       Mazarin's own plans to alarm the Hollanders. … It was
       intimated to the Hollanders that France was about to make a
       separate peace, that the Spanish Netherlands were to be given
       her, and that perhaps with the hand of the infanta might be
       transferred what claims Spain still made on the allegiance of
       the United Provinces. The French protested in vain they had
       never thought of making any treaty unless Holland joined, and
       that the proposed marriage of Louis with the infanta had been
       idle talk, suggested by the Spanish for the purpose of
       alarming the States-General. The Hollanders were suspicious,
       and they became still more eager for peace. … In the spring
       of 1646, seventy-one proposed articles had been submitted to
       the Spanish for their consideration. The French made repeated
       protests against these steps, but the States-General insisted
       that they were only acting with such celerity as should enable
       them to have the terms of their treaty adjusted as soon as
       those of the French. The successes of 1646 and the capture of
       Dunkirk quickened the desires of the United Provinces for a
       treaty with their ancient enemy. … In December, 1646,
       articles were signed between Spain and Holland, to be inserted
       in the treaty of Münster, when that should be settled upon,
       though the States-General still declared that no peace should
       be made unless the terms were approved by France. Active
       hostilities were again commenced in 1647, but little progress
       was made in Flanders during this campaign. Though the
       Hollanders had not actually made peace with Spain, they gave
       the French no aid. … On January 30, 1648, the treaty was at
       last signed. 'One would think,' wrote Mazarin, 'that for
       eighty years France had been warring with the provinces, and
       Spain had been protecting them. They have stained their
       reputation with a shameful blemish.'
    {2282}
       It was eighty years since William of Orange had issued his
       proclamation inviting all the Netherlands to take up arms 'to
       oppose the violent tyranny of the Spaniards.' Unlike the truce
       of 1609, a formal and final peace was now made. The United
       Provinces were acknowledged as free and sovereign states. At
       the time of the truce the Spaniards had only treated with them
       'in quality of, and as holding them for independent
       provinces.' By a provision which had increased the eagerness
       for peace of the burghers and merchants of the United
       Provinces, it was agreed that the Escaut [Scheldt] should be
       closed. The wealth and commerce of Antwerp were thus
       sacrificed for the benefit of Amsterdam. The trade with the
       Indies was divided between the two countries. Numerous
       commercial advantages were secured and certain additional
       territory was ceded to the States-General."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

       "It had … become a settled conviction of Holland that a
       barrier of Spanish territory between the United Provinces and
       France was necessary as a safeguard against the latter. But
       the idea of fighting to maintain that barrier had not yet
       arisen, though fighting was the outcome of the doctrine. All
       that the United Provinces now did, or could do, was simply to
       back out of the war with Spain, sit still, and look passively
       upon the conflict between her and France for possession of the
       barrier, until it should please the two belligerents to make
       peace."

          J. Geddes,
          History of the Administration of John De Witt,
          book 2, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1647-1648.
       The Spanish war with France.
       Siege and Battle of Lens.

       "While Condé was at the head of the army of the Netherlands,
       it at least suffered no disaster; but, while he was affording
       the enemy a triumph in Spain [by his failure at Lerida,—the
       army which he left behind him was equally unfortunate].

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

       As he had taken some regiments with him to Spain, it did not
       exceed 16,000 men; and in 1647 was commanded by the two
       marshals, Gassion and Rantzau," who exercised the command on
       alternate days. Both were brave and skilful officers, but they
       were hostile to one another, and Rantzau was, unfortunately, a
       drunkard. "The Spanish army had been raised to 22,000 men, and
       besides being superior in numbers to them, was now under the
       command of a singularly active leader, the Archduke Leopold.
       He took town after town before their face; and towards the end
       of June laid siege to Landrecies. The danger of so important a
       place stimulated Mazarin to send some strong battalions,
       including the royal guards, to reinforce the army: and the two
       marshals made skilful dispositions to surprise the Spanish
       camp. By a night march of great rapidity, they reached the
       neighbourhood of the enemy without their presence being
       suspected; but the next morning, when the attack was to be
       made, it was Rantzau's turn to command; and he was too
       helplessly drunk to give the necessary orders. Before he had
       recovered his consciousness daylight had revealed his danger
       to the archduke, and he had taken up a position in which he
       could give battle with advantage. Greatly mortified, the
       French were forced to draw off, and leave Landrecies to its
       fate. As some apparent set-off to their losses, they succeeded
       in taking Dixmude, and one or two other unimportant towns, and
       were besieging Lens, when Gassion was killed; and though, a
       few days afterwards, that town was taken, its capture made but
       small amends. … Though the war was almost at an end in
       Germany, Turenne was still in that country; and, therefore,
       the next year there was no one who could be sent to replace
       Gassion but Condé and Grammont, who fortunately for the
       prince, was his almost inseparable comrade and adviser. …
       Though 16,000 men had been thought enough for Gassion and
       Rantzau, 30,000 were now collected to enable Condé to make a
       more successful campaign. The archduke had received no
       reinforcements, and had now only 18,000 men to make head
       against him; yet with this greatly inferior force he, for a
       while, balanced Condé's successes; losing Ypres, it is true,
       but taking Courtrai and Furnes, and defeating and almost
       annihilating a division with which the prince had detached
       Rantzau to make an attempt upon Ostend. At last, in the middle
       of August, he laid siege to Lens, the capture of which had, as
       we have already mentioned, been the last exploit of the French
       army in the preceding campaign, and which was now retaken
       without the garrison making the slightest effort at
       resistance. But, just as the first intelligence of his having
       sat down before it reached Condé, he was joined by the Count
       d'Erlach with a reinforcement of 5,000 men from the German
       army; and he resolved to march against the archduke in the
       hope of saving" the place. "He arrived in sight of the town on
       the 20th of August, a few hours after it had surrendered; and
       he found the archduke's victorious army in a position which,
       eager as he was for battle, he could not venture to attack.
       For Leopold had 18,000 men under arms, and the force that
       Condé had been able to bring with him did not exceed 14,000,
       with 18 guns. For the first time in his life he decided on
       retreating;" but early in the retreat his army was thrown into
       disorder by an attack from the archduke's cavalry, commanded
       by General Beck. "All was nearly lost, when Grammont turned
       the fortune of the day. He was in the van, but the moment that
       he learnt what was taking place behind him, he halted the
       advanced guard, and leading it back towards the now triumphant
       enemy, gave time for those regiments which had been driven in
       to rally behind the firm line which he presented. … It soon
       came to be a contest of hard fighting, unvaried by manœuvres
       on either side; and in hard fighting no troops could stand
       before those who might be lead by Condé. … At last victory
       declared for him in every part of his line. He had sustained a
       heavy loss himself, but less than that of the enemy, who left
       3,000 of their number slain upon the field; while 5,000
       prisoners, among whom was Beck himself, struck down by a
       mortal wound, and nearly all their artillery and baggage,
       attested the reality and greatness of his triumph."

          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
          part 1, pages 149-152.

    {2283}

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650.
       Suspension of the Stadtholdership.
       Supremacy of the States of Holland.

       The fourth stadtholder, William II., who succeeded his father,
       Frederick Henry, in 1647, "was young and enterprising, and not at
       all disposed to follow the pacific example of his father. …
       His attempt at a coup d'état only prepared the way for an
       interregnum. … He was brother-in-law to the Elector of
       Brandenburg … and son-in-law to Charles I. of England and
       Henrietta Maria, the sister of Louis XIII. … The proud
       descendant of the Stuarts, the Princess Mary, who had been
       married to him when hardly more than a child, thought it
       beneath her not to be the wife of a sovereign, and encouraged
       her husband not to be satisfied to remain merely 'the official
       of a republic.' Thus encouraged, the son of Frederick Henry
       cherished the secret purpose of transforming the elective
       stadtholdership into an hereditary monarchy. … He needed
       supreme authority to enable him to render assistance to
       Charles I. … Finding in the opposition of the States an
       insurmountable obstacle to his wish of intervention, he sought
       the support of France, … and was now ready to come to an
       understanding with Mazarin to break the treaty of Munster and
       wrest the Netherlands from Spain. Mazarin promised in return
       to help him to assert his authority over the States. … But
       if William desired war, the United Provinces, and in
       particular the province of Holland, could not dispense with
       peace. … The States of Holland … fixed the period for the
       disbanding of the twenty-nine companies whose dismissal had
       been promised to them. After twelve days of useless
       deliberations they issued definite orders to that effect. The
       step had been provoked, but it was precipitate and might give
       rise to a legal contest as to their competency. The Prince of
       Orange, therefore, eager to hasten a struggle from which he
       expected an easy victory, chose to consider the resolution of
       the States of Holland as a signal for the rupture of the
       Union, and the very next day solemnly demanded reparation from
       the States-General, who in their turn issued a counter order.
       The Prince made skilful use of the rivalry of power between
       the two assemblies to obtain for himself extraordinary powers
       which were contrary to the laws of the Confederation. By the
       terms of the resolution, which was passed by only four
       provinces, of which two were represented by but one deputy
       each, he was authorised to take all measures necessary for the
       maintenance of order and peace, and particularly for the
       preservation of the Union. 'The States-General consequently
       commissioned him to visit the town councils of Holland,
       accompanied by six members of the States-General and of the
       Council of State, with all the pomp of a military escort,
       including a large number of officers. He was charged to
       address them with remonstrances and threats intended to
       intimidate the provincial States.' This was the first act of
       the coup d'état that he had prepared, and his mistake was
       quickly shown him." The Prince gained nothing by his
       visitation of the towns. At Amsterdam he was not permitted to
       enter the place with his following, and he returned to the
       Hague especially enraged against that bold and independent
       city. He planned an expedition to take it by surprise; but the
       citizens got timely warning and his scheme was baffled. He had
       succeeded, however, in arresting and imprisoning six of the
       most influential deputies of the Assembly of Holland, and his
       attitude was formidable enough to extort some concessions from
       the popular party, by way of compromise. A state of suspicious
       quiet was restored for the time, which William improved by
       renewing negotiations for a secret treaty with France.
       "Arrogating to himself already the right to dispose as he
       pleased of the republic, he signed a convention with Count
       d'Estrades, whom he had summoned to the Hague. By this the
       King of France and the Prince of Orange engaged themselves 'to
       attack conjointly the Netherlands on May 1, 1651, with an army
       of 20,000 foot and 10,000 horse, to break at the same time
       with Cromwell, to re-establish Charles II. as King of England,
       and to make no treaty with Spain excepting in concert with
       each other.' The Prince of Orange guaranteed a fleet of 50
       vessels besides the land contingent, and in return for his
       co-operation was promised the absolute possession of the city
       of Antwerp and the Duchy of Brabant or Marquisate of the Holy
       Roman Empire. William thus interested France in the success of
       his cause by making ready to resume the war with Spain, and
       calculated, as he told his confidants, on profiting by her
       assistance to disperse the cabal opposed to him. … The
       internal pacification amounted then to no more than a truce,
       when three months later the Prince of Orange, having
       over-fatigued and heated himself in the chase, was seized with
       small-pox, of which in a few days he died. He was thus carried
       off at the age of 24, in the full force and flower of his age,
       leaving only one son, born a week after his father's death.
       … His attempt at a coup d'état was destined to press heavily
       and long upon the fate of the posthumous son, who had to wait
       22 years before succeeding to his ancestral functions. It
       closed the succession to him for many years, by making the
       stadtholdership a standing menace to the public freedom. …
       The son of William II., an orphan before his birth, and named
       William like his father, seemed destined to succeed to little
       more than the paternal name. … Three days after the death of
       William II., the former deputies, whom he had treated as state
       prisoners and deprived of all their offices, were recalled to
       take their seats in the Assembly. At the same time the
       provincial Town Councils assumed the power of nominating their
       own magistrates, which had almost always been left to the
       pleasure of the Stadtholder, and thus obtained the full
       enjoyment of municipal freedom. The States of Holland, on
       their side, grasped the authority hitherto exercised in their
       province by the Prince of Orange, and claimed successively all
       the rights of sovereignty. The States of Zealand … exhibited
       the same eagerness to free themselves from all subjection. …
       Thus, before declaring the stadtholdership vacant, the office
       was deprived of its prerogatives. To complete this
       transformation of the government, the States of Holland took
       the initiative in summoning to the Hague a great assembly of
       the Confederation, which met at the beginning of the year
       1651. … The congress was called upon to decide between two
       forms of constitution. The question was whether the United
       Provinces should be a republic governed by the States-General,
       or whether the government should belong to the States of each
       province, with only a reservation in favour of the obligations
       imposed by the Act of Union. Was each province to be sovereign
       in itself, or subject to the federal power?" The result was a
       suspension and practical abolition of the stadtholdership.
       "Freed from the counterbalancing power of the Stadtholder,
       Holland to a great extent absorbed the federal power, and was
       the gainer by all that that power lost. …
    {2284}
       The States of Holland, … destined henceforward to be the
       principal instrument of government of the republic, was
       composed partly of nobles and partly of deputies from the
       towns. … The Grand Pensionary was the minister of the States
       of Holland. He was appointed for five years, and represented
       them in the States-General. … Called upon by the vacancy in
       the stadtholdership to the government of the United Provinces,
       without any legal power of enforcing obedience, Holland
       required a statesman who could secure this political supremacy
       and use it for her benefit. The nomination of John de Witt as
       Grand Pensionary placed at her service one of the youngest
       members of the assembly."

          A. L. Pontalis,
          John de Witt,
          chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1648.
       Still held to form a part of the Empire.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1648-1665.
       Prosperity and pre-eminence of the Dutch Republic.
       The causes.

       "That this little patch of earth, a bog rescued from the
       waters, warred on ever by man and by the elements, without
       natural advantages except those of contact with the sea,
       should in the middle of the seventeenth century have become
       the commercial centre of Europe, is one of the phenomena of
       history. But in the explanation of this phenomenon history has
       one of its most instructive lessons. Philip II. said of
       Holland, 'that it was the country nearest to hell.' Well might
       he express such an opinion. He had buried around the walls of
       its cities more than three hundred thousand Spanish soldiers,
       and had spent in the attempt at its subjugation more than two
       hundred million ducats. This fact alone would account for his
       abhorrence, but, in addition, the republic was in its every
       feature opposed to the ideal country of a bigot and a despot.
       The first element which contributed to its wealth, as well as
       to the vast increase of its population, was its religious
       toleration. … This, of course, was as incomprehensible to a
       Spanish Catholic as it was to a High-Churchman or to a
       Presbyterian in England. That Lutherans, Calvinists,
       Anabaptists, Jews, and Catholics should all be permitted to
       live under the same government seemed to the rest of Europe
       like flying in the face of Providence. Critics at this time
       occasionally said that the Hollanders cared nothing for
       religion; that with them theology was of less account than
       commerce. To taunts like these no reply was needed by men who
       could point to their record of eighty years of war. This war
       had been fought for liberty of conscience, but more than all,
       as the greater includes the less, for civil liberty. During
       its continuance, and at every crisis, Catholics had stood side
       by side with Protestants to defend their country, as they had
       done in England when the Spanish Armada appeared upon her
       coast. It would have been a strange reward for their fidelity
       to subject them, as Elizabeth did, to a relentless
       persecution, upon the pretext that they were dangerous to the
       State. In addition to the toleration, there were other causes
       leading to the marvellous prosperity of the republic, which
       are of particular interest to Americans. In 1659, Samuel Lamb,
       a prominent and far-seeing London merchant, published a
       pamphlet, in the form of a letter to Cromwell, urging the
       establishment of a bank in England similar to the one at
       Amsterdam. In this pamphlet, which Lord Somers thought worthy
       of preservation, the author gives the reasons, as they
       occurred to him, which accounted for the vast superiority of
       Holland over the rest of Europe as a commercial nation. … As
       the foundation of a bank for England was the subject of the
       letter, the author naturally lays particular stress upon that
       factor, but the other causes which he enumerates as explaining
       the great trade of the republic are the following: First. The
       statesmen sitting at the helm in Holland are many of them
       merchants, bred to trade from their youth, improved by foreign
       travel, and acquainted with all the necessities of commerce.
       Hence, their laws and treaties are framed with wisdom. Second.
       In Holland when a merchant dies, his property is equally
       divided among his children, and the business is continued and
       expanded, with all its traditions and inherited experience. In
       England, on the contrary, the property goes to the eldest son,
       who often sets up for a country gentleman, squanders his
       patrimony, and neglects the business by which his father had
       become enriched. Third. The honesty of the Hollanders in their
       manufacturing and commercial dealings. When goods are made up
       in Holland, they sell everywhere without question, for the
       purchaser knows that they are exactly as represented in
       quality, weight, and measure. Not so with England's goods. Our
       manufacturers are so given to fraud and adulteration as to
       bring their commodities into disgrace abroad. 'And so the
       Dutch have the pre-eminence in the sale of their manufactures
       before us, by their true making, to their very files and
       needles.' Fourth. The care and vigilance of the government in
       the laying of impositions so as to encourage their own
       manufactures; the skill and rapidity with which they are
       changed to meet the shifting wants of trade; the encouragement
       given by ample rewards from the public treasury for useful
       inventions and improvements; and the promotion of men to
       office for services and not for favor or sinister ends. Such
       were the causes of the commercial supremacy of the Dutch as
       they appeared to an English merchant of the time, and all
       modern investigations support his view. … Sir Joshua
       [Josiah] Child, writing a few years later ['A New Discourse of
       Trade, page 2, and after—1665], gives a fuller explanation of
       the great prosperity of the Netherland Republic. He evidently
       had Lamb's pamphlet before him, for he enumerates all the
       causes set forth by his predecessor. In addition, he gives
       several others, as to some of which we shall see more
       hereafter. Among these are the general education of the
       people, including the women, religious toleration, care of the
       poor, low custom duties and high excise, registration of
       titles to real estate, low interest, the laws permitting the
       assignment of debts, and the judicial system under which
       controversies between merchants can be decided at one fortieth
       part of the expense in England. … Probably, no body of men
       governing a state were ever more enlightened and better
       acquainted with the necessities of legislation than were these
       burghers, merchants, and manufacturers who for two centuries
       gave laws to Holland. It was largely due to the intelligence
       displayed by these men that the republic, during the
       continuance of its war, was enabled to support a burden of
       taxation such as the world has rarely seen before or since.
    {2285}
       The internal taxes seem appalling. Rents were taxed
       twenty-five per cent.; on all sales of real estate two and a
       half per cent. were levied, and on all collateral inheritances
       five per cent. On beer, wine, meat, salt, spirits, and all
       articles of luxury, the tax was one hundred per cent., and on
       some articles this was doubled. But this was only the internal
       taxation, in the way of excise duties, which were levied on
       everyone, natives and foreigners alike. In regard to foreign
       commodities, which the republic needed for its support, the
       system was very different. Upon them there was imposed only a
       nominal duty of one per cent., while wool, the great staple
       for the manufacturers, was admitted free. Here the statesmen
       of the republic showed the wisdom which placed them, as
       masters of political economy, at least two centuries in
       advance of their contemporaries."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          volume 2, pages 324-331.

          ALSO IN:
          W. T. McCullagh,
          Industrial History of Free Nations,
          volume 2: The Dutch, chapter 12.

    NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1651-1660.
       The rule of Holland, and her Grand Pensionary, John de Witt.

       "The Republic had shaken off the domination of a person; it
       now fell under the domination of a single province. Holland
       was overwhelmingly preponderant in the federation. She
       possessed the richest, most populous, and most powerful towns.
       She contributed more than one-half of the whole federal
       taxation. She had the right of naming the ambassadors at
       Paris, Stockholm, and Vienna. The fact that the States General
       met on her territory—at the Hague—necessarily gave her
       additional influence and prestige. … With the Stadtholder's
       power that of the States General also, as representing the
       idea of centralisation, had largely disappeared. The
       Provincial Estates of Holland, therefore, under the title of
       'Their High Mightinesses,' became the principal power—to
       such an extent, indeed, that the term 'Holland' had by the
       time of the Restoration [the English Restoration, A. D. 1660]
       become synonymous among foreign powers with the whole
       Republic. Their chief minister was called 'The Grand
       Pensionary,' and the office had been since 1653 filled by one
       of the most remarkable men of the time, John de Witt. John de
       Witt therefore represented, roughly speaking, the power of the
       merchant aristocracy of Holland, as opposed to the claims of
       the House of Orange, which were supported by the 'noblesse,'
       the army, the Calvinistic clergy, and the people below the
       governing class. Abroad the Orange family had the sympathy of
       monarchical Governments. Louis XIV. despised the Government of
       'Messieurs les Marchands,' while Charles II., at once the
       uncle and the guardian of the young Prince of the house of
       Orange, the future William III. of England, and mindful of
       the scant courtesy which, to satisfy Cromwell, the Dutch had
       shown him in exile, was ever their bitter and unscrupulous
       foe. The empire of the Dutch Republic was purely commercial
       and colonial, and she held in this respect the same position
       relatively to the rest of Europe that England holds at the
       present day."

          O. Airy,
          The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Geddes,
          History of the Administration of John de Witt,
          volume 1.

    NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1652.
       Recovery of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
       Invasion of France. See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

    NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652.
       First Settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.
       See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

    NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652-1654.
       War with the English Commonwealth.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.

    NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1653-1656.
       Campaigns of Condé in the service of Spain against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D 1653-1656.

    NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1657-1658.
       England in alliance with France in the Franco-Spanish War.
       Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

    NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1659.
       Cessions of territory to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1664.
       The seizure of New Netherland by the English.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1665-1666.
       War with England renewed.

       "A formal declaration of war between Holland and England took
       place in March, 1665. The English nation, jealous of the
       commercial prosperity of Holland, eagerly seconded the views
       of the king against that country, and in regard to the war a
       remarkable degree of union prevailed throughout Great Britain.
       Such, however, was not the case with the Dutch, who were very
       much divided in opinion, and had many reasons to be doubtful
       of the support of France. One of the grand objects of Charles
       II. was undoubtedly … to restore his nephew the Prince of
       Orange to all the power which had been held by his ancestors
       in the United Provinces. But between Holland and England there
       existed, besides numerous other most fertile causes of
       discord, unsettled claims, upon distant territories, rival
       colonies in remote parts of the world, maritime jealousy and
       constant commercial opposition. These were national motives
       for hostility, and affected a large body of the Dutch people.
       But, on the other hand, considerations of general interest
       were set aside by the political factions which divided the
       United Provinces, and which may be classed under the names of
       the Republican and the Monarchical parties. The Monarchical
       party was, of course, that which was attached to the interests
       of the House of Orange. … In the end of 1664, 130 Dutch
       merchantmen had been captured by England; acts of hostility
       had occurred in Guinea, at the Cape de Verd, [in New
       Netherland], and in the West Indies: but Louis [XIV. of
       France] had continued to avoid taking any active part against
       Great Britain, notwithstanding all the representations of De
       Witt, who on this occasion saw in France the natural ally of
       Holland. On the 13th of June [1665], however, a great naval
       engagement took place between the Dutch fleet, commanded by
       Opdam and Van Tromp, and the English fleet, commanded by the
       Duke of York and Prince Rupert. Opdam was defeated and killed;
       Van Tromp saved the remains of his fleet; and on the very same
       day a treaty was concluded between Arlington [the English
       minister] and an envoy of the Bishop of Munster, by which it
       was agreed that the warlike and restless prelate should invade
       the United Provinces with an army of 20,000 men, in
       consideration of sums of money to be paid by England.
    {2286}
       This treaty at once called Louis into action, and he notified
       to the Bishop of Munster that if he made any hostile movement
       against the States of Holland he would find the troops of
       France prepared to oppose him. This fact was announced to the
       States by D'Estrades on the 22nd of July, together with the
       information that the French monarch was about to send to their
       assistance a body of troops by the way of Flanders. … Still,
       however, Louis hung back in the execution of his purposes,
       till the aspect of affairs in the beginning of 1666 forced him
       to declare war against England, on the 26th of January in that
       year, according to the terms of his treaty with Holland. …
       The part that France took in the war was altogether
       insignificant, and served but little to free the Dutch from
       the danger in which they were placed. That nation itself made
       vast efforts to obtain a superiority at sea; and in the
       beginning of June, 1666, the Dutch fleet, commanded by De
       Ruyter and Van Tromp, encountered the English fleet, under
       Monk and Prince Rupert, and a battle which lasted for four
       days, with scarcely any intermission, took place. It would
       seem that some advantage was gained by the Dutch; but both
       fleets were tremendously shattered, and retired to the ports
       of their own country to refit. Shortly after, however, they
       again encountered, and one of the most tremendous naval
       engagements in history took place, in which the Dutch suffered
       a complete defeat; 20 of their first-rate men-of-war were
       captured or sunk; and three admirals, with 4,000 men, were
       killed on the part of the States. The French fleet could not
       come up in time to take part in the battle, and all that Louis
       did was to furnish De Witt with the means of repairing the
       losses of the States as rapidly as possible. The energy of the
       grand pensionary himself, however, effected much more than the
       slow and unwilling succour of the French king. With almost
       superhuman exertion new fleets were made ready and manned,
       while the grand pensionary amused the English ministers with
       the prospect of a speedy peace on their own terms; and at a
       moment when England was least prepared, De Ruyter and
       Cornelius de Witt appeared upon the coast, sailed up the
       Thames, attacked and took Sheerness, and destroyed a great
       number of ships of the line. A multitude of smaller vessels
       were burnt; and the consternation was so great throughout
       England, that a large quantity of stores and many ships were
       sunk and destroyed by order of the British authorities
       themselves, while De Ruyter ravaged the whole sea-coast from
       the mouth of the Thames to the Land's End. The negotiations
       for peace, which had commenced at Breda, were now carried on
       upon terms much more advantageous to Holland, and were
       speedily concluded; England, notwithstanding the naval glory
       she had gained, being fully as much tired of the war as the
       States themselves. A general treaty was signed on the 25th of
       July."

          G. P. R. James,
          Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

       "The thunder of the Dutch guns in the Medway and the Thames
       woke England to a bitter sense of its degradation. The dream
       of loyalty was roughly broken. 'Everybody now-a-days,' Pepys
       tells us, 'reflect upon Oliver and commend him: what brave
       things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him.'
       But Oliver's successor was coolly watching this shame and
       discontent of his people with the one aim of turning it to his
       own advantage."

          J. R. Green,
          History of the English People,
          book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          C. D. Yonge,
          History of the British Navy,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

    NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1667.
       The claims and conquests of Louis XIV.
       The War of the Queen's Rights.

       In 1660 Louis XIV., king of France, was married to the Infanta
       of Spain, Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV., who solemnly
       renounced at the time, for herself and her posterity, all
       rights to the Spanish crown. The insincerity and hollowness of
       the renunciation was proved terribly at a later time by the
       long "war of the Spanish succession." Meantime Louis
       discovered other pretended rights in his Spanish wife on which
       he might found claims for the satisfaction of his territorial
       greed. These rested on the fact that she was born of her
       father's first marriage, and that a customary right in certain
       provinces of the Spanish Netherlands gave daughters of a first
       marriage priority of inheritance over sons of a second
       marriage. At the same time, in the laws of Luxembourg and
       Franche-Comté, which admitted all children to the partition of
       an inheritance, he found pretext for claiming, on behalf of
       his wife, one fourth of the former and one third of the
       principality last named. Philip IV. of Spain died in
       September, 1665, leaving a sickly infant son under the regency
       of an incapable and priest-ruled mother, and Louis began
       quickly to press his claims. Having made his preparations on a
       formidable scale, he sent forth in May, 1667, to all the
       courts of Europe, an elaborate "Treatise on the Rights of the
       Most Christian Queen over divers States of the monarchy of
       Spain," announcing at the same time his intention to make a
       "journey" in the Catholic Netherlands—the intended journey
       being a ruthless invasion, in fact, with 50,000 men, under the
       command of the great marshal-general, Turenne. The army began
       its march simultaneously with the announcement of its purpose,
       crossing the frontier on the 24th of May. Town after town was
       taken, some without resistance and others after a short, sharp
       siege, directed by Vauban, the most famous among military
       engineers. Charleroi was occupied on the 2d of June; Tournay
       surrendered on the 24th; two weeks later Douai fell; Courtrai
       endured only four days of siege and Oudenarde but two; Lille
       was a more difficult prize and held Turenne and the king
       before it for twenty days. "All Walloon Flanders had again
       become French at the price of less effort and bloodshed than
       it had cost, in the Middle Ages, to force one of its places.
       … September 1, the whole French army was found assembled
       before the walls of Ghent." But Ghent was not assailed, the
       French army being greatly fatigued and much reduced by the
       garrisoning of the conquered places. Louis, accordingly,
       returned to Saint-Germain, and Turenne, after taking Alost,
       went into winter quarters. Before the winter passed great
       changes of circumstance had occurred. The Triple Alliance of
       England, Holland and Sweden had been formed, Louis had made
       his secret treaty at Vienna with the Emperor, for the
       partitioning of the Spanish dominions, and his further
       "journey" in the Netherlands was postponed.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          A. F. Pontalis,
          John de Witt,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    {2287}

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1668.
       The Triple Alliance with England and Sweden
       against the French king.

       "The rapid conquests of the French king in Flanders during the
       last summer had drawn the eyes of Europe towards the seat of
       war in that country. The pope, Clement IX., through pity for
       the young king of Spain, and the States, alarmed at the
       approach of the French arms to their frontier, offered their
       mediation. To both Louis returned the same answer, that he
       sought nothing more than to vindicate the rights of his wife;
       that he should be content to retain possession of the
       conquests which he had already made, or to exchange them
       either for Luxembourg, or Franche-comté, with the addition of
       Aire, St. Omer, Donai, Cambrai, and Charleroi, to strengthen
       his northern frontier. … But Spain was not sufficiently
       humbled to submit to so flagrant an injustice. … If it was
       the interest of England, it was still more the interest of the
       States, to exclude France from the possession of Flanders.
       Under this persuasion, sir William Temple, the resident at
       Brussels, received instructions to proceed to the Hague and
       sound the disposition of de Witt; and, on his return to
       London, was despatched back again to Holland with the proposal
       of a defensive alliance, the object of which should be to
       compel the French monarch to make peace with Spain on the
       terms which he had previously offered. … Temple acted with
       promptitude and address: … he represented the danger of
       delay; and, contrary to all precedent at the Hague, in the
       short space of five days—had the constitutional forms been
       observed it would have demanded five weeks—he negotiated
       [January, 1668] three treaties which promised to put an end to
       the war, or, if they failed in that point, to oppose at least
       an effectual barrier to the further progress of the invader.
       The first was a defensive alliance by which the two nations
       bound themselves to aid each other against any aggressor with
       a fleet of forty men of war, and an army of 6,400 men, or with
       assistance in money in proportion to the deficiency in men; by
       the second, the contracting powers agreed by every means in
       their power to dispose France to conclude a peace with Spain
       on the alternative already offered, to persuade Spain to
       accept one part of that alternative before the end of May,
       and, in case of a refusal, to compel her by war, on condition
       that France should not interfere by force of arms. These
       treaties were meant for the public eye: the third was secret,
       and bound both England and the States, in case of the refusal
       of Louis, to unite with Spain in the war, and not to lay down
       their arms till the peace of the Pyrenees were confirmed. On
       the same day the Swedish ambassadors gave a provisional, and
       afterwards a positive assent to the league, which from that
       circumstance obtained the name of the Triple Alliance. Louis
       received the news of this transaction with an air of haughty
       indifference. … In consequence of the infirm state of
       Charles II. of Spain, he had secretly concluded with the
       emperor Leopold an 'eventual' treaty of partition of the
       Spanish monarchy on the expected death of that prince, and
       thus had already bound himself by treaty to do the very thing
       which it was the object of the allied powers to effect. …
       The intervention of the emperor, in consequence of the
       eventual treaty, put an end to the hesitation of the Spanish
       cabinet; the ambassadors of the several powers met at
       Aix-la-Chapelle [April-May, 1668]; Spain made her choice; the
       conquered towns in Flanders were ceded to Louis, and peace was
       re-established between the two crowns. … The States could
       ill dissemble their disappointment. They never doubted that
       Spain, with the choice in her hands, would preserve Flanders,
       and part with Franche-comté. … The result was owing, it is
       said, to the resentment of Castel-Rodrigo [the governor of the
       Spanish Netherlands], who, finding that the States would not
       join with England to confine France within its ancient limits,
       resolved to punish them by making a cession, which brought the
       French frontier to the very neighbourhood of the Dutch
       territory."

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 11, chapter 6.

       "Dr. Lingard, who is undoubtedly a very able and well-informed
       writer, but whose great fundamental rule of judging seems to
       be that the popular opinion on a historical question cannot
       possibly be correct, speaks very slightingly of this
       celebrated treaty [of the Triple Alliance]. … But grant that
       Louis was not really stopped in his progress by this famous
       league; still it is certain that the world then, and long
       after, believed that he was so stopped; and that this was the
       prevailing impression in France as well as in other countries.
       Temple, therefore, at the very least, succeeded in raising the
       credit of his country, and lowering the credit of a rival
       power."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Sir William Temple (Essays).

          ALSO IN:
          O. Airy,
          The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
          chapter 14.

          Sir W. Temple,
          Letters, January 1668
          (Works, volume 1).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 15, chapter 4 (volume 3).

          A. F. Pontalis,
          John de Witt,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1670.
       Betrayed to France by the English king.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1672-1674.
       The war with France and England.
       Murder of the DeWitts.
       Restoration of the Stadtholdership.

       "The storm that had been prepared in secret for Holland began
       to break in 1672. France and England had declared war at once
       by land and sea, without any cause of quarrel, except that
       Louis declared that the Dutch insulted him, and Charles
       complained that they would not lower their flag to his, and
       that they refused the Stadtholdership to his nephew, William
       of Orange. Accordingly, his fleet made a piratical attack on
       the Dutch ships returning from Smyrna, and Louis, with an
       immense army, entered Holland. … They [the French] would
       have attempted the passage of the Yssel, but the Dutch forces,
       under the Prince of Orange, were on the watch, and turned
       towards the Rhine, which was so low, in consequence of a
       drouth, that 2,000 adventurous cavalry were able to cross,
       half wading, half swimming, and gained a footing on the other
       side." This "passage of the Rhine" was absurdly celebrated as
       a great military exploit by the servile flatterers of the
       French king. "The passage thus secured, the King crossed the
       river the next day on a bridge of boats, and rapidly overran
       the adjoining country, taking the lesser towns, and offering
       to the Republic the most severe terms, destructive of their
       independence, but securing the nominal Stadtholdership to the
       Prince of Orange.
    {2288}
       The magistrates of Amsterdam had almost decided on carrying
       the keys to Louis, and the Grand Pensionary himself was ready
       to yield; but William, who preferred ruling a free people by
       their own choice to being imposed on them by the conqueror,
       still maintained that perseverance would save Holland, that
       her dykes, when opened, would admit floods that the enemy
       could not resist, and that they had only to be firm. The
       spirit of the people was with him, and in Amsterdam,
       Dordrecht, and the other cities, there were risings with loud
       outcries of 'Orange boven,' Up with Orange, insisting that he
       should be appointed Stadtholder. The magistracy confirmed the
       choice, but Cornelius de Witt, too firm to yield to a popular
       cry, refused to sign the appointment, and thus drew on himself
       the rage of the people. He was arrested under an absurd
       accusation of having bribed a man to assassinate the Prince,
       and … [after torture] was sentenced to exile, whereupon his
       brother [the Grand Pensionary] announced that he should
       accompany him; but while he was with him in his prison at [the
       Hague], the atrocious mob again arose [August 20, 1672], broke
       open the doors, and, dragging out the two brothers, absolutely
       tore them limb from limb."

          C. M. Yonge,
          Landmarks of History,
          part 3, chapter 4, part 6.

       The Prince of Orange, profiting by the murder of the De Witts,
       rewarded the murderers, and is smirched by the deed, whether
       primarily responsible for it or not; but the power which it
       secured to him was used ably for Holland. The dykes had
       already been cut, on the 18th of June, and "the sea poured in,
       placing a waste of water between Louis and Amsterdam, and the
       province of Holland at least was saved. The citizens worked
       with the intensest energy to provide for their defence. …
       Every fourth man among the peasantry was enlisted; mariners
       and gunners were drawn from the fleet." Meantime, on the 7th
       of June, the fleet itself, under De Ruyter, had been
       victorious, in Southwold Bay, or Solebay, over the united
       fleets of England and France. The victory was indecisive, but
       it paralyzed the allied navy for a season, and prevented a
       contemplated descent on Zealand. "All active military
       operations against Holland were now necessarily at an end.
       There was not a Dutch town south of the inundation which was
       not in the hands of the French; and nothing remained for the
       latter but to lie idle until the ice of winter should enable
       them to cross the floods which cut them off from Amsterdam.
       Leaving Turenne in command, Louis therefore returned to St.
       Germain on August 1." Before winter came, however, the alarm
       of Europe at Louis' aggressions had brought about a coalition
       of the Emperor Leopold and the Elector of Brandenburg, to
       succor the Dutch States. Louis was forced to call Turenne with
       16,000 men to Westphalia and Condé with 17,000 to Alsace. "On
       September 12 the Austrian general Montecuculi, the Duke of
       Lorraine, and the Grand Elector effected their junction,
       intending to cross the Rhine and join William;" but Turenne,
       by a series of masterly movements, forced them to retreat,
       utterly baffled, into Franconia and Halberstadt. The Elector
       of Brandenburg, discouraged, withdrew from the alliance, and
       made peace with Louis, June 6, 1673. The spring of 1673 found
       the French king advantageously situated, and his advantages
       were improved. Turning on the Spaniards in their Belgian
       Netherlands, he laid siege to the important stronghold of
       Maestricht and it was taken for him by the skill of Vauban, on
       the 30th of June. But while this success was being scored, the
       Dutch, at sea, had frustrated another attempt of the
       Anglo-French fleet to land troops on the Zealand coast. On the
       7th of June, and again on the 14th, De Ruyter and Van Tromp
       fought off the invaders, under Prince Rupert and D'Estrees,
       driving them back to the Thames. Once more, and for the last
       time, they made their attempt, on the 21st of August, and were
       beaten in a battle near the Zealand shore which lasted from
       daylight until dark. The end of August found a new coalition
       against Louis formed by treaties between Holland, Spain, the
       Emperor and the Duke of Lorraine. A little later, the Prince
       of Orange, after capturing Naarden, effected a junction near
       Bonn with Montecuculi; who had evaded Turenne. The Electors of
       Treves and Mayence thereupon joined the coalition and Cologne
       and Munster made peace. By this time, public opinion in
       England had become so angrily opposed to the war that Charles
       was forced to arrange terms of peace with Holland,
       notwithstanding his engagements with Louis. The tide was now
       turning fast against France. Denmark had joined the coalition.
       In March it received the Elector Palatine; in April the Dukes
       of Brunswick and Lüneburg came into the league; in May the
       Emperor procured from the Diet a declaration of war in the
       name of the Empire, and on the 1st of July the Elector of
       Brandenburg cast in his lot once more with the enemies of
       France. To effectually meet this new league of his foes, Louis
       resolved with heroic promptitude to abandon his conquests in
       the Netherlands. Maestricht and Grave, alone, of the places he
       had taken, were retained. But Holland still refused to make
       peace on the terms which the French king proposed, and held
       her ground in the league.

          O. Airy,
          The English Reformation and Louis XIV.,
          chapter 19.

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          History of France,
          chapter 44 (volume 5).

          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

          A. F. Pontalis,
          John de Witt,
          chapters 12-14 (volume 2).

          Sir W. Temple,
          Memoirs,
          part 2 (works, volume 2).

          See, also,
          NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1673.
       Reconquest of New Netherland from the English.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

    NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1673-1678.
       Fresh conquests by Louis XIV.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
          also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674.
       The Treaty of Westminster.
       Peace with England.
       Relinquishment of New Netherland.

       An offer from the Dutch to restore New Netherland to England
       "was extorted from the necessities of the republic, and its
       engagement with Spain. With the consent of the States General,
       the Spanish ambassador offered advantageous articles to the
       British government. Charles, finding that Louis refused him
       further supplies, and that he could not expect any from
       Parliament, replied that he was willing to accept reasonable
       conditions. … Sir William Temple was summoned from his
       retirement, and instructed to confer with the Spanish
       ambassador at London, the Marquis del Fresno, to whom the
       States General had sent full powers.
    {2289}
       In three days all the points were arranged; and a treaty was
       signed at Westminster [February 19, 1674] by Arlington and
       four other commissioners on the part of Great Britain, and by
       Fresno on the part of the United Netherlands. The honor of the
       flag, which had been refused by De Witt, was yielded to
       England; the Treaty of Breda was revived; the rights of
       neutrals guaranteed; and the commercial principles of the
       Triple Alliance renewed. By the sixth article it was
       covenanted that 'all lands, islands, cities, havens, castles
       and fortresses, which have been or shall be taken by one party
       from the other, during the time of this last unhappy war,
       whether in Europe or elsewhere, and before the expiration of
       the times above limited for the duration of hostilities, shall
       be restored to the former Lord and Proprietor in the same
       condition they shall be in at the time that this peace shall
       be proclaimed.' This article restored New Netherland to the
       King of Great Britain. The Treaty of Breda had ceded it to him
       on the principle of 'uti possidetis.' The Treaty of
       Westminster gave it back to him on the principle of reciprocal
       restitution. Peace was soon proclaimed at London and at the
       Hague. The treaty of Westminster delivered the Dutch from fear
       of Charles, and cut off the right arm of Louis, their more
       dreaded foe. England, on her part, slipped out of a disastrous
       war. … By the treaty of Westminster the United Provinces
       relinquished their conquest of New Netherland to the King of
       England. The sovereign Dutch States General had treated
       directly with Charles as sovereign. A question at once arose
       at Whitehall about the subordinate interest of the Duke of
       York. It was claimed by some that James's former American
       proprietorship was revived. … The opinion of counsel having
       been taken, they advised that the duke's proprietorship had
       been extinguished by the Dutch conquest, and that the king was
       now alone seized of New Netherland, by virtue of the Treaty of
       Westminster. … A new patent to the Duke of York was
       therefore sealed. By it the king again conveyed to his brother
       the territories he had held before, and granted him anew the
       absolute powers of government he had formerly enjoyed over
       British subjects, with the like additional authority over 'any
       other person or persons' inhabiting his province. Under the
       same description of boundaries, New Jersey, and all the
       territory west of the Connecticut River, together with Long
       Island and the adjacent islands, and the region of Pemaquid,
       were again included in the grant. The new patent did not, as
       has been commonly, but erroneously stated, 'recite and confirm
       the former.' It did not in any way allude to that instrument.
       It read as if no previous English patent had ever existed. …
       As his colonial lieutenant and deputy, the duke, almost
       necessarily, appointed Major Edmund Andros, whom the king had
       directed in the previous March to receive New Netherland from
       the Dutch."

          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of the State of New York,
          volume 2, chapters 5-6.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674-1678.
       Continued war of the Coalition against France.

       "The enemies of France everywhere took courage. … Louis XIV.
       embraced with a firm glance the whole position, and, well
       advised by Turenne, clearly took his resolution. He understood
       the extreme difficulty of preserving his conquests, and the
       facility moreover of making others more profitable, while
       defending his own frontier. To evacuate Holland, to indemnify
       himself at the expense of Spain, and to endeavor to treat
       separately with Holland while continuing the war against the
       House of Austria,—such was the new plan adopted; an
       excellent plan, the very wisdom of which condemned so much the
       more severely the war with Holland. … The places of the
       Zuyder-Zee were evacuated in the course of December by the
       French and the troops of Munster. … The evacuation of the
       United Provinces was wholly finished by spring. … Louis
       resolved to conquer Franche-Comté in person; while Turenne
       covered Alsace and Lorraine, Schomberg went to defend
       Roussillon, and Condé labored to strengthen the French
       positions on the Meuse, by sweeping the enemy from the
       environs of Liege and Maestricht. On the ocean, the defensive
       was preserved." Louis entered Franche-Comté at the beginning
       of May with a small army of 8,000 infantry and 5,000 or 6,000
       cavalry, but with Vauban, the great master of sieges, to do
       his serious work for him. A small corps had been sent into the
       country in February, and had already taken Gray, Vesoul and
       Lons-le-Saulnier. Besançon was now reduced by a short siege;
       Dole surrendered soon afterward, and early in July the
       subjugation of the province was complete. "The second conquest
       of Franche-Comté had cost a little more trouble than the
       first; but it was definitive. The two Burgundies were no more
       to be separated, and France was never again to lose her
       frontier of the Jura. … The allies, from the beginning of
       the year, had projected a general attack against France. They
       had debated among themselves the design of introducing two
       great armies, one from Belgium into Champagne, the other from
       Germany into Alsace and Lorraine; the Spaniards were to invade
       Roussillon; lastly, the Dutch fleet was to threaten the coasts
       of France and attempt some enterprise there. The tardiness of
       the Germanic diet to declare itself" frustrated the first of
       these plans. Condé, occupying a strong position near
       Charleroi, from which the allies could not draw him, took
       quick advantage of an imprudent movement which they made, and
       routed them by a fierce attack, at the village of Seneffe
       (August 11, 1674). But William of Orange rallied the flying
       forces—Dutch, German and Spanish now fighting side by
       side—so successfully that Condé was repulsed with terrible
       loss in the end, when he attempted to make his victory
       complete. The battle was maintained, by the light of the moon,
       until midnight, and both armies withdrew next morning, badly
       crippled. Turenne meantime, in June, had crossed the Rhine at
       Philippsburg and encountered the Imperialists, on the 16th,
       near Sinsheim, defeated them there and driven them beyond the
       Neckar. The following month, he again crossed the river and
       inflicted upon the Palatinate the terrible destruction which
       made it for the time being a desert, and which is the black
       blot on the fame of the great soldier. "Turenne ordered his
       troops to consume and waste cattle, forage, and harvests, so
       that the enemy's army, when it returned in force, as he
       foresaw it would do, could find nothing whereon to subsist."
       In September the city of Strasburg opened its gates to the
       Imperialists and gave them the control of its fortified
       bridge, crossing the Rhine.
    {2290}
       Turenne, hastening to prevent the disaster, but arriving too
       late, attacked his enemies, October 4, at the village of
       Ensisheim and gained an inconclusive victory. Then followed,
       before the close of the year, the most famous of the military
       movements of Turenne. The allies having been heavily
       reinforced, he retired before them into Lorraine, meeting and
       gathering up reinforcements of his own as he moved. Then, when
       he had completely deceived them as to his intentions, he
       traversed the whole length of the Vosges with his army, in
       December, and appeared suddenly at Belfort, finding their
       forces scattered and entirely unprepared. Defeating them at
       Mülhausen December 29, and again at Colmar, January 5, he
       expelled them from Alsace, and offered to Strasburg the
       renewal of its neutrality, which the anxious city was glad to
       accept. "Thus ended this celebrated campaign, the most
       glorious, perhaps, presented in the military history of
       ancient France. None offers higher instruction in the study of
       the great art of war." In the campaign of 1675, which opened
       in May, Turenne was confronted by Montecuculi, and the two
       masterly tacticians became the players of a game which has
       been the wonder of military students ever since. "Like two
       valiant athletes struggling foot to foot without either being
       able to overthrow the other, Turenne and Montecuculi manœuvred
       for six weeks in the space of a few square leagues [in the
       canton of Ortnau, Swabia] without succeeding in forcing each
       other to quit the place." At length, on the 27th of July,
       Turenne found an opportunity to attack his opponent with
       advantage, in the defile of Salsbach, and was just completing
       his preparations to do so, when a cannon-ball from one of the
       enemy's batteries struck him instantly dead. His two
       lieutenants, who succeeded to the command, could not carry out
       his plans, but fought a useless bloody battle at Altenheim and
       nearly lost their army before retreating across the Rhine.
       Condé was sent to replace Turenne. Before he arrived,
       Strasburg had again given its bridge to the Imperialists and
       they were in possession of Lower Alsace; but no important
       operations were undertaken during the remainder of the year.
       In other parts of the wide war field the French suffered
       disaster. Marshal de Crequi, commanding on the Moselle, was
       badly defeated at Konsaarbrück, August 11, and Treves, which
       he defended, was lost a few weeks later. The Swedes, also,
       making a diversion in the north, as allies of France, were
       beaten back, at Fehrbellin.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

       But next year (1676) Louis recovered all his prestige. His
       navy, under the command of Duquesne and Tourville, fought the
       Dutch and Spaniards on equal terms, and defeated them twice in
       the Mediterranean, on the Sicilian coast. On land the main
       effort of the French was directed against the Netherlands.
       Condé, Bouchain and Aire were taken by siege; and Maestricht
       was successfully defended against Orange, who besieged it for
       nearly eight weeks. But Philippsburg, the most important
       French post on the Rhine, was lost, surrendering to the Duke
       of Lorraine. Early in 1677, Louis renewed his attacks on the
       Spanish Netherlands and took Valenciennes March 17, Cambrai
       April 4, and Saint-Omer April 20, defeating the Prince of
       Orange at Cassel (April 11) when he attempted to relieve the
       latter place. At the same time Crequi, unable to defend Lower
       Alsace, destroyed it—burning the villages, leaving the
       inhabitants to perish—and prevented the allies, who
       outnumbered him, from making any advance. In November, when
       they had gone into winter-quarters, he suddenly crossed the
       Rhine and captured Freiburg. The next spring (1678) operations
       began early on the side of the French with the siege of Ghent.
       The city capitulated, March 9, after a short bombardment. The
       Spanish governor withdrew to the citadel, but "surrendered, on
       the 11th, that renowned castle built by Charles V. to hold the
       city in check. The city and citadel of Ghent had not cost the
       French army forty men." Ypres was taken the same month.
       Serious negotiations were now opened and the Peace of
       Nimeguen, between France and Holland, was signed August 11,
       followed early the next year by a general peace. The Prince of
       Orange, who opposed the peace, fought one bootless but bloody
       battle at Saint-Denis, near Mons, on the 14th of August, three
       days after it had been signed.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 1, chapters 5-6.

       "It may be doubted whether Europe has fully realised the
       greatness of the peril she so narrowly escaped on this
       occasion. The extinction of political and mental freedom,
       which would have followed the extinction of the Dutch
       Republic, would have been one of the most disastrous defeats
       of the cause of liberty and enlightenment possible in the then
       condition of the world. … The free presses of Holland gave
       voice to the stilled thought and agony of mankind. And they
       were the only free presses in the world. But Holland was not
       only the greatest book mart of Europe, it was emphatically the
       home of thinkers and the birthplace of ideas. … The two men
       then living to whose genius and courage the modern spirit of
       mental emancipation and toleration owes its first and most
       arduous victories were Pierre Bayle and John Locke. And it is
       beyond dispute that if the French King had worked his will on
       Holland, neither of them would have been able to accomplish
       the task they did achieve under the protection of Dutch
       freedom. They both were forced to seek refuge in Holland from
       the bigotry which hunted them down in their respective
       countries. All the works of Bayle were published in Holland,
       and some of the earliest of Locke's writings appeared there
       also; and if the remainder saw the light afterwards in
       England, it is only because the Dutch, by saving their own
       freedom, were the means of saving that of England as well. …
       At least, no one can maintain that if Holland had been
       annihilated in 1672, the English revolution could have
       occurred in the form and at the time it did."

          J. C. Morison,
          The Reign of Louis XIV.
          (Fortnightly Review, March, 1874).

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Hozier,
          Turenne,
          chapters 12-13.

          T. O. Cockayne,
          Life of Turenne.

          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Condé,
          chapter 12.

          See, also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689.
       Invasion of England by the Prince of Orange.
       His accession to the English throne.

          See ENGLAND A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER),
          to 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689-1696.
       The War of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
       against Louis XIV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

    {2291}

    NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D; 1690-1691.
       The Battle of Fleurus and the loss of Mons.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1692.
       The Naval Battle of La Hogue.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

    NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1692.
       The loss of Namur and the Battle of Steenkerke.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

    NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1693.
       The Battle of Neerwinden.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

    NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1694-1696.
       Campaigns without battles.
       The recovery of Namur.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1694; and 1695-1696.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1697.
       The Peace of Ryswick.
       French conquests restored.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    A. D. 1698-1700.
       The question of the Spanish Succession.
       The Treaties of Partition.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

    NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1701.
       Occupied by French troops.

             See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1702.
       The Second Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702.
       The War of the Spanish Succession: The Expedition to Cadiz.
       The sinking of the treasure ships in Vigo Bay.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       Marlborough's first campaigns.

       "The campaign [of 1702] opened late in the Low Countries,
       owing, doubtless, to the death of king William. The elector of
       Bavaria, and his brother the elector of Cologne, took part
       with France. About the middle of April, the prince of
       Nassau-Saarbruck invested Keyserwerth, a place belonging to
       the latter elector, on the Rhine; whilst Lord Athlone, with
       the Dutch army, covered the siege, in pursuance of the advice
       of Lord Marlborough to the states. The place was strong; the
       French Marshal Boufflers made efforts to relieve it; after a
       vigorous defence, it was carried by assault, with dreadful
       carnage, about the middle of June. Boufflers, unable to
       relieve Keyserwerth, made a rapid, march to throw himself
       between Athlone and Nimeguen, with the view to carry that
       place by surprise; was defeated by a forced and still more
       rapid march of the Dutch, under Athlone, to cover it; and
       moved upon Cleves, laying the country waste with wanton
       barbarity along his line of march. Marlborough now arrived to
       take the command in chief. It was disputed with him by
       Athlone, who owed his military rank and the honours of the
       peerage to the favour of king William. Certain representatives
       of the states, who attended the army under the name of field
       deputies, thwarted him by their caution and incompetency; the
       Prussian and Hanoverian contingents refused to move without
       the orders of their respective sovereigns. Lord Marlborough,
       with admirable temper and adroitness, and, doubtless, with the
       ascendant of his genius, surmounted all these obstacles. The
       Dutch general cheerfully served under him; the confederates
       were reconciled to his orders; he crossed the Meuse in pursuit
       of the French; came within a few leagues of Boufflers' lines;
       and, addressing the Dutch field deputies who accompanied him,
       said, in a tone of easy confidence, 'I will now rid you of
       these troublesome neighbours.' Boufflers accordingly
       retreated,—abandoning Spanish Guelderland, and exposing
       Venloo, Ruremonde, and even Liege, which he had made a
       demonstration to cover. The young duke of Burgundy, grandson
       of Louis XIV., and elder brother of the king of Spain, had
       commanded the French army in name. He now returned to
       Versailles; and Boufflers could only look on, whilst
       Marlborough successively captured Venloo, Ruremonde, and
       Liege. The navigation of the Meuse and communication with
       Maestricht was now wholly free; the Dutch frontier was secure;
       and the campaign terminated with the close of October. … The
       duke of Marlborough resumed his command in the Low Countries
       about the middle of spring. He found the French strong and
       menacing on every side. Marshal Villars had, like Marlborough,
       fixed the attention of Europe for the first time in the late
       campaign. He obtained a splendid victory over the prince of
       Baden at Fredlingen, near the Black Forest. That prince lost
       3,000 men, his cannon and the field. … Villars opened this
       year's campaign by taking Kehl, passed through the Black
       Forest into Bavaria, and formed a junction with the elector;
       whilst the prince of Baden was kept in check by a French army
       under marshal Tallard. … The imperial general, Count Styrum
       was now moving to join the prince of Baden with 20,000 men.
       Villars persuaded the elector to cross the Danube and prevent
       this junction; attacked the imperialists in the plain of
       Hochstedt near Donawert; and put them to the rout. The capture
       of Augsburg followed: the road was open to Vienna, and the
       emperor thought of abandoning the capital. … Holland was
       once more threatened on her frontier. Marshal Villeroi,
       liberated by exchange, was again at the head of an army, and,
       in conjunction with Boufflers, commenced operations for
       recovering the ground and the strong places from which
       Marlborough had dislodged the French on the Meuse. The
       campaign had opened at this point of the theatre of war with
       the capture of Rheinberg. It was taken by the Prussians before
       the duke of Marlborough arrived. The duke's first operation
       was the capture of Bonne. He returned to the main army with
       the view to engage the French under Villeroi. That marshal
       abandoned his camp, and retired within his lines of defence on
       the approach of the English general. Marlborough was prevented
       from attacking the French by the reluctance of the Dutch
       generals and the positive prohibition of the Dutch field
       deputies. … The only fruit of Marlborough's movement was the
       easy capture of Huy. Boufflers obtained the slight advantage
       of surprising and defeating the Dutch general Opdam near
       Antwerp. Marlborough, still embarrassed by the Dutch field
       deputies, to whose good intentions and limited views he bowed
       with a facility which only proves the extent of his
       superiority, closed the campaign with the acquisition of
       Limburg and Guelders. … In the beginning of … [1704] the
       emperor, threatened by the French and Bavarians in the very
       capital of the empire, implored aid from the queen; and on the
       19th of April, the duke of Marlborough left England to enter
       upon a campaign memorable for … [the] victory of Blenheim.
       … On his arrival at the Hague, he proposed to the states
       general to alarm France for her frontier by a movement on the
       Moselle.
    {2292}
       Their consent even to this slight hazard for their own
       security, was not easily obtained. Villeroi, who commanded in
       Flanders, soon lost sight of him; so rapid or so well masked
       were his movements; Tallard, who commanded on the Moselle,
       thought only of protecting the frontier of France; and
       Marlborough, to the amazement of Europe, whether enemies or
       allies, passed in rapid succession the Rhine, the Maine, and
       the Necker. Intercepted letters, and a courier from the prince
       of Baden, apprised him that the French were about to join the
       Bavarians through the defiles of the Black Forest, and march
       upon Vienna. He now threw off the mask, sent a courier to the
       states, acquainting them that he was marching to the succour
       of the empire by order of the queen of England, and trusted
       they would permit their troops to share the glory of his
       enterprise. The pensionary Heinsius alone was in his
       confidence; and the states, though taken by surprise, conveyed
       to him their sanction and confidence with the best grace. He
       met Prince Eugene for the first time at Mindlesheim.
       Marlborough and Eugene are henceforth associated in the career
       of war and victory."

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          The History of England,
          volume 9, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          L. Creighton,
          Life of Marlborough,
          chapters 6-7.

          G. Saintsbury,
          Marlborough,
          chapter 5.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Marlborough,
          chapters 11-22 (volume 1).

          J. H. Burton,
          History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapters 5-6 (volume 1).

          Sec, also,
          GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and 1703.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1704.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       The campaign on the Danube and victory at Blenheim.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.
       The War of the Spanish Succession: A campaign spoiled.

       After his campaign in Bavaria, with its great victory on the
       field of Blenheim (see GERMANY: A. D. 1704), Marlborough
       passed the winter in England and returned in the spring of
       1705 to the Low Countries, where he had planned to lead,
       again, the campaign of the year. Prince Eugene was now in
       Italy, and the jealous, incapable Prince Louis of Baden,
       commanding the German army, was the coadjutor on whom he must
       depend. The latter assented to Marlborough's plans and
       promised co-operation. The Dutch generals and deputies also
       were reluctantly brought over to his views, which contemplated
       an invasion of France on the side of the Moselle. "Slight as
       were the hopes of any effective co-operation which Prince
       Louis gave, they were much more than he accomplished. When the
       time came he declared himself sick, threw up his command and
       set off to drink the waters of Schlangenbad. Count de Frise
       whom he named in his place brought to Marlborough only a few
       ragged battalions, and, moreover, like his principal, showed
       himself most jealous of the English chief. … Marlborough
       nevertheless took the field and even singly desired to give
       battle. But positive instructions from Versailles precluded
       Villars [the commander of the French] from engaging. He
       intrenched himself in an extremely strong position at Sirk,
       where it was impossible for an inferior army to assail him.
       And while the war was thus unprosperous on the Moselle, there
       came adverse tidings from the Meuse. Marshal Villeroy had
       suddenly resumed the offensive, had reduced the fortress of
       Huy, had entered the city and invested the citadel of Liege."
       Marlborough, on this news, being applied to for immediate aid
       by the Dutch General Overkirk—the ablest and best of his
       colleagues—"set out the very next day on his march to Liege,
       leaving only a 'sufficient force as he hoped for the security
       of Treves." Villeroy "at once relinquished his design upon the
       citadel of Liege and fell back in the direction of Tongres, so
       that Marlborough and Overkirk effected their junction with
       ease. Marlborough took prompt measures to re-invest the
       fortress of Huy, and compelled it to surrender on the 11th of
       July. Applying his mind to the new sphere before him,
       Marlborough saw ground to hope that, with the aid of the Dutch
       troops, he might still make a triumphant campaign. The first
       object was to force the defensive lines that stretched across
       the country from near Namur to Antwerp, protected by numerous
       fortified posts and covered in other places by rivers and
       morasses, … now defended by an army of at least 60,000 men,
       under Marshal Villeroy and the Elector of Bavaria. Marlborough
       laid his plans before Generals Overkirk and Slangenberg as
       also those civilian envoys whom the States were wont to
       commission at their armies. But he found to his sorrow that
       for jealousy and slowness a Dutch deputy was fully a match for
       a German Margrave." He obtained with great difficulty a
       nominal assent to his plans, and began the execution of them;
       but in the very midst of his operations, and when one division
       of the Dutch troops had successfully crossed the river Dyle,
       General Slangenberg and the deputies suddenly drew back and
       compelled a retreat. Then Marlborough's "fertile genius
       devised another scheme—to move round the sources of the river
       [Dyle] and to threaten Brussels from the southern side. … On
       the 15th off August he began his march, as did also Overkirk
       in a parallel direction, and in two days they reached Genappe
       near the sources of the Dyle. There uniting in one line of
       battle they moved next morning towards Brussels by the main
       chaussée, or great paved road; their head-quarters that day
       being fixed at Frischermont, near the borders of the forest of
       Soignies. On the French side the Elector and Villeroy,
       observing the march of the allies, had made a corresponding
       movement of their own for the protection of the capital. They
       encamped behind the small stream of the Ische, their right and
       rear being partly covered by the forest. Only the day before
       they had been joined by Marsin from the Rhine, and they agreed
       to give battle sooner than yield Brussels. One of their main
       posts was at Waterloo. … It is probable, had a battle now
       ensued, that it would have been fought on the same, or nearly
       the same ground as was the memorable conflict a hundred and
       ten years afterwards. … But the expected battle did not take
       place." Once more the Dutch deputies and General Slangenberg
       interfered, refusing to permit their troops to engage; so that
       Marlborough was robbed of the opportunity for winning a
       victory which he confidently declared would have been greater
       than Blenheim. This practically ended the campaign of the
       year, which had been ruined and wasted throughout by the
       stupidity, the cowardice and the jealousies of the Dutch
       deputies and the general who counselled them.

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 6.

       In Spain, a campaign of more brilliancy was carried on by
       Charles Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough, in Catalonia.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

    {2293}

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       The Battle of Ramillies and its results.

       "The campaign of 1706 was begun unusually late by Marlborough,
       his long stay on the Continent in the winter and his English
       political business detaining him in London till the end of
       April, and when he finally landed at the Hague his plans were
       still coloured by the remembrance of the gratuitous and
       intolerable hindrances which he had met with from his allies.
       … He had made up his mind to operate with Eugene in Italy,
       which, if he had done, there would probably have been seen
       what has not been seen for nearly two thousand years—a
       successful invasion of France from the southeast. But the
       kings of Prussia and Denmark, and others of the allies whom
       Marlborough thought he had propitiated, were as recalcitrant
       as the Dutch, and the vigorous action of Villars against the
       Margrave of Baden made the States-General more than ever
       reluctant to lose their sword and shield. So Marlborough was
       condemned to action on his old line of the Dyle, and this time
       fortune was less unkind to him. Secret overtures were made
       which induced him to threaten Namur, and as Namur was of all
       posts in the Low Countries that to which the French attached
       most importance, both on sentimental and strategical grounds,
       Villeroy was ordered to abandon the defensive policy which he
       had for nearly two years been forced to maintain, and to fight
       at all hazards. Accordingly the tedious operations which had
       for so long been pursued in this quarter were exchanged at
       once for a vigorous offensive and defensive, and the two
       generals, Villeroy with rather more than 60,000 men,
       Marlborough with that number or a little less, came to blows
       at Ramillies (a few miles only from the spot where the lines
       had been forced the year before) on May 23, 1706, or scarcely
       more than a week after the campaign had begun. Here, as
       before, the result is assigned by the French to the fault of
       the general. … The battle itself was one completely of
       generalship, and of generalship as simple as it was masterly.
       It was in defending his position, not in taking it up, that
       Villeroy lost the battle. … Thirteen thousand of the French
       and Bavarians were killed, wounded, and taken, and the loss of
       the allies, who had been throughout the attacking party, was
       not less than 4,000 men. … The Dutch, who bore the burden of
       the attack on Ramillies, had the credit of the day's fighting
       on the allied side, as the Bavarian horse had on that of the
       French. In hardly any of Marlborough's operations had he his
       hands so free as at Ramillies, and in none did he carry off a
       completer victory. … The strong places of Flanders fell
       before the allied army like ripe fruit. Brussels surrendered
       and was occupied on the fourth day after the battle, May 28.
       Louvain and Malines had fallen already. The French garrison
       precipitately left Ghent, and the Duke entered it on June 2.
       Oudenarde came in next day; Antwerp was summoned, expelled the
       French part of its garrison, and capitulated on September 7.
       And a vigorous siege in less than a month reduced Ostend,
       reputed one of the strongest places in Europe. In six weeks
       from the battle of Ramillies not a French soldier remained in
       a district which the day before that battle had been occupied
       by a network of the strongest fortresses and a field army of
       80,000 men. The strong places on the Lys and the Dender,
       tributaries of the Scheldt, gave more trouble, and Menin, a
       small but very important position, cost nearly half the loss
       of Ramillies before it could be taken. But it fell, as well as
       Dendermonde and Ath, and nothing but the recrudescence of
       Dutch obstruction prevented Marlborough from finishing the
       campaign with the taking of Mons, almost the last place of any
       importance held by the French north of their own frontier, as
       that frontier is now understood. But the difficulties of all
       generals are said to begin on the morrow of victory, and
       certainly the saying was true in Marlborough's case. … The
       Dutch were, before all things, set on a strong barrier or zone
       of territory, studded with fortresses in their own keeping,
       between themselves and France: the Emperor naturally objected
       to the alienation of the Spanish-Austrian Netherlands. The
       barrier disputes were for years the greatest difficulty which
       Marlborough had to contend with abroad, and the main theme of
       the objections to the war made by the adverse party at home.
       … It was in the main due, no doubt, to these jealousies and
       hesitations, strengthened by the alarm caused by the loss of
       the battle of Almanza in Spain, and by the threatened invasion
       of Germany under Villars, that made the campaign of 1707 an
       almost wholly inactive one. … The campaign of this year is
       almost wholly barren of any military operations interesting to
       anyone but the mere annalist of tactics."

          G. Saintsbury,
          Marlborough,
          chapter 6.

       In Spain, several sharp changes of fortune during two years
       terminated in a disastrous defeat of the allies at Almanza in
       April, 1707, by the Duke of Berwick.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1706 and 1707;
          see, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 7 and 9.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
       The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

       To the great satisfaction of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of
       Savoy was sent by the Emperor to co-operate with him, in the
       spring of 1708. The two generals met in April to discuss
       plans; after which Eugene returned into Germany to gather up
       the various contingents that would compose his army. He
       encountered many difficulties and delays, and was unable to
       bring his forces to the field until July. Marlborough,
       meantime, had been placed in a critical situation. "For whilst
       the English commander and Eugene had formed the plan to unite
       and overwhelm Vendome, the Court of Versailles had, on its
       side, contemplated the despatch of a portion of the Army of
       the Rhine, commanded by the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of
       Berwick, so to reinforce Vendome that he might overwhelm
       Marlborough, and Berwick was actually on his march to carry
       out his portion of the plan." Prince Eugene crossed the
       Moselle on the 28th June, "reached Düren the 3rd July, and
       learning there that affairs were critical, hastened with an
       escort of Hussars, in advance of his army, to Brussels. On his
       arrival there, the 6th, he learned that the French had
       attacked and occupied the city of Ghent, and were then
       besieging the castle."
    {2294}
       The two commanders having met at Assche, to concert their
       movements, made haste to throw: "a reinforcement into the
       fortress of Oudenarde, then besieged by the French; and,
       convinced now that the conquest of that fortress by Vendome
       would give him an unassailable position, they pushed forward
       their troops with all diligence to save it. The two armies
       united on the 8th. On the 9th they set out for Oudenarde, and
       crossed the Dender on the 10th. Before daybreak of the 11th
       Marlborough despatched General Cadogan with a strong corps to
       the Scheldt, to throw bridges over that river near Oudenarde
       and to reconnoitre the enemy. The main army followed at 7
       o'clock." In the battle which ensued, Vendome was hampered by
       the equal authority of the Duke of Burgundy—the king's
       grandson—who would not concur with his plans. "One after
       another the positions occupied by the French soldiers were
       carried. Then these took advantage of the falling night to
       make a retreat as hurried and disorderly as their defence had
       been wanting in tenacity. In no pitched battle, indeed, have
       the French soldiers less distinguished themselves than at
       Oudenarde. Fighting under a divided leadership, they were
       fighting virtually without leadership, and they knew it. The
       Duke of Burgundy contributed as much as either Marlborough or
       Eugene to gain the battle of Oudenarde for the Allies." The
       French army, losing heavily in the retreat, was rallied
       finally at Ghent. "The Allies, meanwhile, prepared to take
       advantage of their victory. They were within a circle
       commanded by three hostile fortresses, Ypres, Lille, and
       Tournay. After some consideration it was resolved, on the
       proposition of Eugene, that Lille should be besieged." The
       siege of Lille, the capital of French Flanders, fortified by
       the utmost skill and science of Vauban, and held by a garrison
       of 10,000 men under Marshal Boufflers, was a formidable
       undertaking. The city was invested on the 13th of August, and
       defended heroically by the garrison: but Vendome, who would
       have attacked the besiegers, was paralyzed by the royal youth
       who shared his command. Lille, the town, was surrendered on
       the 22d of October and its citadel on the 9th of December. The
       siege of Ghent followed, and the capitulation of that city, on
       the 2d of January, 1709, closed the campaign. "The winter of
       1709 was spent mainly in negotiations. Louis XIV. was
       humiliated, and he offered peace on terms which the Allies
       would have done well to accept." Their demands, however, rose
       too high, and the war went on. "It had been decided that the
       campaign in the Netherlands should be continued under the same
       skilful generals who had brought that of 1708 to so successful
       an issue. … On the 23rd of [June] … the allied army,
       consisting of 110,000 men, was assembled between Courtray and
       Menin. Marlborough commanded the left wing, about 70,000
       strong; Eugene the right, about 40,000. Louis, on his side,
       had made extraordinary efforts. But even with these he had
       been able to put in the field an army only 80,000 strong
       [under Marshal Villars]. … Villars had occupied a position
       between Douai and the Lys, and had there thrown up lines, in
       the strengthening of which he found daily employment for his
       troops." Not venturing to attack the French army in its strong
       position, Marlborough and Eugene began operations by laying
       siege to Tournay. The town was yielded to them on the 30th of
       July and the citadel on the 3d of September. They next turned
       their attention to Mons, which the French thought it necessary
       to save at any cost. The attempt which the latter made to
       drive the allied army from the position it had gained between
       themselves and Mons had its outcome in the terribly bloody
       battle of Malplaquet—"the bloodiest known till then in modern
       history. The loss of the victors was greater than that of the
       vanquished. That of the former amounted to from 18,000 to
       20,000 men: the French admitted a loss of 7,000, but German
       writers raise it to 15,000. Probably it did not exceed 11,000.
       … The results … were in no way proportionate to its cost.
       The French army retreated in good order, taking with it all
       its impedimenta, to a new position as strong as the former.
       There, under Berwick, who was sent to replace Villars, it
       watched the movements of the Allies. These resumed, indeed,
       the siege of Mons [which surrendered on the 20th of October].
       … But this was the solitary result of the victory."

          Colonel G. B. Malleson,
          Prince Eugene of Savoy,
          chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Marlborough,
          chapters 66-83 (volumes 4-5).

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 2, chapters 5-6.

          J. W. Gerard,
          Peace of Utrecht,
          chapters 17-19.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D, 1709.
       The Barrier Treaty with England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       The last campaigns of Marlborough.

       "As soon as it became clear that the negotiations [at
       Gertruydenberg] would lead to nothing, Eugene and Marlborough
       at once began the active business of the campaign. …
       Marlborough began … with the siege of Douai, the possession
       of which would be of the greatest importance to him. … In
       spite of Villars' boasts the French were unable to prevent the
       capture of Douai. … The campaign of 1710 was full of
       disappointment to Marlborough. He had hoped to carry the war
       into the heart of France. But after Douai fell, Villars so
       placed his army that [Marlborough] … was obliged to content
       himself with the capture of Bethune, St. Venant, and Aire.
       Heavy rains and a great deal of illness among his troops
       prevented further operations. Besides this, his energy was
       somewhat paralysed by the changes which had taken place in
       England," where the Duchess of Marlborough and the Whig party
       had lost the favor of the Queen, and the Tory opponents of
       Marlborough and the war had come into power.

          L. Creighton,
          Life of Marlborough,
          chapters 15-16.

       "In 1711, in a complicated series of operations round Arras,
       Marlborough, who was now alone, Eugene having been recalled to
       Vienna, completely outgeneraled Villars and broke through his
       lines. But he did not fight, and the sole result of the
       campaign was the capture of Bouchain at the cost of some
       16,000 men, while no serious impression was made on the French
       system of defence. … Lille had cost 14,000; Tournay a number
       not exactly mentioned, but very large; the petty place of Aire
       7,000. How many, malcontent Englishmen might well ask
       themselves, would it cost before Arras, Cambrai, Hesdin,
       Calais, Namur, and all the rest of the fortresses that studded
       the country, could be expected to fall? … Marlborough had
       himself, so to speak, spoilt his audience.
    {2295}
       He had given them four great victories in a little more than
       five years; it was perhaps unreasonable, but certainly not
       unnatural, that they should grow fretful when he gave them
       none during nearly half the same time. … The expense of the
       war was frightening men of all classes in England, and,
       independently of the more strictly political considerations,
       … it will be seen that there was some reason for wishing
       Marlborough anywhere but on or near the field of battle. He
       was got rid of none too honourably; restrictions were put upon
       his successor Ormond which were none too honourable either;
       and when Villars, freed from his invincible antagonist, had
       inflicted a sharp defeat upon Eugene at Denain, the military
       situation was changed from one very much in favour of the
       allies to one slightly against them, and so contributed beyond
       all doubt to bring about the Peace of Utrecht."

          G. Saintsbury,
          Marlborough,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Prince Eugene of Savoy,
          chapter 12.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3).

          See, also,
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1713-1714.
       The Treaties of Utrecht.
       Cession of the Spanish Provinces to the House of Austria.
       Barrier towns secured.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715.
       Second Barrier Treaty with England.
       Barrier arrangements with France and the Emperor.

       Connected with the other arrangements concluded in the
       treaties negotiated at Utrecht, the States, in 1713, signed a
       new Barrier Treaty with England, "annulling that of 1709, and
       providing that the Emperor Charles should be sovereign of the
       Netherlands [heretofore the 'Spanish Provinces,' but now
       become the 'Austrian Provinces'], which, neither in the whole
       nor in the part, should ever be possessed by France. The
       States, on their side, were bound to support, if required, the
       succession of the Electress of Hanover to the throne of
       England. … By the treaty concluded between France and the
       States, it was agreed that … the towns of Menin, Tournay,
       Namur, Ypres, with Warneton, Poperingen, Comines and Werwyk,
       Fumes, Dixmuyde, and the fort of Knokke, were to be ceded to
       the States, as a barrier, to be held in such a manner as they
       should afterwards agree upon with the Emperor." In the
       subsequent arrangement, concluded with the Emperor in 1715,
       "he permitted the boundary on the side of Flanders to be fixed
       in a manner highly satisfactory to the States, who sought
       security rather than extent of dominion. By the possession of
       Namur they commanded the passage of the Sambre and Meuse;
       Tournay ensured the navigation of the Scheldt; Menin and
       Warneton protected the Leye; while Ypres and the fort of
       Knokke kept open the communication with Fumes, Nieuport and
       Dunkirk. … Events proved the barrier, so earnestly insisted
       upon, to have been wholly insufficient as a means of defence
       to the United Provinces, and scarcely worth the labour and
       cost of its maintenance."

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          chapter 11 (volume 3).

    (NETHERLANDS: Holland): A. D. 1713-1725.
        Continued Austro-Spanish troubles.
        The Triple Alliance.
        The Quadruple Alliance.
        The Alliance of Hanover.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
          also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1729-1731.
       The Treaty of Seville.
       The second Treaty of Vienna.
       The Ostend Company abolished.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1731-1740.
       The question of the Austrian Succession.
       Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1740-1741.
       Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1743.
       The War of the Austrian Succession: Dutch Subsidies and Troops.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743; and 1743-1744.

    NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1744.
       Invasion by the French.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

    NETHERLANDS: (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745.
       The War of the Austrian Succession: Battle of Fontenoy.
       French conquests.

       In the spring of 1745, while events in the second Silesian War
       were still threatening to Frederick the Great (see AUSTRIA: A.
       D. 1744-1745), his allies, the French, though indifferent to
       his troubles, were doing better for themselves in the
       Netherlands. They had given to Marshal de Saxe, who commanded
       there, an army of 76,000 excellent troops. "As to the Allies,
       England had furnished her full contingent of 28,000 men, but
       Holland less than half of the 50,000 she had stipulated; there
       were but eight Austrian squadrons, and the whole body scarcely
       exceeded 50,000 fighting men. The nominal leader was the young
       Duke of Cumberland, but subject in a great measure to the
       control of an Austrian veteran, Marshal Konigsegg, and obliged
       to consult the Dutch commander, Prince de Waldeck. Against
       these inferior numbers and divided councils the French
       advanced in full confidence of victory, and, after various
       movements to distract the attention of the Allies, suddenly,
       on the 1st of May, invested Tournay. … To relieve this
       important city, immediately became the principal object with
       the Allies; and the States, usually so cautious, nay, timorous
       in their suggestions, were now as eager in demanding battle.
       … On the other hand, the Mareschal de Saxe made most skilful
       dispositions to receive them. Leaving 15,000 infantry to cover
       the blockade of Tournay, he drew up the rest of his army, a
       few miles further, in an excellent position, which he
       strengthened with numerous works; and his soldiers were
       inspirited by the arrival of the King and Dauphin, who had
       hastened from Paris to join in the expected action. The three
       allied generals, on advancing against the French, found them
       encamped on some gentle heights, with the village of Antoin
       and the river Scheldt on their right, Fontenoy and a narrow
       valley in their front, and a small wood named Barre on their
       left. The passage of the Scheldt, and, if needful, a retreat,
       were secured by the bridge of Calonne in the rear, by a tête
       de pont, and by a reserve of the Household Troops. Abbatis
       were constructed in the wood of Barre; redoubts between Antoin
       and Fontenoy; and the villages themselves had been carefully
       fortified and, garrisoned. The narrow space between Fontenoy
       and Barre seemed sufficiently defended by cross fires, and by
       the natural ruggedness of the ground: in short, as the French
       officers thought, the strength of the position might bid
       defiance to the boldest assailant.
    {2296}
       Nevertheless, the Allied chiefs, who had already resolved on a
       general engagement, drove in the French piquets and outposts
       on the 10th of May, New Style, and issued orders for their
       intended attack at daybreak. … At six o'clock on the morning
       of the 11th, the cannonade began. The Prince of Waldeck, and
       his Dutch, undertook to carry Antoin and Fontenoy by assault,
       while the Duke of Cumberland, at the head of the British and
       Hanoverians, was to advance against the enemy's left. His
       Royal Highness, at the same time with his own attack, sent
       General Ingoldsby, with a division, to pierce through the wood
       of Barre, and storm the redoubt beyond it." Ingoldsby's
       division and the Dutch troops were both repulsed, and the
       latter made no further effort. But the British and
       Hanoverians, leaving their cavalry behind and dragging with
       them a few field pieces, "plunged down the ravine between
       Fontenoy and Barre, and marched on against a position which
       the best Marshals of France had deemed impregnable, and which
       the best troops of that nation defended. … Whole ranks of
       the British were swept away, at once, by the murderous fire of
       the batteries on their left and right. Still did their column,
       diminishing in numbers not in spirit, steadily press forward,
       repulse several desperate attacks of the French infantry, and
       gain ground on its position. … The battle appeared to be
       decided: already did Marshal Konigsegg offer his
       congratulations to the Duke of Cumberland; already had
       Mareschal de Saxe prepared for retreat, and, in repeated
       messages, urged the King to consult his safety and withdraw,
       while it was yet time, beyond the Scheldt." The continued
       inactivity of the Dutch, however, enabled the French commander
       to gather his last reserves at the one point of danger, while
       he brought another battery to bear on the head of the
       advancing British column. "The British, exhausted by their own
       exertions, mowed down by the artillery in front, and assailed
       by the fresh troops in flank, were overpowered. Their column
       wavered—broke—fell back. … In this battle of Fontenoy (for
       such is the name it has borne), the British left behind a few
       pieces of artillery, but no standards, and scarce any
       prisoners but the wounded. The loss in these, and in killed,
       was given out as 4,041 British, 1,762 Hanoverians, and only
       1,544 Dutch; while on their part the French likewise
       acknowledged above 7,000." As the consequence of the battle of
       Fontenoy, not only Tournay, but Ghent, likewise, was speedily
       surrendered to the French. "Equal success crowned similar
       attempts on Bruges, on Oudenarde, and on Dendermonde, while
       the allies could only act on the defensive and cover Brussels
       and Antwerp. The French next directed their arms against
       Ostend, … which … yielded in fourteen days. … Meanwhile
       the events in Scotland [the Jacobite rebellion—see SCOTLAND:
       A. D. 1745-1746] were compelling the British government to
       withdraw the greater part of their force; and it was only the
       approach of winter, and the retreat of both armies into
       quarters, that obtained a brief respite for the remaining
       fortresses of Flanders."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 26 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 52 (volume 6).

          J. G. Wilson,
          Sketches of Illustrious Soldiers: Saxe.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       French conquest of the Austrian provinces.
       Humiliation of Holland.
       The Stadtholdership restored.

       "In the campaign in Flanders in 1746, the French followed up
       the successes which they had achieved in the previous year.
       Brussels, Antwerp, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and other places
       successively surrendered to Marshal Saxe and the Prince of
       Conti. After the capture of Namur in September, Marshal Saxe,
       reuniting all the French forces, attacked Prince Charles of
       Lorraine at Raucoux [or Roucoux], between Liege and Viset, and
       completely defeated him, October 11; after which both sides
       went into winter quarters. All the country between the Meuse
       and the sea was now in the power of France, Austria retaining
       only Luxemburg and Limburg. … Ever since the year 1745 some
       negociations had been going on between France and the Dutch
       for the reestablishment of peace. The States-General had
       proposed the assembling of a Congress to the Cabinet of
       Vienna, which, however, had been rejected. In September 1746,
       conferences had been opened at Breda, between France, Great
       Britain, and the States-General; but as Great Britain had
       gained some advantages at sea, the negociations were
       protracted, and the Cabinets of London and Vienna had
       endeavoured to induce the Dutch to take a more direct and
       active part in the war. In this state of things the Court of
       Versailles took a sudden resolution to coerce the
       States-General. A manifest was published by Louis XV. April
       17th 1747, filled with those pretexts which it is easy to find
       on such occasions: not, indeed, exactly declaring war against
       the Dutch Republic, but that he should enter her territories
       'without breaking with her'; that he should hold in deposit
       the places he might conquer, and restore them as soon as the
       States ceased to succour his enemies. At the same time Count
       Löwendahl entered Dutch Flanders by Bruges, and seized in less
       than a month Sluys, Ysendick, Sas de Gand, Hulst, Axel, and
       other places. Holland had now very much declined from the
       position she had held a century before. There were indeed many
       large capitalists in the United Provinces, whose wealth had
       been amassed during the period of the Republic's commercial
       prosperity, but the State as a whole was impoverished and
       steeped in debt. … In … becoming the capitalists and
       money-lenders of Europe, they [the Dutch] had ceased to be her
       brokers and carriers. … Holland was no longer the entrepôt
       of nations. The English, the Swedes, the Danes, and the
       Hamburghers had appropriated the greater part of her trade.
       Such was the result of the long wars in which she had been
       engaged. … Her political consideration had dwindled equally
       with her commerce. Instead of pretending as formerly to be the
       arbiter of nations, she had become little more than the
       satellite of Great Britain; a position forced upon her by fear
       of France, and her anxiety to maintain her barriers against
       that encroaching Power. Since the death of William III., the
       republican or aristocratic party had again seized the
       ascendency. William III.'s collateral heir, John William
       Friso, had not been recognised as Stadtholder, and the
       Republic was again governed, as in the time of De Witt, by a
       Grand Pensionary and greffier. The dominant party had,
       however, become highly unpopular.
    {2297}
       It had sacrificed the army to maintain the fleet, and the
       Republic seemed to lie at the mercy of France. At the approach
       of the French, consternation reigned in the provinces. The
       Orange party raised its head and demanded the re-establishment
       of the Stadtholdership. The town of Veere in Zealand gave the
       example of insurrection, and William IV. of Nassau-Dietz, who
       was already Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen and
       Gelderland, was ultimately proclaimed hereditary Stadtholder,
       Captain-General and Admiral of the United Provinces. William
       IV. was the son of John William Friso, and son-in-law of
       George II., whose daughter, Anne, he had married. The French
       threatening to attack Maestricht, the allies under the Duke of
       Cumberland marched to Lawfeld in order to protect it. Here
       they were attacked by Marshal Saxe, July 2nd 1747, and after a
       bloody battle compelled to recross the Meuse. The Duke of
       Cumberland, however, took up a position which prevented the
       French from investing Maestricht. On the other hand, Löwendahl
       [a Swedish general in the French service] carried
       Bergen-op-Zoom by assault., July 16th." The following spring
       (1748), the French succeeded in laying siege to Maestricht,
       notwithstanding the presence of the allies, and it was
       surrendered to them on the 7th of May. "Negociations had been
       going on throughout the winter, and a Congress had been
       appointed to meet at Aix-la-Chapelle, whose first conference
       took place April 24th 1748." The taking of Maestricht was
       intended to stimulate these negotiations for peace, and it
       undoubtedly had that effect. The treaties which concluded the
       war were signed the following October.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 3, chapter 12,
          part 4, chapter 1.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1746-1787.
       The restored Stadtholdership.
       Forty years of peace.
       War with England and trouble with Austria.
       The razing of the Barriers.
       Premature revolutions.

       In their extremity, when the provinces of the Dutch Republic
       were threatened with invasion by the French, a cry for the
       House of Orange was raised once more. "The jealousies of
       Provincial magistratures were overborne, and in obedience to
       the voice of the people a Stadholder again arose. William of
       Nassau Dietz, the heir to William III., and the successor to a
       line of Stadholders who had ruled continuously in Friesland
       since the days of Philip II., was summoned to power. …
       William IV. had married, as William II. and William III. had
       done, the daughter of a King of England. As the husband of
       Anne, the child of George II., he had added to the
       consideration of his House; and he was now able to secure for
       his descendants the dignities to which he had himself been
       elected. The States General in 1747 declared that both male
       and female heirs should succeed to his honours. The
       constitution was thus in a measure changed, and the
       appointment of a hereditary chief magistrate appeared to many
       … to be a departure from the pure ideal of a Republic. The
       election of the new Stadholder brought less advantage to his
       people than to his family. He could not recall the glorious
       days of the great ancestors who had preceded him. Without
       abilities for war himself, and jealous of those with whom he
       was brought in contact, he caused disunion to arise among the
       forces of the allies. … When the terms at Aix La Chapelle
       restored their losses to the Dutch and confirmed the
       stipulations of previous treaties in their favour, it was felt
       that the Republic was indebted to the exertions of its allies,
       and not to any strength or successes of its own. It was well
       for the Republic that she could rest. The days of her
       greatness had gone by, and the recent struggle had manifested
       her decline to Europe. … The next forty years were years of
       peace, … When war again arrived it was again external
       circumstances [connected with the war between England and her
       revolted colonies in America] that compelled the Republic to
       take up arms. … She … contemplated, as it was discovered,
       an alliance with the American insurgents. The exposure of her
       designs drew on her a declaration of war from England, which
       was followed by the temporary loss of many of her colonies
       both in the East and West Indies. But in Europe the struggle
       was more equally sustained. The hostile fleets engaged in 1781
       off the Dogger Bank; and the Dutch sailors fought with a
       success that made them claim a victory, and that at least
       secured them from the consequences of a defeat. The war indeed
       caused far less injury to the Republic than might have been
       supposed. … When she concluded peace in 1783, the whole of
       her lost colonies, with the one exception of Negapatam, were
       restored to her. But the occasion of the war had been made use
       of by Austria, and a blow had been meanwhile inflicted upon
       the United Provinces the fatal effect of which was soon to be
       apparent. The Emperor Joseph II. had long protested against
       the existence of the Barrier: and he had seized upon the
       opportunity to undo by an arbitrary act all that the blood and
       treasure of Europe had been lavished to secure. 'The Emperor
       will hear no more of Barriers,' wrote his minister; 'our
       connection with France has made them needless': and the
       fortresses for which William III. had schemed and Marlborough
       had fought, were razed to the ground [1782]. Holland, unable
       at the moment to resist, withdrew her garrisons in silence;
       and Joseph, emboldened by his success, proceeded to ask for
       more [1784]. The rectification of the Dutch frontiers, the
       opening of the Scheldt, and the release for his subjects from
       the long-enforced restrictions upon their trade did not appear
       too much to him. But the spirit of the Dutch had not yet left
       them. They fired at the vessels which dared to attempt to
       navigate the Scheldt, and war again appeared imminent. The
       support of France, however, upon which the Emperor had relied,
       was now given to the Republic, and Joseph recognized that he
       had gone too far. The Barrier, once destroyed, was not to be
       restored; but the claims which had been put forward were
       abandoned upon the payment of money compensation by the
       States. The feverous age of revolution was now at hand, and
       party spirit, which had ever divided the United Provinces, and
       had been quickened by the intercourse and alliance with
       America during the war, broke out in an insurrection against
       the Stadholder [William V.], which drove him from his country,
       and compelled him to appeal to Prussian troops for his
       restoration. Almost at the same time, in the Austrian
       provinces, a Belgic Republic was proclaimed [1787], the result
       in a great degree of imprudent changes which Joseph II. had
       enforced. The Dutch returned to their obedience under
       Prussian threats [and invasion of Holland by an army of 30,000
       men—September, 1787], and Belgium under the concessions of
       Leopold III. But these were the clouds foreshadowing the
       coming storm, beneath whose fury all Europe was to tremble."

          C. F. Johnstone,
          Historical Abstracts,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3).

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century, period 4,
          chapter 1, section 2,
          and chapter 2, section 2 (volume 5).

    {2298}

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1748.
       Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
       French conquests restored to Austria and to Holland.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1782.
       Recognition of the United States of America.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (APRIL).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1792-1793.
       The Austrian provinces occupied
       by the French revolutionary army.
       Determination to annex them to the French Republic.
       Preparations to attack Holland.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1702 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
          and 1702-1703 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
       French invasion of Holland.
       Defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
       Recovery of Belgian provinces by the Austrians.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1793 (March-September).
       The Coalition against Revolutionary France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1794.
       French conquest of the Austrian Provinces.
       Holland open to invasion.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1794-1795.
       Subjugation and occupation by the French.
       Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
       Establishment of the Batavian Republic, in alliance with France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1797.
       Naval defeat by the English in the Battle of Camperdown.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

    NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1797.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 17\!7 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1799.
       English and Russian invasion.
       Capture of the Dutch fleet.
       Ignominious ending of the expedition.
       Capitulation of the Duke of York.
       Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
          and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1801.
       Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.
       A new Constitution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1802.
       The Peace of Amiens.
       Recovery of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806.
       Final seizure of Cape Colony by the English.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
       Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
       Napoleon's Decrees.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806-1810.
       The Batavian Republic transformed into the Kingdom of Holland.
       Louis Bonaparte made King.
       His fidelity to the country offensive to Napoleon.
       His abdication.
       Annexation of Holland to the French empire.

       "While Bonaparte was the chief of the French republic, he had
       no objection to the existence of a Batavian republic in the
       north of France, and he equally tolerated the Cisalpine
       republic in the south. But after the coronation all the
       republics, which were grouped like satellites round the grand
       republic, were converted into kingdoms, subject to the empire,
       if not avowedly, at least in fact. In this respect there was
       no difference between the Batavian and Cisalpine republic. The
       latter having been metamorphosed into the kingdom of Italy, it
       was necessary to find some pretext for transforming the former
       into the kingdom of Holland. … The Emperor kept up such an
       extensive agency in Holland that he easily got up a
       deputation, soliciting him to choose a king for the Batavian
       republic. This submissive deputation came to Paris in 1806, to
       solicit the Emperor, as a favour, to place Prince Louis
       [Napoleon's brother] on the throne of Holland. … Louis
       became King of Holland much against his inclination, for he
       opposed the proposition as much as he dared, alleging as an
       objection the state of his health, to which certainly the
       climate of Holland was not favourable; but Bonaparte sternly
       replied to his remonstrance—'It is better to die a king than
       live a prince.' He was then obliged to accept the crown. He
       went to Holland accompanied by Hortense, who, however, did not
       stay long there. The new king wanted to make himself beloved
       by his subjects, and as they were an entirely commercial
       people, the best way to win their affections was … not to
       adopt Napoleon's rigid laws against commercial intercourse
       with England. Hence the first coolness between the two
       brothers, which ended in the abdication of Louis. I know not
       whether Napoleon recollected the motive assigned by Louis for
       at first refusing the crown of Holland, namely, the climate of
       the country, or whether he calculated upon greater submission
       in another of his brothers; but this is certain, that Joseph
       was not called from the throne of Naples to the throne of
       Spain, until after the refusal of Louis. … Before finally
       seizing Holland, Napoleon formed the project of separating
       from it Brabant and Zealand, in exchange for other provinces,
       the possession of which was doubtful: but Louis successfully
       resisted this first act of usurpation. Bonaparte was too
       intent on the great business in Spain, to risk any commotion
       in the north, where the declaration of Russia against Sweden
       already sufficiently occupied him. He therefore did not insist
       upon, and even affected indifference to the proposed
       augmentation of the territory of the empire. … But when he
       got his brother Joseph recognized, and when he had himself
       struck an important blow in the Peninsula, he began to change
       his tone to Louis. On the 20th of December [1808] he wrote to
       him a very remarkable letter, which exhibits the unreserved
       expression of that tyranny which he wished to exercise over
       all his family in order to make them the instruments of his
       despotism. He reproached Louis for not following his system of
       policy, telling him that he had forgotten he was a Frenchman,
       and that he wished to become a Dutchman. Among other things he
       said: … 'I have been obliged a second time to prohibit trade
       with Holland. In this state of things we may consider
       ourselves really at war. In my speech to the legislative body
       I manifested my displeasure; for I will not conceal from you,
       that my intention is to unite Holland with France.
    {2299}
       This will be the most severe blow I can aim against England,
       and will deliver me from the perpetual insults which the
       plotters of your cabinet are constantly directing against me.
       The mouths of the Rhine, and of the Meuse, ought, indeed, to
       belong to me. … The following are my conditions:—First, the
       interdiction of all trade and communication with England.
       Second. The supply of a fleet of fourteen sail of the line,
       seven frigates and seven brigs or corvettes, armed and manned.
       Third, an army of 25,000 men. Fourth. The suppression of the
       rank of Marshals. Fifth. The abolition of all the privileges
       of nobility, which is contrary to the constitution. Your
       Majesty may negotiate on these bases with the Duke de Cadore,
       through the medium of your minister; but be assured, that on
       the entrance of the first packet-boat into Holland, I will
       restore my prohibitions, and that the first Dutch officer who
       may presume to insult my flag, shall be seized and hanged at
       the main-yard. Your Majesty will find in me a brother if you
       prove yourself a Frenchman; but if you forget the sentiments
       which attach you to our common country, you cannot think it
       extraordinary that I should lose sight of those which nature
       has raised between us. In short, the union of Holland and
       France will be, of all things, most useful to France, Holland
       and the Continent, because it will be most injurious to
       England. This union must be effected willingly, or by force.'
       … Here the correspondence between the two brothers was
       suspended for a time; but Louis still continued exposed to new
       vexations on the part of Napoleon. About the end of 1809, the
       Emperor summoned to Paris the sovereigns who might be called
       his vassals. Among the number was Louis, who, however, did not
       shew himself very willing to quit his states. He called a
       council of his ministers, who were of opinion that for the
       interest of Holland he ought to make this new sacrifice. He
       did so with resignation. Indeed, every day passed on the
       throne was a sacrifice to Louis. … Amidst the general
       silence of the servants of the empire, and even of the kings
       and princes assembled in the capital, he ventured to say:—'I
       have been deceived by promises which were never intended to be
       kept. Holland is tired of being the sport of France.' The
       Emperor, who was unused to such language as this, was highly
       incensed at it. Louis had now no alternative, but to yield to
       the incessant exactions of Napoleon, or to see Holland united
       to France. He chose the latter, though not before he had
       exerted all his feeble power in behalf of the subjects whom
       Napoleon had consigned to him; but he would not be the
       accomplice of him who had resolved to make those subjects the
       victims of his hatred against England. … Louis was, however,
       permitted to return to his states, to contemplate the
       stagnating effect of the continental blockade on every branch
       of trade and industry, formerly so active in Holland.
       Distressed at witnessing evils to which he could apply no
       remedy, he endeavoured by some prudent remonstrances to avert
       the utter ruin with which Holland was threatened. On the 23rd
       of March, 1810, he wrote … [a] letter to Napoleon. …
       Written remonstrances were not more to Napoleon's taste than
       verbal ones at a time when, as I was informed by my friends,
       whom fortune chained to his destiny, no one presumed to
       address a word to him, except to answer his questions. … His
       brother's letter highly roused his displeasure. Two months
       after he received it, being on a journey in the north, he
       addressed to Louis from Ostend a letter," followed in a few
       days by another in which latter he said: "'I want no more
       phrases and protestations. It is time I should know whether
       you intend, by your follies, to ruin Holland. I do not choose
       that you should again send a Minister to Austria, or that you
       should dismiss the French who are in your service. I have
       recalled my Ambassador, as I intend only to have a
       Chargé-d'affaires in Holland. The Sieur Serrurier, who remains
       there in that capacity, will communicate to you my intentions.
       My Ambassador shall no longer be exposed to your insults.
       Write to me no more those set phrases which you have been
       repeating for the last three years, and the falsehood of which
       is proved every day. This is the last letter I will ever write
       to you as long as I live.' … Thus reduced to the cruel
       alternative of crushing Holland with his own hands, or leaving
       that task to the Emperor, Louis did not hesitate to lay down
       his sceptre. Having formed this resolution, he addressed a
       message to the legislative body of the kingdom of Holland,
       explaining the motives of his abdication. … The French
       troops entered Holland under the command of the Duke de
       Reggio; and that Marshal, who was more King than the King
       himself, threatened to occupy Amsterdam. Louis then descended
       from his throne [July 1, 1810]. … Louis bade farewell to the
       people of Holland in a proclamation, after the publication of
       which he repaired to the waters of Toeplitz. There he was
       living in tranquil retirement, when he learnt that his brother
       had united Holland to the Empire [December 10, 1810]. He then
       published a protest. … Thus there seemed to be an end of all
       intercourse between these two brothers, who were so opposite
       in character and disposition. But Napoleon, who was enraged
       that Louis should have presumed to protest, and that in
       energetic terms, against the union of his kingdom with the
       empire, ordered him to return to France, whither he was
       summoned in his character of Constable and French Prince.
       Louis, however, did not think proper to obey this summons, and
       Napoleon, faithful to his promise of never writing to him
       again, ordered … [a] letter to be addressed to him by M.
       Otto, … Ambassador from France to Vienna," saying: "'The
       Emperor requires that Prince Louis shall return, at the
       latest, by the 1st of December next, under pain of being
       considered as disobeying the constitution of the empire and
       the head of his family, and being treated accordingly.'"

          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 4, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          D. A. Bingham,
          Marriages of the Bonapartes,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

          T. C. Grattan,
          History of the Netherlands,
          chapter 22.

          See, also,
          FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1809.
       The English Walcheren expedition against Antwerp.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1811.
       Java taken by the English.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    {2300}

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1813.
       Expulsion of the French.
       Independence regained.
       Restoration of the Prince of Orange.

       "The universal fermentation produced in Europe by the
       deliverance of Germany was not long of spreading to the Dutch
       Provinces.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

       The yoke of Napoleon, universally grievous from the enormous
       pecuniary exactions with which it was attended, and the
       wasting military conscriptions to which it immediately led,
       had been in a peculiar manner felt as oppressive in Holland,
       from the maritime and commercial habits of the people, and the
       total stoppage of all their sources of industry, which the
       naval war and long-continued blockade of their coasts had
       occasioned. They had tasted for nearly twenty years of the
       last drop of humiliation in the cup of the vanquished—that of
       being compelled themselves to aid in upholding the system
       which was exterminating their resources, and to purchase with
       the blood of their children the ruin of their country. These
       feelings, which had for years existed in such intensity, as to
       have rendered revolt inevitable but for the evident
       hopelessness at all former times of the attempt, could no
       longer be restrained after the battle of Leipsic had thrown
       down the colossus of French external power, and the approach
       of the Allied standards to their frontiers had opened to the
       people the means of salvation.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER) and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

       From the Hansa Towns the flame of independence spread to the
       nearest cities of the old United Provinces; and the small
       number of French troops in the country at once encouraged
       revolt and paved the way for external aid. At this period, the
       whole troops which Napoleon had in Holland did not exceed
       6,000 French, and two regiments of Germans, upon whose
       fidelity to their colours little reliance could be placed.
       Upon the approach of the Allied troops under Bulow, who
       advanced by the road of Munster, and Winzingerode, who soon
       followed from the same quarter, the douaniers all withdrew
       from the coast, the garrison of Amsterdam retired, and the
       whole disposable force of the country was concentrated at
       Utrecht, to form a corps of observation, and act according to
       circumstances. This was the signal for a general revolt. At
       Amsterdam [November 15], the troops were no sooner gone than
       the inhabitants rose in insurrection, deposed the Imperial
       authorities, hoisted the orange flag, and established a
       provisional government with a view to the restoration of the
       ancient order of things; yet not violently or with cruelty,
       but with the calmness and composure which attest the exercise
       of social rights by a people long habituated to their
       enjoyment. The same change took place, at the same time and in
       the same orderly manner, at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Delft,
       Leyden, Haarlem, and the other chief towns; the people,
       everywhere, amidst cries of 'Orange Boven' and universal
       rapture, mounted the orange cockade, and reinstated the
       ancient authorities. … Military and political consequences
       of the highest importance immediately followed this
       uncontrollable outbreak of public enthusiasm. A deputation
       from Holland waited on the Prince Regent of England and the
       Prince of Orange, in London: the latter shortly after embarked
       on board an English line-of-battle ship, the Warrior, and on
       the 27th landed at Scheveling, from whence he proceeded to the
       Hague. Meantime the French troops and coast-guards, who had
       concentrated at Utrecht, seeing that the general effervescence
       was not as yet supported by any solid military force, and that
       the people, though they had all hoisted the orange flag, were
       not aided by any corps of the Allies, recovered from their
       consternation, and made it general forward movement against
       Amsterdam. Before they got there, however, a body of 300
       Cossacks had reached that capital, where they were received
       with enthusiastic joy: and this advanced guard was soon after
       followed by General Benkendorf's brigade, which, after
       travelling by post from Zwoll to Harderwyk, embarked at the
       latter plage, and, by the aid of a favourable wind, reached
       Amsterdam on the 1st December. The Russian general immediately
       advanced against the forts of Mayder and Halfweg, of which he
       made himself master, taking twenty pieces of cannon and 600
       prisoners; while on the eastern frontier, General Oppen, with
       Bulow's advanced guards, carried Dornbourg by assault on the
       23d, and, advancing against Arnheim, threw the garrison, 3,000
       strong, which strove to prevent the place being invested, with
       great loss back into the town. Next day, Bulow himself came up
       with the main strength of his corps, and, as the ditches were
       still dry, hazarded an escalade, which proved entirely
       successful; the greater part of the garrison retiring to
       Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops,
       finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew
       altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the
       orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with
       a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon,
       threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the
       Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received
       the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the
       close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on
       Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses;
       and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been
       transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to
       those of the Scheldt."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 82 (volume 17).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
       Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed
       to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
          and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.
       The Waterloo campaign.
       Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1816.
       Accession to the Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
       Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.
       Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
       Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
       Siege of Antwerp citadel.

       "In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the
       kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna,
       "was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any
       other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in
       the government of the united territory. But, in another sense,
       the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch
       Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted
       Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with
       the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the
       rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that
       Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine.
     {2301}
       These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable
       of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for
       themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian
       dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a
       population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000
       persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the
       States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland,
       and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch
       pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The
       public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five
       in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was
       almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors
       were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian
       schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of
       Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of
       the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all
       judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated.
       … On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the
       elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers
       failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the
       political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union
       was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July
       [at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides
       crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of
       revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine
       years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax
       upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority;
       and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch
       members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in
       Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed
       against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the
       interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the
       Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops
       were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded
       to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August
       the troops were called out and instructed to restore order.
       Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the
       people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters,
       and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square
       of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military,
       the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable
       citizens, dreading the destruction of their property,
       organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was
       preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted
       Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control
       of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had
       unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could
       hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given
       to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob;
       victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the
       Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king
       urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation
       of the States-General. The king had received the news of the
       events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at
       once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August,
       an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The
       citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops
       would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the
       officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively
       outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make
       terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to
       admit the prince into the city unless he came without his
       soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of
       this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people
       alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium
       had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king,
       compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned
       the States-General for the 13th of September. But this
       concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands.
       They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded
       independence, the dissolution of the union, and the
       independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had
       originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to
       other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay,
       Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the
       example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the
       union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a
       mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on;
       and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously
       impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met.
       The question of separation was referred to them by the king;
       and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its
       consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which
       their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had
       completed the preliminary discussions which they thought
       necessary the march of events had taken the question out of
       their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke
       out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the
       riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their
       success, announced their intention of attacking the troops,
       who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of
       Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up
       his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his
       command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of
       September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the
       columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining
       possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were
       unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the
       contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops,
       unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which
       they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the
       States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the
       union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the
       gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to
       preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the
       Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a
       separate Administration for the southern provinces of the
       kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. …
       Arrangements of this character had, however, already become
       impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached
       Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an
       ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the
       immediate convocation of a National Congress. …
    {2302}
       On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following
       up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating
       the composition of the National Congress and the
       qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were
       fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the
       Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence
       of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its
       authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the
       five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the
       invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice
       should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops
       should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this
       protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress,
       virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which
       the Congress immediately proclaimed."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

       It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for
       Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian
       Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them.
       The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice
       of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The
       second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides
       to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by
       dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland.
       The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland
       rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who
       expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A
       French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet
       blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days,
       December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until
       April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and
       Holland was signed.

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1815-1852,
          chapters 24-25 and 29.

    NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
       Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.
       Constitutional and material progress.
       The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.

       "After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been
       free to work out its own career of prosperous development.
       King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model
       of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The
       first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between
       Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most
       complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by
       more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe,
       numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as
       Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France
       all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing
       Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection
       of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort]
       with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted
       the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been
       the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850
       there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and
       nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for
       many years to abolish these and control education; but neither
       party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst
       of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after
       seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial
       crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a
       constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question
       seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III.
       had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take
       Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as
       the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

       … Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain
       on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this
       danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical
       parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself,
       and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals
       succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over
       State education. The constitution is that of a limited
       monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of
       Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens
       paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was
       extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection
       with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see
       below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands
       (Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize
       Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son.
       The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium,
       and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of
       1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a
       thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the
       States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by
       the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower
       house by electors having a property qualification. The king's
       ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of
       the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief
       questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy
       debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of
       agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and
       difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage
       28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She
       there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the
       Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in
       South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was
       not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves
       in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of
       Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba];
       but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main
       purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour
       system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the
       people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."

          J. H. Rose,
          A Century of Continental History,
          chapter 43.

       "The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals
       exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,
       and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic
       provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely
       absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the
       lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order
       thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious
       strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in
       the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution
       of 1830.
    {2303}
       This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and
       liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of
       the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free
       press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form
       associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,
       representative administration—all exactly as in England. How
       was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose
       members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour
       of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also
       the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is
       explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,
       La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest
       influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur
       l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human
       reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance
       of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,
       seminarists, and priests, established the author as an
       unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he
       pretended that the Church would regain her former power by
       separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,
       most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …
       Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.
       They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in
       their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to
       reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals
       united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence
       after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot
       tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in
       its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,
       the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a
       plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would
       inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the
       Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the
       vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,
       and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.
       The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'
       of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William
       and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,
       however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly
       announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed
       of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear
       a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …
       When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as
       regards their political, not their religious opinions. The
       Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events
       by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the
       bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the
       clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from
       a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by
       the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine
       Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,
       of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and
       progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass
       of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country
       populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,
       and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no
       material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend
       liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the
       Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as
       threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to
       fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but
       which they foresee. … The educational question, which has
       been the centre of the political life of the country during
       the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important
       in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is
       everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was
       organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the
       two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders
       of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,
       where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of
       forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess
       schools sufficient for the number of children needing
       instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private
       schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control
       of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,
       was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour
       for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they
       perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests
       over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became
       the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately
       effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must
       provide the schools necessary for the children of its
       inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.
       Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction
       may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in
       the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This
       system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of
       the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the
       communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the
       school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose
       to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,
       now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving
       rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it
       is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …
       In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private
       school in every commune and village not formerly possessing
       one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a
       devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the
       Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have
       been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools
       without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents
       were forbidden to place their children, under pain of
       committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed
       their children still to frequent the communal schools, were
       deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused
       absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.
       All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban
       of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce
       a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary
       instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step
       is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the
       House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in
       progress, and the results of which in this last six months,
       fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by
       what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As
       a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the
       two parties end by justifying the accusations of their
       adversaries.
    {2304}
       The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion
       is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the
       Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against
       their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the
       necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in
       Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,
       offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good
       working of Parliamentary government."

          E. de Laveleye,
          The Political Condition of Belgium
          (Contemporary Review, April, 1882),
          pages 715-724, with foot-note.

    NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.
       The founding of the Congo Free State.

          See CONGO FREE STATE.

    NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):
    A. D. 1887.
       Revision of the Constitution.

       The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the
       Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative
       spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect
       a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage
       qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and
       certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the
       franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,
       which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private
       soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are
       excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States
       General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its
       membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting
       of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In
       the new constitution, the succession to the throne is
       definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct
       heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be
       accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of
       Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess
       Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess
       Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,
       died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to
       succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under
       the regency of her mother.

          The Statesman's Year-book, 1894.

          ALSO IN:
          The Annual Register, 1887.

          Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887.

    NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.
       The revised Belgian Constitution.
       Introduction of plural Suffrage.

       A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a
       formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise
       from the government of a revision of the constitution and the
       introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,
       elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the
       11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated
       on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on
       every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in
       the same commune for not less than one year, and not under
       legal disqualification. The new constitution is made
       especially interesting by its introduction of a system of
       cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is
       conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five
       years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at
       least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen
       not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to
       the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not
       less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public
       debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are
       given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has
       received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions
       which imply the possession of a superior education. The same
       citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these
       qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.
       On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels
       correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;
       "This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in
       France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and
       the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple
       suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as
       to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a
       profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of
       the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just
       principle that votes must be considered in reference to their
       weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of
       putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which
       disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much
       enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The
       moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract
       theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An
       attempt to introduce proportional representation along with
       the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the
       Senate raised questions hardly less important than those
       connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent
       quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had
       proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political
       representation of the territorial interests of the country, by
       a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social
       forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to
       agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their
       representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have
       made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,
       may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators
       hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of
       its application. This combination rejected, there remained for
       the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,
       to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or
       else by its composition. The Senate and the Government
       preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct
       elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the
       Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by
       specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these
       proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a
       general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate
       consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26
       elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight
       years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a
       property qualification; those popularly elected are required
       to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000
       francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in
       direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the
       voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.
    {2305}
       The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned
       according to population and elected for four years, one half
       retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually
       in November, and are required to be in session for at least
       forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,
       and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.
       In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an
       election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the
       Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of
       Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to
       the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven
       ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and
       Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of
       Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.
       The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.

       ----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

    NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

    NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    NEUSTRIA.

          See AUSTRASIA.

    NEUTRAL GROUND, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    NEUTRAL NATION, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

    NEUTRAL RIGHTS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

       ----------NEVADA: Start--------

    NEVADA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
       Acquisition from Mexico.
       Silver discoveries.
       Territorial and State organization.

       "Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as
       one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of
       the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra
       Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names,
       and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with
       Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake
       valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries
       of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican
       territory outside of California, and something more." But
       Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created
       instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the
       Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada
       likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the
       Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of
       western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the
       extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the
       Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had
       rapidly attracted to the region a large population of
       adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate
       territorial organization. Three years later the young
       territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was
       admitted into the Union in October, 1864.

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 20: Nevada, page 66.

       ----------NEVADA: End--------

    NEVELLE, Battle of (1381).

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

    NEVILLE'S CROSS, OR DURHAM, Battle of.

       A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading
       England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken
       prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 25 (volume 3).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

    NEW ALBION, The County Palatine of.

       By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of
       Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to
       Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of
       Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty
       leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the
       said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while
       the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this
       document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to
       include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and
       Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which,
       forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy
       Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other
       'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores
       of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a
       county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden
       as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and
       imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the
       year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became
       vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in
       1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to
       make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the
       Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl
       Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have
       reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time
       near the close of the 18th century.

          G. B. Keen,
          Note on New Albion.
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468).

          ALSO IN:
          S. Hazard,
          Annals of Pennsylvania,
          pages 36-38 and 108-112.

    NEW AMSTERDAM.

       The name originally given by the Dutch to the city of New
       York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1634; and 1653.

       Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the
       city of Buffalo, N. Y.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

       ----------NEW BRUNSWICK: Start--------

    NEW BRUNSWICK:
       Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

          See NORUMBEGA;
          also, CANADA: NAMES.

    NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1621-1668.
       Included in Nova Scotia.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

    NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1713.
       Uncertain disposition by the Treaty of Utrecht.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1820-1837.
       The Family Compact.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

    NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1854-1866.
       The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
          A. D. 1854-1866.

    NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.
       Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

       ----------NEW BRUNSWICK: End--------

    NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.

       See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

    NEW CARTHAGE.
       The founding of.

          See CARTHAGENA, THE FOUNDING OF.

    NEW CASTILE.

       See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.

    {2306}

       ----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------

    NEW ENGLAND.
       [Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
       elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
       and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]

    NEW ENGLAND:
       The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    NEW ENGLAND:
       The Norumbega of early geographers.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
       First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.
       Coasted by Verrazano.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.
       The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
       Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.
       Coast explored by Champlain.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
       Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company
       of Plymouth.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
       The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
       The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.
       Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
       The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
       Incorporation of the Council for New England,
       successor to the Plymouth Company.
       Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.

       "While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London
       company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival
       in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North
       Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new
       letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The
       remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of
       English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,
       the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On
       the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his
       subjects—some of them members of his household and his
       government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English
       nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the
       county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and
       governing New England in America.' The territory, which was
       conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers
       of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the
       48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the
       Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was
       considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage
       employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England
       under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was
       through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the
       crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial
       independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The
       French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing
       lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen
       years before, had appropriated. The English nation was
       incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal
       prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the
       grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament
       was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five
       and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New
       England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to
       King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to
       approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave
       of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,
       Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to
       exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they
       refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual
       authority was soon resigned."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Deane,
          New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 3, chapter 9).

          Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
          Brief Narration
          (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
       The grants made by the Council for New England.
       Settlements planted.
       Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.

       Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,
       became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote
       a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and
       sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,
       and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the
       year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned
       into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his
       little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of
       Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed
       Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with
       Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He
       invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a
       scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake
       settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason
       to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the
       Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason
       referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and
       their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to
       Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,
       1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land
       which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his
       countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had
       urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year
       before. The Council for New England, established in November,
       1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or
       to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The
       second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain
       John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land
       lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending
       back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,
       with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason
       called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly
       within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a
       period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New
       England.
    {2307}
       On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.
       This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the
       sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,
       extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands
       within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,
       called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined
       seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first
       carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries
       were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.
       Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as
       New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on
       the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,
       was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new
       Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now
       prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all
       ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued
       many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons
       intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to
       David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.
       The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the
       fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The
       Council for New England, in view of the many intended
       settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to
       set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert
       Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was
       appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain
       Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his
       Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,
       1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who
       was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain
       Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war
       between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while
       Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges
       was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at
       Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was
       now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's
       services were required as a naval officer of experience. …
       In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having
       ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be
       Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the
       wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.
       His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with
       France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner
       were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public
       duties than they sprang at once to their old New England
       enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.
       They came to some understanding about a division of their
       Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day
       memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted
       to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine
       lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason
       called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which
       he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.
       … This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought
       to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had
       been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured
       immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land
       in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a
       fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.
       The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous
       lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern
       grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date
       November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New
       Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the
       interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the
       Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and
       received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a
       tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on
       the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and
       Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,
       covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of
       Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east
       side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of
       Lebanon."

          C. W. Tuttle,
          Captain John Mason
          (Prince Society Publications, 1887),
          pages 12-24.

          ALSO IN:
          S. F. Haven,
          Grants under the Great Council for New England
          (Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
          pages 127-162).

          J. P. Baxter, editor,
          Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
          (Prince Society Publications 1890).

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, page 397, foot-note.

          See, also,
          MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
          and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
       The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
       the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
       The new patent to Plymouth Colony.

          See MASSACHUSETTS:
          A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
       The immigration of the Governor and Company of
       Massachusetts Bay with their charter.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
       The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
       Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning
       of its territorial claims by lot.

       "The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly
       fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded
       to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it
       had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be
       overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,
       and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by
       profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its
       common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for
       keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its
       organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a
       resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the
       administration of its domain to a General Governor of his
       appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large
       portion of which by its corporate action had already been
       alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],
       should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of
       the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a
       distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and
       nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to
       transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the
       previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were
       colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John
       Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in
       Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

    {2308}

       It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,
       all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …
       everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The
       Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother
       country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New
       England."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, chapter 10.

       In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
       the Council, the divisions were:
       (1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
       (2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
       in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
       (3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
       (4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
       (5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
       (6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
       by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
       (7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
       the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
       to Lord Edward Gorges.
       (8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
       Earl of Carlisle.
       (9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
       to the Duke of Lennox.
       (11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
       Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.

          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          History of the United States,
          volume 1, page 337, foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hutchinson,
          History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
          volume 1, pages 48-50.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.
       Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
          and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
       The first American constitution.
       The genesis of a state.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.
       Public Registry laws.

          See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
       The Pequot War.

       "The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the
       banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held
       in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives,
       who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes.
       They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots.
       The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were
       restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike
       conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000
       fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate
       the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one
       or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to
       Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who
       invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who
       offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His
       object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites
       against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful.
       Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards,
       the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or
       later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use
       discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for
       their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated
       and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain
       Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston
       magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to
       account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort
       on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at
       its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in
       Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and
       other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been
       murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging
       on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent
       Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to
       kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the
       women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work
       only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and
       wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this
       expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a
       desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a
       league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as
       if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would
       doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme
       was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly
       intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made
       effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in
       him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly
       league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of
       1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their
       territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered
       at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and
       cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250
       Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot
       'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a
       military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable
       John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from
       Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their
       quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they
       had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not
       very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only
       about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a
       sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason
       in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of
       their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the
       infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and
       fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work.
       Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and
       dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their
       own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing
       wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English
       showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the
       wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the
       victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon
       abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children,
       in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the
       English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many
       wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them,
       allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out.
    {2309}
       The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of
       them which sought protection among the so-called river
       Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks,
       were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus,
       being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold
       in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same
       humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants
       to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites
       had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the
       occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of
       later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all
       candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white
       men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of
       Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate
       vengefulness."

          G. E. Ellis,
          The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts
          (Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254).

       "More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and
       less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These
       were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the
       pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit
       their native country again. To make the annihilation of the
       race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in
       Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the
       Thames, Pequot town was named New London."

          S. G. Arnold,
          History of Rhode Island,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          G. H. Hollister,
          History of Connecticut,
          chapters 2-3.

          G. E. Ellis,
          Life of John Mason
          (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3).

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.
       The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
       The founding of New Haven Colony.

          See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
          and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
       The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
       The growth of population and the rise of towns.
       The end of the Puritan exodus.

       "Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New
       England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long
       Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore
       them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their
       transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is
       computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars.
       The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. …
       Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were
       incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were
       passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley,
       Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and
       Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the
       present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act
       was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a
       measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within
       itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to
       that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the
       central power, or the constitution of the United States; and
       the idea of the formation of such communities was probably
       derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a
       parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to
       contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of
       its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at
       this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all
       which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three
       contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."

          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

       "Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the
       Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to
       America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to
       flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and
       strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and
       Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the
       Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New
       Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence
       had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of
       Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly.
       There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again
       made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken
       by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the
       privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence
       vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of
       a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and
       magistrates took different sides, grew a very important
       controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which
       resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two
       branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and
       solidity of the political system."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies,
          chapter 18.

          See, also,
          TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.
       Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
       The confederation of the colonies.

       In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United
       Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between
       delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one
       hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.
       Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the
       Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to
       withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two
       commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or
       oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at
       Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to
       have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The
       commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to
       choose a president from among themselves, and everything was
       to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be
       declared by either colony without the consent of the
       commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign
       relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the
       'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one
       great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a
       common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or
       male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive
       criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward
       introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the
       commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the
       practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a
       provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of
       courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have
       full faith and credit in all the others.
    {2310}
       The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far
       the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary
       precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,
       though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,
       had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven
       towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the
       old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off
       to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except
       for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by
       Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven
       was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that
       town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to
       commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,
       agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity
       of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New
       Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at
       Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the
       towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been
       added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of
       the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on
       Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of
       Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was
       still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of
       it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the
       next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into
       that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of
       Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because
       the people there ran a different course both in their ministry
       and civil administration.' The same objection applied with
       still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 10 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. S. Barry,
          History of Massachusetts,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Colonial Era,
          chapter 8.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.
       The chartering of Providence Plantation,
       and the Rhode Island Union.

          See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1651.
       Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1650.
       Adjustment of Connecticut boundaries with the Dutch.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
       The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.
       The claims of Massachusetts made good.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1656-1661.
       The persecution of Quakers.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1657-1662.
       The Halfway Covenant.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1664.
       The protection of the Regicides.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
       Under the Restored Monarchy.
       The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
       The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
       The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts
       with Connecticut.

          See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675.
       King Philip's War: Its causes and beginning.

       "The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and
       Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a
       treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English
       should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from
       the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had
       welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had
       opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now
       slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him
       as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had
       narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded
       them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and
       convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The
       principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we
       now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew
       nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put
       under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,
       their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,
       their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till
       they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by
       their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.
       Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.
       There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the
       part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was
       accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing
       what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof
       of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,
       recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not
       but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their
       fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over
       them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should
       be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their
       anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by
       an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their
       unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The
       haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to
       surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,
       in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not
       escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the
       informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were
       identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were
       Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The
       young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,
       eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,
       and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was
       Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to
       have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.
       … What chances had he of success? The English were united;
       the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the
       English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English
       had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they
       could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their
       shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives
       were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the
       Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose
       without hope, and they fought without mercy.
    {2311}
       For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first
       alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of
       Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the
       beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from
       Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive
       among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The
       little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the
       Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty
       of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile
       Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the
       commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the
       Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget
       his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole
       frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found
       a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,
       Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening
       their race to a warfare of extermination."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (author's last revision),
          part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

       "At this time, according to loose estimates, there may have
       been some 36,000 Indians and 60,000 whites in New England;
       10,000 of the former fit for war, and 15,000 of the latter
       capable of bearing arms. … At the outset, the Narragansetts,
       numbering 2,000 warriors, did not actually second Philip's
       resistance. But Canonchet, their sachem, might well remember
       the death of his father Miantonomo [who, taken prisoner in a
       war with the Mohegans, and surrendered by them to the English,
       in 1643, with a request for permission to put him to death,
       was deliberately returned to his savage captors, on advice
       taken from the ministers at Boston—doomed to death without
       his knowledge]. … No efforts at conciliation seem to have
       been made by either party; for the whites felt their
       superiority (were they not 'the Lord's chosen people?'); and
       Philip knew the desperate nature of the struggle between
       united and well-armed whites, and divided uncontrolled
       savages; yet when the emergency came he met it, and never
       faltered or plead from that day forth."

          C. W. Elliott,
          The New England History,
          volume 1, chapter 40.

          ALSO IN:
          B. Church,
          History of King Philip's War,
          (Prince Society Publication 1867).

          S. G. Drake,
          Aboriginal Races of North America,
          book 3.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (July-September).
       King Philip's War: Savage successes of the Indian enemy.
       Increasing rage and terror among the colonists.

       The Nipmucks, into whose country Philip retreated, "had
       already commenced hostilities by attacking Mendon. They
       waylaid and killed Captain Hutchinson, a son of the famous
       Mrs. Hutchinson, and 16 out of a party of 20 sent from Boston
       to Brookfield to parley with them. Attacking Brookfield
       itself, they burned it, except one fortified house. The
       inhabitants were saved by Major Willard, who, on information
       of their danger, came with a troop of horse from Lancaster,
       thirty miles through the woods, to their rescue. A body of
       troops presently arrived from the eastward, and were stationed
       for some time at Brookfield. The colonists now found that by
       driving Philip to extremity they had roused a host of
       unexpected enemies. The River Indians, anticipating an
       intended attack upon them, joined the assailants. Deerfield
       and Northfield, the northernmost towns on the Connecticut
       River, settled within a few years past, were attacked and
       several of the inhabitants killed and wounded. Captain Beers,
       sent from Hadley to their relief with a convoy of provisions,
       was surprised near Northfield and slain, with 20 of his men.
       Northfield was abandoned and burned by the Indians. … Driven
       to the necessity of defensive warfare, those in command on the
       river determined to establish a magazine and garrison at
       Hadley. Captain Lathrop, who had been dispatched from the
       eastward to the assistance of the river towns, was sent with
       80 men, the flower of the youth of Essex county, to guard the
       wagons intended to convey to Hadley 3,000 bushels of
       unthreshed wheat, the produce of the fertile Deerfield
       meadows. Just before arriving at Deerfield, near a small
       stream still known as Bloody Brook, under the shadow of the
       abrupt conical Sugar Loaf, the southern termination of the
       Deerfield mountain, Lathrop fell into an ambush, and, after a
       brave resistance, perished there with all his company. Captain
       Moseley, stationed at Deerfield, marched to his assistance,
       but arrived too late to help him. That town, also, was
       abandoned, and burned by the Indians. Springfield, about the
       same time, was set on fire, but was partially saved by the
       arrival of Major Treat, with aid from Connecticut. Hatfield,
       now the frontier town on the north, was vigorously attacked,
       but the garrison succeeded in repelling the assailants.
       Meanwhile, hostilities were spreading; the Indians on the
       Merrimac began to attack the towns in their vicinity; and the
       whole of Massachusetts was soon in the utmost alarm. Except in
       the immediate neighborhood of Boston, the country still
       remained an immense forest, dotted by a few openings. The
       frontier settlements … were mostly broken up, and the
       inhabitants, retiring towards Boston, spread everywhere dread
       and intense hatred of 'the bloody heathen.' Even the praying
       Indians, and the small dependent and tributary tribes, became
       objects of suspicion and terror. … Not content with
       realities sufficiently frightful, superstition, as usual,
       added bugbears of her own. Indian bows were seen in the sky,
       and scalps in the moon. The northern lights became an object
       of terror. Phantom horsemen careered among the clouds, or were
       heard to gallop invisible through the air. The howling of
       wolves was turned into a terrible omen. The war was regarded
       as a special judgment in punishment of prevailing sins. …
       About the time of the first collision with Philip, the
       Tarenteens, or Eastern Indians, had attacked the settlements
       in Maine and New Hampshire, plundering and burning the houses,
       and massacring such of the inhabitants as fell into their
       hands. This sudden diffusion of hostilities and vigor of
       attack from opposite quarters, made, the colonists believe
       that Philip had long been plotting and had gradually matured
       an extensive conspiracy, into which most of the tribes had
       deliberately entered, for the extermination of the whites.
       This belief infuriated the colonists, and suggested some very
       questionable proceedings. … But there is no evidence of any
       deliberate concert; nor, in fact, were the Indians united. Had
       they been so, the war would have been far more serious. The
       Connecticut tribes proved faithful, and that colony remained
       untouched. Even the Narragansetts, the most powerful
       confederacy in New England, in spite of so many former
       provocations, had not yet taken up arms. But they were
       strongly suspected of intention to do so, and were accused,
       notwithstanding their recent assurances, of giving aid and
       shelter to the hostile tribes."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          volume 1, chapter 14.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Markham,
          History of King Philip's War,
          chapters 7-8.

          G. H. Hollister,
          History of Connecticut,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

          M. A. Green,
          Springfield, 1636-1886,
          chapter 9.

    {2312}

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (October-December).
       King Philip's War: The crushing of the Narragansetts.

       "The attitude of the powerful Narragansett tribe was regarded
       with anxiety. It was known that, so far from keeping their
       compact to surrender such enemies of the English as should
       fall into their hands, they had harbored numbers of Philip's
       dispersed retainers and allies. While the Federal
       Commissioners were in session at Boston [October], Canonchet,
       sachem of the Narragansetts, came thither with other chiefs,
       and promised that the hostile Indians whom they acknowledged
       to be then under their protection should be surrendered within
       ten days. But probably the course of events on Connecticut
       River emboldened them. At all events, they did not keep their
       engagement. The day for the surrender came and went, and no
       Indians appeared. If that faithless tribe, the most powerful
       in New England, should assume active hostilities, a terrible
       desolation would ensue. The Commissioners moved promptly. The
       fifth day after the breach of the treaty found them
       reassembled after a short recess. They immediately determined
       to raise an additional force of 1,000 men for service in the
       Narragansett country. They appointed Governor Winslow, of
       Plymouth, to be commander-in-chief, and desired the colony of
       Connecticut to name his lieutenant. The General was to place
       himself at the head of his troops within six weeks, 'a solemn
       day of prayer and humiliation' being kept through all the
       colonies meanwhile. … Time was thus given to the
       Narragansetts to make their peace 'by actual performance of
       their covenants made with the Commissioners; as also making
       reparation for all damages sustained by their neglect
       hitherto, together with security for their further fidelity.'
       … It is not known whether Philip was among the Narragansetts
       at this time. Under whatever influence it was, whether from
       stupidity or from confidence, they made no further attempt at
       pacification. … The Massachusetts troops marched from Dedham
       to Attleborough on the day before that which had been
       appointed by the Commissioners for them to meet the Plymouth
       levy at the northeastern corner of the Narragansett country.
       The following day they reached Seekonk: A week earlier, the
       few English houses at Quinsigamond (Worcester) had been burned
       by a party of natives; and a few days later, the house of
       Jeremiah Bull, at Pettyquamscott, which had been designated as
       the place of general rendezvous for the English, was fired,
       and ten men and five women and children, who had taken refuge
       in it, were put to death. … The place where the
       Narragansetts were to be sought was in what is now the town of
       South Kingston, 18 miles distant, in a northwesterly
       direction, from Pettyquamscott, and a little further from that
       Pequot fort to the southwest, which had been destroyed by the
       force under Captain Mason forty years before. According to
       information afterwards received from a captive, the Indian
       warriors here collected were no fewer than 3,500. They were on
       their guard, and had fortified their hold to the best of their
       skill. It was on a solid piece of upland of five or six acres,
       wholly surrounded by a swamp. On the inner side of this
       natural defence they had driven rows of palisades, making a
       barrier nearly a rod in thickness; and the only entrance to
       the enclosure was over a rude bridge consisting of a felled
       tree, four or five feet from the ground, the bridge being
       protected by a block-house. The English [whose forces, after a
       considerable delay of the Connecticut troops, had been all
       assembled at Pettyquamscott on Saturday, December 18],
       breaking up their camp [on the morning of the 19th] while it
       was yet dark, arrived before the place at one o'clock after
       noon. Having passed, without shelter, a very cold night, they
       had made a march of 18 miles through deep snow, scarcely
       halting to refresh themselves with food. In this condition
       they immediately advanced to the attack. The Massachusetts
       troops were in the van of the storming column; next came the
       two Plymouth companies; and then the force from Connecticut.
       The foremost of the assailants were received with a
       well-directed fire," and seven of their captains were killed
       or mortally wounded. "Nothing discouraged by the fall of their
       leaders, the men pressed on, and a sharp conflict followed,
       which, with fluctuating success, lasted for two or three
       hours. Once the assailants were beaten out of the fort; but
       they presently rallied and regained their ground. There was
       nothing for either party but to conquer or die, enclosed
       together as they were. At length victory declared for the
       English, who finished their work by setting fire to the
       wigwams within the fort. They lost 70 men killed and 150
       wounded. Of the Connecticut contingent alone, out of 300 men
       40 were killed and as many wounded. The number of the enemy
       that perished is uncertain. … What is both certain and
       material is that on that day the military strength of the
       formidable Narragansett tribe was irreparably broken."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          Compendious History of New England,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          S. G. Arnold,
          History of Rhode Island,
          volume 1, chapter 10.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1676-1678.
       King Philip's War: The end of the conflict.

       "While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of
       things, it was far from putting an end to the war. It showed
       that when the white man could find his enemy he could deal
       crushing blows, but the Indian was not always so easy to find.
       Before the end of January Winslow's little army was partially
       disbanded for want of food, and its three contingents fell
       back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early in February
       the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men to
       assemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to
       renew their incursions, and after an interval of six months
       the figure of Philip again appears for a moment upon the
       scene. What he had been doing or where he had been, since the
       Brookfield fight in August, was never known. When in February,
       1676, he reappeared, it was still in company with his allies
       the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the
       10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into
       the lovely village.
    {2313}
       Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, Joseph
       Rowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to
       Boston to solicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was
       slowly making its way over the difficult roads from
       Marlborough, but the Indians were beforehand. Several houses
       were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and
       children began falling under the tomahawk. The minister's
       house was large and strongly built, and more than forty people
       found shelter there until at length it took fire and they were
       driven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more
       were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken
       captive. … Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the
       minister's wife, who afterward wrote the story of her sad
       experiences. … It was a busy winter and spring for these
       Nipmucks. Before February was over, their exploit at Lancaster
       was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked
       and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and
       Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a
       dozen miles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon
       Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley,
       Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and
       Middleborough. On the 18th of April Captain Wadsworth, with 70
       men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500
       Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; six unfortunate
       captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth's
       party made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that
       afternoon 120 Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing
       two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate
       their adversaries. Just one month from that day, Captain
       Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 of these warriors near
       the falls of the Connecticut river which have since borne his
       name, and this blow at last broke the strength of the
       Nipmucks. Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had
       burned the towns of Warwick and Providence. After the
       wholesale ruin of the great swamp fight, Canonchet had still
       some 600 or 700 warriors left, and with these, on the 26th of
       March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, he surprised a
       company of 50 Plymouth men, under Captain Pierce, and slew
       them all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors.
       Ten days later, Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company,
       defeated and captured Canonchet, and the proud son of
       Miantonomo met the same fate as his father. He was handed over
       to the Mohegans and tomahawked. … The fall of Canonchet
       marked the beginning of the end. In four sharp fights in the
       last week of June, Major Talcott of Hartford slew from 300 to
       400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of the
       Narragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church
       patrolled the country about Taunton, making prisoners of the
       Wampanoags. Once more King Philip, shorn of his prestige,
       comes upon the scene. … Defeated at Taunton, the son of
       Massasoit was hunted by Church to his ancient lair at Bristol
       Neck and there," betrayed by one of his own followers, he was
       surprised on the morning of August 12, and shot as he
       attempted to fly. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth,
       where it was mounted on a pole and exposed aloft upon the
       village green, while the meeting-house bell summoned the
       townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. … By
       midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed,
       and there was peace in the land. … In Massachusetts and
       Plymouth … the destruction of life and property had been
       simply frightful. Of 90 towns, 12 had been utterly destroyed,
       while more than 40 others had been the scene of fire and
       slaughter. Out of this little society nearly 1,000 staunch men
       … had lost their lives, while of the scores of fair women
       and poor little children that had perished under the ruthless
       tomahawk, one can hardly give an accurate account. … But …
       henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New
       England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon
       the frontier."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Hubbard,
          History of the Indian Wars in New England,
          edited by S. G. Drake, volume 1.

          Mrs. Rowlandson,
          Narrative of Captivity.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1684-1686.
       The overthrow of the Massachusetts charter.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1687.
       The overthrow of the Connecticut charter.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
       The consolidation of the "Territory and Dominion of
       New England" under a royal governor-general.

       "It was … determined in the Privy Council that Connecticut,
       New Plymouth, and Rhode Island should be united with
       Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
       country, and be made 'one entire government, the better to
       defend themselves against invasion.' This was good policy for
       England. It was the despotic idea of consolidation. It was
       opposed to the republican system of confederation. …
       Consolidation was indeed the best mode of establishing in his
       colonies the direct government which Charles had adopted in
       November, 1684, and which James was now to enforce. … For
       more than twenty years James had been trying his "'prentice
       hand" upon New York. The time had now come when he was to use
       his master hand on New England. … By the advice of
       Sunderland, James commissioned Colonel Sir Edmund Andros to be
       captain general and governor-in-chief over his 'Territory and
       Dominion of New England in America,' which meant Massachusetts
       Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
       country, or the King's Province. Andros's commission was drawn
       in the traditional form, settled by the Plantation Board for
       those of other royal governors in Virginia, Jamaica, and New
       Hampshire. Its substance, however, was much more despotic.
       Andros was authorized, with the consent of a council appointed
       by the crown, to make laws and levy taxes, and to govern the
       territory of New England in obedience to its sovereign's
       Instructions, and according to the laws then in force, or
       afterward to be established. … To secure Andros in his
       government, two companies of regular soldiers, chiefly Irish
       Papists, were raised in London and placed under his orders."

          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of the State of New York,
          volume 2, chapter 9.

          See, also,
          MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
          and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
       New York and New Jersey brought under the
       governor-generalship of Andros.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

    {2314}

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689.
       The bloodless revolution, arrest of Andros,
       and proclamation of William and Mary.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1697.
       King William's War (the First Intercolonial War).

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.
       The first Colonial Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
       The charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
       Plymouth absorbed.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
       The Salem Witchcraft madness.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
       Suppression of colonial manufactures.
       Oppressive commercial policy of England.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
       Queen Anne's War (the Second Intercolonial War):
       Border incursions by the French and Indians.
       The final conquest of Acadia.

       "But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick.
       First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession,"
       and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV.
       "This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and
       preparations were made for war. William III. died in March,
       1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and
       daughter of James II. War was declared by England against
       France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in
       European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in
       American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or
       the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain,
       and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria,
       Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the
       Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New
       England, war between France and England meant the hideous
       midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning
       hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a
       conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in
       June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many
       of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to
       have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their
       accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the
       tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless
       provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the
       Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August,
       500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions
       into the New England settlements. They divided into several
       bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time.
       Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages,
       but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of
       an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons
       were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the
       town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the
       inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the
       30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few
       people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property
       destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along
       the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was
       … resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as
       usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins
       of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put
       in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats,
       convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May,
       1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the
       Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705,
       450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants,
       adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for
       twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the
       English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes.
       They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the
       little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English
       trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was
       made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New
       England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments,
       but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley
       forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and
       ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel
       Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the
       fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the
       expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council
       at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and
       Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march
       through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New
       Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40
       were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was
       formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and
       five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But
       a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for
       America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel
       Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said
       to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by
       Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next
       year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty
       transports, and one British and four New England regiments for
       the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an
       insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a
       short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving
       and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the
       last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and
       Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was
       re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."

          R. Johnson,
          History of the French War,
          chapter 8.

       "With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was
       again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James
       I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"

          R. Brown,
          History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          P. H. Smith,
          Acadia,
          pages 108-111.

          See, also,
          CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1722-1725.
       Renewed war with the northeastern Indians.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

    {2315}

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
       King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War):
       Hostilities in Nova Scotia.

       "The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain
       and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the
       greater number of the British provinces of America no farther
       share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the
       expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which
       his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South
       Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and
       danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile
       relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended
       to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing
       peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain;
       while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused
       the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch;
       and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of
       hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France,
       war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally
       declared by these states against each other.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and after.

       The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this
       event before it was known in New England, were tempted to
       improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an
       instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which
       accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter
       of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the
       coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement,
       which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and
       defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment
       of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape
       Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war
       between the two parent states, conceived the hope of
       destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the
       suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow,
       which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744).
       Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at
       Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men,
       took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and
       houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants.
       This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the
       conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in
       Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were
       repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined
       by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of
       Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the
       assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a
       reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the
       garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the
       succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was
       ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a
       pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that
       very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends
       nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which
       excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was
       declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted
       in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were
       reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of
       defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from
       the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to
       prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first
       operations announced, their privateers actively waged a
       harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of
       New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia
       were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of
       returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and
       so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into
       Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected
       that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would
       be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the
       protection of convoy."

          J. Grahame,
          History [Colonial] of the United States,
          book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          P. H. Smith,
          Acadia,
          pages 123-128.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.
       King George's War.
       The taking of Louisburg.

       "Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE
       BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort
       north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso,
       carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported
       the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long
       as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source
       of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to
       capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in
       Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion.
       Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General
       Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial
       expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six
       days' deliberation and two additional messages from the
       governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote.
       A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to
       all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to
       this application, urged by a special messenger from
       Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of
       their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly
       … furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but
       declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long
       debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to
       Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of
       provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten
       eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted
       500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and
       appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second
       in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire
       each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops
       did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief
       burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on
       Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was
       enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were
       profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were
       provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New
       England colonies. The command in chief was given to William
       Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had
       inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father
       in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man,
       noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with
       military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The
       enterprise … assumed something of the character of an
       anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of
       Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down
       the images in the French churches.
    {2316}
       Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the
       Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the
       arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the
       melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New
       Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut
       came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and
       the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren
       presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before
       Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with
       supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England
       cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship.
       As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced
       the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers.
       … Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another,
       upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that
       cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided
       with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a
       third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble
       and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies
       had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the
       besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June
       17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective
       inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to
       France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the
       same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but
       among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered
       fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In
       the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a
       large number of the remaining Indians of New England,
       persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments.
       Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and
       naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by
       additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a
       baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels
       in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear
       admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the
       face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over
       one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever
       engaged."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 25 (volume 2).

       "As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg]
       was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession.
       England had no other success in that war to compare with it.
       As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this
       exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5).

       "Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved
       during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."

          R. Johnson,
          History of the French War,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          T. C. Haliburton,
          Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          R. Brown,
          History of Cape Breton, letters 12-14.

          S. A. Drake,
          The Taking of Louisburg.

          U. Parsons,
          Life of Sir William Pepperell,
          chapters 3-5.

          F. Parkman,
          The Capture of Louisbourg
          (Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891).

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
       King George's War: The mortifying end.
       Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
       and restoration of Louisburg to France.

       "Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now
       offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of
       Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted,
       disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly
       their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the
       chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from
       England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when
       joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a
       powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should
       attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late
       as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to
       levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the
       frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the
       plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to
       the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the
       instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America,
       and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500
       men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were
       doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense,
       they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen
       garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses
       assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other
       colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a
       commissariat, and under no control. After the season for
       active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded
       themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of
       their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition
       to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the
       mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off
       in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the
       centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled
       thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from
       France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a
       subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts.
       Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the
       garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas
       Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year
       1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former
       place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of
       the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for
       Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of
       December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great
       distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the
       French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march
       from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and
       surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in
       killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to
       capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the
       French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of
       May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the
       terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7,
       1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape
       Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had
       created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their
       commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be
       rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The
       French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon,
       on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their
       fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of
       £183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg,
       and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the
       orders that were revoked.

          T. C. Haliburton,
          Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
          book 3, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Hannay,
          History of Acadia,
          chapter 19.

          S. G. Drake,
          Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War,
          chapters 6-9.

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5).

          See, also,
          AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

    {2317}

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753.
       Dissensions among the colonies at the
       opening of the great French War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
       The Colonial Congress at Albany.
       Franklin's Plan of Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
       The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War,
       and English conquest of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
          NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
          OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
          CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761.
       Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
       The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
       Enforcement of the Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766.
       The Stamp Act.
       Its effects and its repeal.
       The Stamp Act Congress.
       The Declaratory Act.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765: and 1766.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
       The Townshend duties.
       The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767;
          and 1767-1768.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
       The quartering of troops in Boston.
       The "Massacre," and the removal of the troops.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1785.
       The ending of Slavery.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781; 1769-1785; and 1774.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
       Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
       Committees of Correspondence instituted.
       The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
          and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
       The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
       and the Quebec Act.
       The First Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       The country in arms and Boston under siege.
       Ticonderoga.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1783.
       The War of the Revolution.
       Independence achieved.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (APRIL), to 1783.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789.
       Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
       The Embargo and its effects.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1814.
       Federalist opposition to the war with England.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
       The Hartford Convention.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1828.
       Change of front on the tariff question.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824;
          and 1828.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
       The rise of the Abolitionists.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

    NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
       The war for the Union.

          See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (APRIL), and after.

       ----------NEW ENGLAND: End----------

    NEW FOREST.

       To create a new royal hunting ground in his English dominion,
       William the Conqueror ruthlessly demolished villages, manors,
       chapels, and parish churches throughout thirty miles of
       country, along the coast side of Hampshire, from the Avon on
       the west to Southampton Water on the east, and called this
       wilderness of his making, The New Forest. His son William
       Rufus was killed in it—which people thought to be a
       judgment. The New Forest still exists and embraces no less
       than 66,000 acres, extending over a district twenty miles by
       fifteen in area, of woodland, heath, bog and rough pasture.

          J. C. Brown,
          Forests of England,
          part 1, chapter 2, D.

    NEW FRANCE.

          See CANADA.

    NEW GRANADA.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES.

       ----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: Start--------

    NEW HAMPSHIRE:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.
       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631.
       Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
       First colonies planted.
       The naming of the province.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
       The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.

       According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a
       territory extending northward three miles beyond the
       head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the
       greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that
       of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been
       ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an
       order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and
       Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth,
       the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and
       reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason
       had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were
       mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between
       Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of
       jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this
       period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the
       Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the
       Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good
       title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in
       1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers
       favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they
       left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679
       it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts
       Colony, although their grant technically included all lands
       extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack
       river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and
       thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was
       treated as a Royal province, the Governors and
       Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws
       made by the people being subject to his revision."

          C. W. Elliott,
          The New England History,
          volume 1, chapter 26.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Barstow,
          History of New Hampshire,
          chapters 2-5.

          J. Belknap,
          History of New Hampshire,
          volume 1, chapters 2-9.

          N. Adams,
          Annals of Portsmouth,
          pages 28-64.

          See, also,
          NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

    {2318}

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1675.
       Outbreak of the Taranteens.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1744-1748.
       King George's War and the taking of Louisburg.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774.
       Boundary dispute with New York.
       The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the
       "Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.

          See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754.
       The Colonial Congress at Albany,
       and Franklin's Plan of Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760.
       The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
          NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
          OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
          CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1760-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Sugar Act.
       The Stamp Act and its repeal.
       The Declaratory Act.
       The Stamp Act Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1766-1768.
       The Townshend duties.
       The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1768-1770.
       The quartering of troops in Boston.
       The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1770-1773.
       Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
       Committees of Correspondence instituted.
       The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
          and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1774.
       The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
       and the Quebec Act.
       The First Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775.
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.
       Ticonderoga.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.
       The end of royal government.
       Adoption of a constitution.
       Declaration of Independence.

       The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came
       together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements
       produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a
       convention of the people had been called and was sitting at
       Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly
       proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the
       governor had called by the king's writ from three new
       townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the
       expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was
       assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the
       governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused,
       they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the
       offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor
       retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards
       went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had
       adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met
       no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles
       of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing
       act of his administration. It was the last receding step of
       royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The
       government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government
       of the people. … The convention which had assembled at
       Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their
       dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the
       recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention,
       which should be a more full representation of the people. They
       sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and
       dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new
       convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of
       government. Having assumed the name of 'House of
       Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776],
       and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a
       distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the
       name of a Council." The constitution provided for no
       executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive
       duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of
       safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to
       sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the
       council was president of the executive committee. … On the
       11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly,
       and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a
       draught of a declaration of the independence of the united
       colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported
       a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted
       unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in
       congress."

          G. Barstow,
          History of New Hampshire,
          chapter 9.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776.
       The ending of Slavery.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776-1783.
       The War of Independence.
       Peace with England.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1783.
       Revision of the State constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1788.
       Ratification of the Federal constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

    NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1814.
       The Hartford Convention.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

       ----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: End--------

       ----------NEW HAVEN: Start--------

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1638.
       The planting of the Colony and the founding of the City.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1639.
       The Fundamental Agreement.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1640-1655.
       The attempts at colonization on the Delaware.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643.
       Progress and state of the colony.
       The New England Confederation.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

    {2319}

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1660-1664.
       The protection of the Regicides.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1662-1664.
       Annexation to Connecticut.

       See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1666.
       The migration to Newark, N.J.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

    NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1779.
       Pillaged by Tryon's marauders.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
          WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

       ----------NEW HAVEN: End--------

    NEW HOPE CHURCH, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

       ----------NEW JERSEY: Start--------

    NEW JERSEY:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664.
       The Dutch in possession.
       The Patroon colony at Pavonia.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614; and 1621-1646.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1620.
       Embraced in the patent of the Council for New England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1634.
       Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

          See NEW ALBION.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635.
       Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution
       of the Council for New England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
       The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.

       The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New
       Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers
       of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as
       well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their
       little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to
       establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as
       along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch
       for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong
       trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of
       1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking
       Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made
       active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE:
       A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising
       townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put
       themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country
       where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a
       "Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and
       all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year
       1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by
       Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner
       "was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase
       lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that
       rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New
       Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of
       the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey,
       and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of
       Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the
       30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven,
       which voted to itself authority over the region of the
       Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved,
       and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed'
       were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.'
       The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the
       Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they
       went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing
       protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger
       portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill
       (Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey.
       A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk.
       This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of
       New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious
       'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between
       this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged
       colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their
       mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England
       intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements.,
       The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain
       that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that,
       "slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part
       of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The
       poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore
       households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The
       ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in
       the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength.
       "Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not
       abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for
       redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still
       looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was
       resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new
       expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was
       stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back,
       vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England
       shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England
       was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would
       pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than
       half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her
       own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in
       the greater war which broke out between Holland and England.
       When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New
       Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and
       extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one
       to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United
       Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey,
       adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole
       proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a
       matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the
       conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God,
       and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes
       of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated
       the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven.
       Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march
       upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New
       Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope."
       Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and
       1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series
       of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the
       conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But
       the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."

          C. H. Levermore,
          The Republic of New Haven,
          chapter 3, section 5.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Hazard,
          Annals of Pennsylvania,
          pages 57-178.

    {2320}

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
       The English occupation and proprietary grant to
       Berkeley and Carteret.
       The naming of the province.
       The Newark immigration from New Haven.

       "Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his
       easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New
       York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June,
       1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John
       Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of
       Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns,
       all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward
       of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east
       part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath
       upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward
       to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware
       bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch
       of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of
       latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to
       Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land
       is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea,
       or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the
       tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of
       Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor,
       against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the
       English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently
       soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown
       conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights
       appertaining thereto, that most important one of government;
       the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to
       the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of
       his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to
       procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of
       Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost
       unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they
       exercised every act of government in their own names, because
       they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the
       prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the
       name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret,
       they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the
       powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir
       George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the
       10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made
       public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of
       the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every
       of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant
       there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed,
       Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a
       commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip,
       having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and
       laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the
       summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as
       Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same
       year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of
       this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it
       was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined
       and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo
       town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. …
       Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at
       Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere,
       to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite
       settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable
       terms offered, the province soon received large additions to
       its population."

          W. A. Whitehead,
          East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments
          (New Jersey Historical. Society Collections.,
          volume 1), period 2.

       "In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New
       England offering to settlers every civil and religious
       privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately
       visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven
       property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a
       settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of
       Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to
       locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666,
       the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under
       the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into
       the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little
       colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the
       name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English
       home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New
       Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost
       bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged,
       the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The
       planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be
       annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to
       such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four
       men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23
       were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven,
       Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of
       families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to
       make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New
       Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the
       banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the
       methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what
       it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but
       came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark
       was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."

          C. H. Levermore,
          The Republic of New Haven,
          chapter 4, section 6.

          ALSO IN:
          Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey,
          volume 1.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673.
       The Dutch reconquest.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
       The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and
       division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey.
       The free constitution of West Jersey.

       In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold
       his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000.
       John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were
       the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors
       about the division of their property, and William Penn, who
       afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen
       arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the
       satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from
       London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a
       small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that
       came to New Jersey with immigrants.
    {2321}
       The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek,
       landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware.
       This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named
       Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently
       established in West Jersey."

          J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
          History of New Jersey,
          chapter 1.

       In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret
       taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West
       Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation
       of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by
       him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time.
       Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few
       of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York,
       disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means
       to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night
       [1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New
       York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he
       was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts,
       and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with
       directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The
       authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and
       Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret
       could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts
       at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William
       Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it
       for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their
       management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were
       constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed
       of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and
       then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument
       established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers,
       and displace all officers necessary to manage their property,
       to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends,
       settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends,
       grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary
       for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The
       new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all
       the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond,
       Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and
       a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each
       Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property,
       inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm
       instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come
       down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey …
       our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or
       unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to
       those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights,
       or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition
       of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control
       is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."

          C. Parker,
          Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the
          Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey.

       The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as
       established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at
       Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the
       Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this
       line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West
       Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee,
       and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In
       order to establish a government for the Province of West
       Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore
       and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse,
       who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the
       proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of
       August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction
       with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to
       conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with
       instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a
       settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his
       portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared
       himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore
       became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this
       difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The
       original plan of the government was devised by William Penn
       and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all
       the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first
       published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and
       Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of
       the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution
       declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or
       authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters;
       and that no person or persons within the Province should be in
       any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or
       privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship
       toward God in matters of religion. … That all the
       inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend
       court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that
       Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert
       manner.' … The executive authority of the government was
       lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first
       by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the
       further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by
       the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March
       of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in
       1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this
       instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the
       proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the
       language of the fundamental law."

          J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
          History of New Jersey,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          W. A. Whitehead,
          East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments,
          pages 66-99.

          Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey,
          volume 1.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1674.
       Final recovery by the English.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688.
       Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
       Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers.
       Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.

       "In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the
       people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it
       was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had
       gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April,
       1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered
       their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had
       been accepted.
    {2322}
       In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries
       of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the
       dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating
       to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York
       and New England, under the government of Andros. At the
       revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the
       sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the
       legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the
       domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not
       their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery
       of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy.
       A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with
       little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a
       settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New
       Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being,
       in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of
       magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were
       protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there
       is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to
       exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. …
       The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference
       of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular
       government had ever been established,' resolved to resign
       their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they
       wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly:
       but King William, though he had against his inclination
       approved triennial parliaments for England, would never
       consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of
       Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council.
       The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers,
       was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its
       possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The
       surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being
       completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and
       the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,
       who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon.
       Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the
       next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never
       again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702,
       and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the
       form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the
       crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the
       royal council and the representatives of the people. … The
       freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of
       their liberties."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (author's last revision),
          part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. O. Raum,
          History of New Jersey,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1711.
       Queen Anne's War.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1744-1748.
       King George's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745: and 1745-1748.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Sugar Act.
       The Stamp Act and its repeal.
       The Declaratory Act.
       The First Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1760-1775: 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1766-1774.
       Opening events of the Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774:
          and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.
       End of royal government.
       Adoption of a State Constitution.

       In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin
       Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the
       Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately
       royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony
       refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774,
       when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental
       Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick;
       and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general
       Congress, but appointed a "general committee of
       correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the
       following year, called together, at Trenton, a second
       Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the
       "Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full
       authority of all the branches of the government, providing for
       the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out
       the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin
       convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No
       important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December
       the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d
       of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the
       end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal
       authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey
       had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in
       the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On
       the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a
       constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to
       abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and
       therefore provided in the last article of this constitution
       that the instrument should become void whenever the king
       should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to
       administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the
       constitution of England and the rights of British subjects.
       But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress
       assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New
       Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal
       authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of
       Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name
       and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred,
       however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by
       order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was
       released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When
       the State government was organized under the new constitution,
       the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of
       all persons who opposed its authority."

          J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
          History of New Jersey,
          chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          T. F. Gordon,
          History of New Jersey,
          chapter 12.

          See, also,
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775.
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       Siege of Boston.
       Ticonderoga.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    {2323}

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1776-1778.
       The battle ground of Washington campaigns.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776; 1776-1777; and 1778 (JUNE).

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778.
       Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1779.
       British raids from New York.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783.
       The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South.
       Surrender of Cornwallis.
       Peace with Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778, to 1783.

    NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1787.
       Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

       ----------NEW JERSEY: End----------

    NEW MADRID, The capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    NEW MARKET, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    NEW MARKET (Shenandoah Valley), Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
          THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

       ----------NEW MEXICO: Start----------

    NEW MEXICO: Aboriginal Inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
       The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.

       "While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on
       in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government
       [of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico
       and California, by means of expeditions organized on the
       remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to
       the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have
       the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New
       Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the
       oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all,
       and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we
       consult a map of the United States it is seen that the
       thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of
       the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the
       Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen
       that the great tide of emigration must set along this line,
       because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and
       would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of
       the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of
       the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that
       Pike and Long had gathered, almost nothing was known about it.
       Yet the prevailing belief gave New Mexico, as related to
       California, an exceptional importance. These considerations
       weighed for more than acquisition of territory, though the
       notion that New Mexico contained very rich silver-mines
       undoubtedly had force in determining its conquest. … With
       this object General Kearney marched from Fort Leavenworth in
       June, 1846, for Santa Fe, at the head of a force of which a
       battalion of Mormons formed part. After subduing New Mexico,
       Kearney was to go on to California, and with the help of naval
       forces already sent there, for the purpose, conquer that
       country also. … General Kearney marched by the Upper
       Arkansas, to Bent's Fort, and from Bent's Fort over the old
       trail through El Moro and Las Vegas, San Miguel and Old Pecos,
       without meeting the opposition he expected, or at any time
       seeing any considerable body of the enemy. On the 18th of
       August, as the sun was setting, the stars and stripes were
       unfurled over the palace of Santa Fe, and New Mexico was
       declared annexed to the United States. Either the home
       government thought New Mexico quite safe from attack, or,
       having decided to reserve all its strength for the main
       conflict, had left this province to its fate. After organizing
       a civil government, and appointing Charles Bent of Bent's
       Fort, governor, General Kearney broke up his camp at Santa Fe,
       September 25. His force was now divided. One part, under
       Colonel Doniphan, was ordered to join General Wool in
       Chihuahua. A second detachment was left to garrison Santa Fe,
       while Kearney went on to California with the rest of his
       troops. The people everywhere seemed disposed to submit
       quietly, and as most of the pueblos soon proffered their
       allegiance to the United States Government, little fear of an
       outbreak was felt. Before leaving the valley, a courier was
       met bearing the news that California also had submitted to us
       without striking a blow. This information decided General
       Kearney to send back most of his remaining force, while with a
       few soldiers only he continued his march through what is now
       Arizona for the Pacific."

          S. A. Drake,
          The Making of the Great West,
          pages 251-255.

          ALSO IN:
          H. O. Ladd,
          History of the War with Mexico,
          chapters 9-12.

          P. St. G. Cooke,
          The Conquest of New Mexico and California.

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 12, chapter 17.

          H. O. Ladd,
          The Story of New Mexico,
          chapter 16.

    NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
       Cession to the United States.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

    NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1850.
       Territorial organization.

          See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

    NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1875-1894.
       Prospective admission to the Union.

       A bill to admit New Mexico to the Union as a state was passed
       by both houses of Congress in 1875, but failed in consequence
       of an amendment made in the Senate too late for action upon it
       in the House of Representatives. Attempts to convert the
       scantily populated territory into a state were then checked
       for several years. At this writing (July 1894) a bill for
       organizing and admitting the state of New Mexico has again
       passed the House of Representatives, and is likely to have a
       favorable vote in the Senate.

       ----------NEW MEXICO: End----------

    NEW MODEL, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL).

    NEW NETHERLAND.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

    NEW ORANGE.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

       ----------NEW ORLEANS: Start--------

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1718.
       The founding of the city.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1763.
       Reserved from the cession to England in the Treaty of Paris,
       and transferred with western Louisiana to Spain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1768-1769.
       Revolt against the Spanish rule.
       A short-lived Republic and its tragic ending.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

    {2324}

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1785-1803.
       Fickle treatment of American traders.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800; and 1798-1803.

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1798-1804.
       Transferred to France and sold to the United States.
       Incorporation as a city.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1789-1803; and 1804-1812.

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1815.
       Jackson's defense of the city and great victory.
       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (April).
       Farragut's capture of the city.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (May-December).
       The rule of General Butler.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

    NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1866.
       Riot and massacre.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

       ----------NEW ORLEANS: End--------

    NEW PLYMOUTH.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

    NEW SCOTLAND.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

       ----------NEW SOUTH WALES: Start--------

    NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1770-1788.
       The discovery.
       The naming.
       The first settlement.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

    NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1850.
       Separation of the Colony of Victoria.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

    NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1859.
       Separation of the Moreton Bay District and its erection into
       the Colony of Queensland.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

    NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1890.
       Characteristics.
       Comparative view.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

       ----------NEW SOUTH WALES: End--------

    NEW SPAIN:
       The name given at first to Yucatan, and afterwards to
       the province won by Cortes.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
          and MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

    NEW STYLE.

          See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

    NEW SWEDEN.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

    NEW WORLD, The:
       First use of the phrase.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

       ----------NEW YORK: Start--------

    NEW YORK:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, HURONS, &c.,
          HORIKANS; and MANHATTAN ISLAND.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1498.
       Probable discovery of the Bay by Sebastian Cabot.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1524.
       The Bay visited by Verrazano.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1606.
       Embraced in the territory granted by King James I.
       of England to the Plymouth or North Virginia Company.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1609.
       Discovery and exploration of Hudson River by Hendrik Hudson,
       in the service of Holland.

       "Early in September, 1609, the ship 'Half-Moon,' restlessly
       skirting the American coast, in the vain quest for a strait or
       other water route leading to India, came to the mouth of a
       great lonely river, flowing silently out from the heart of the
       unknown continent. The 'Half-Moon' was a small, clumsy,
       high-pooped yacht, manned by a score of Dutch and English
       sea-dogs, and commanded by an English adventurer then in Dutch
       pay, and known to his employers as Hendrik Hudson. … Hudson,
       on coming to the river to which his name was afterward given,
       did not at first know that it was a river at all; he believed
       and hoped that it was some great arm of the sea, that in fact
       it was the Northwest Passage to India, which he and so many
       other brave men died in vainly trying to discover. … Hudson
       soon found that he was off the mouth of a river, not a strait;
       and he spent three weeks in exploring it, sailing up till the
       shoaling water warned him that he was at the head of
       navigation, near the present site of Albany. … Having
       reached the head of navigation the 'Half-Moon' turned her
       bluff bows southward, and drifted down stream with the rapid
       current until she once more reached the bay. … Early in
       October, Hudson set out on his homeward voyage to Holland,
       where the news of his discovery excited much interest among
       the daring merchants, especially among those whose minds were
       bent on the fur-trade. Several of the latter sent small ships
       across to the newly found bay and river, both to barter with
       the savages and to explore and report further upon the
       country. The most noted of these sea-captains who followed
       Hudson, was Adrian Block."

          T. Roosevelt,
          New York,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Juet,
          Journal of Hudson's Voyage
          (New York Historical Society Collection,
          series 2, volume 1).

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1609-1615.
       Champlain and the French in the North.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; and 1611-1616.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
       Possession taken by the Dutch.
       Named New Netherland.

       "The gallant and enterprising people under whose auspices
       Hudson had achieved his brilliant discovery [of the Hudson
       River] had just emerged from a long, bloody, but glorious
       contest for freedom, which they had waged with dogged
       determination against Spain since 1566. …

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and after.

       It was at this crisis, when peace had at length returned,
       after an absence of more than forty years, and when numbers of
       people must, by the transition, have found themselves deprived
       of their accustomed active employment and habitual excitement,
       that the intelligence of Hudson's discovery broke on the
       public, affording to private adventure a new field. … The
       commodities which abounded among the natives of the newly
       discovered countries were objects of great demand in Europe.
       The furs that the rigors of the northern climate rendered
       indispensable to the inhabitants of Holland, and which they
       had hitherto obtained through Russian and other traders, were
       to be had now from the Indians in exchange for the veriest
       baubles and coarsest goods. Stimulated by these
       considerations, … a vessel was despatched by some Amsterdam
       merchants, freighted with a variety of goods, to the
       Manhattans, in the course of the following year [1610]. The
       success of this venture seems to have given increased stimulus
       to the spirit of enterprise.
    {2325}
       New discoveries were projected; licenses were granted by the
       States-General, on the recommendation of the Admiralty, to two
       ships, the Little Fox and Little Crane, ostensibly to look
       again for a northerly passage to China; and the cities of
       Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hoorn, and Enckhuyzen, as well as
       several private merchants and citizens, applied for
       information to the States of Holland and West Friesland,
       relative to a certain newly discovered navigable river, and
       the proper course to be steered in proceeding thither. These
       ships proceeded, on procuring the requisite information, to
       that quarter early in the ensuing spring; and of so much
       importance was the country now considered, that the traders
       erected and garrisoned one or two small forts on the river,
       for the protection of the fur-trade. … The favorable
       position of the island of Manhattan for commerce was easily
       perceived by the Europeans from the first, and it soon became
       the head-quarters of the traders. Their establishment in that
       locality consisted now [1613] of four houses, under the
       superintendence of Hendrick Corstiaensen, who, by means of his
       trading-boats, visited every creek, inlet, and bay in the
       neighborhood, where an Indian settlement was to be found, and
       thus secured for his employers the furs and other valuable
       produce of the country. But the growing prosperity of the
       infant post was now fated to experience an unexpected check.
       Captain Argal, of Virginia, returning in the month of November
       of this year from a seemingly predatory visit to a settlement
       which the French had made at Port Royal, in Acadia, touched at
       the island of Manhattans, with a view, it is said, of looking
       after a grant of land which he had obtained there from the
       Virginia Company, and forced Corstiaensen to submit himself
       and his plantation to the king of England, and to the governor
       of Virginia under him, and to agree to pay tribute in token of
       his dependence on the English crown. … Active steps were
       taken, early in the next year, to obtain an exclusive right to
       the trade of those distant countries," and in March, 1614, the
       States General passed an ordinance conferring on those who
       should discover new lands the exclusive privilege of making
       four voyages thither before others could have admission to the
       traffic. This ordinance "excited considerable animation and
       activity among adventurers. A number of merchants belonging to
       Amsterdam and Hoorn fitted out and dispatched five ships:
       namely, the Little Fox, the Nightingale, the Tiger, and the
       Fortune, the two last under the command of Adriaen Block and
       Hendrick Corstiaensen, of Amsterdam. The fifth vessel was
       called the Fortune also; she belonged to Hoorn, and was
       commanded by Captain Cornelis Jacobsen Mey. The three
       last-named and now well-known navigators proceeded immediately
       on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Great River of
       the Manhattans, but Block had the misfortune, soon after his
       arrival there, of losing his vessel, which was accidentally
       burnt. … He forthwith set about constructing a yacht, 38
       feet keel, 44½ feet long, and 11½ feet wide, which, when
       completed, he called the 'Restless,' significant of his own
       untiring industry. … In this craft, the first specimen of
       European naval architecture in these waters, Skipper Block
       proceeded to explore the coast east of Manhattan Island. He
       sailed along the East River, to which he gave the name of 'The
       Hellegat,' after a branch of the river Scheld, in East
       Flanders; and leaving Long Island, then called Metoac, or
       'Sewan-hacky, 'the land of shells,' on the south, he
       discovered the Housatonick, or river of the Red Mountain."
       Proceeding eastwardly, Block found the Connecticut River,
       which he named Fresh River, and ascended it to an Indian
       village at 41° 48'. Passing out of the Sound, and ascertaining
       the insular character of Long Island, he gave his own name to
       one of the two islands off its eastern extremity. After
       exploring Narragansett Bay, he went on to Cape Cod, and there
       fell in with Hendrick Corstiaensen's ship. "While these
       navigators were thus engaged at the east, Captain Cornelis Mey
       was actively employed in exploring the Atlantic coast farther
       south. … He reached the great Delaware Bay, … two capes of
       which still commemorate his visit; one, the most northward,
       being called after him, Cape Mey; another, Cape Cornelis;
       while the great south cape was called Hindlopen, after one of
       the towns in the province of Friesland. … Intelligence of
       the discoveries made by Block and his associates having been
       transmitted to Holland, was received there early in the autumn
       of this year [1614]. The united company by whom they had been
       employed lost no time in taking the steps necessary to secure
       to themselves the exclusive trade of the countries thus
       explored, which was guarantied to them by the ordinance of the
       27th of March. They sent deputies immediately to the Hague,
       who laid before the States General a report of their
       discoveries, as required by law, with a figurative map of the
       newly explored countries, which now, for the first time,
       obtained the name of New Netherland. A special grant in favor
       of the interested parties was forthwith accorded … to visit
       and trade with the countries in America lying between 40° and
       45° north latitude, of which they strangely claimed to be the
       first discoverers."

          E. B. O'Callaghan,
          History of New Netherland,
          book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
          volume 1, pages 4-12.

          B. Fernow,
          New Netherland
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 4, chapter 8).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1614-1621.
       The first trading monopoly succeeded
       by the Dutch West India Company.

       "It was perceived that, to secure the largest return from the
       peltry trade, a factor should reside permanently on the
       Mauritius River [North, or Hudson, as it has been successively
       called], among the Maquaas or Mohawks, and the Mahicans, at
       the head of tide-water. Hendrick Christiaensen, who, after his
       first experiment in company with Adriaen Block, is stated to
       have made 'ten voyages' to Manhattan, accordingly constructed
       [1614] a trading house on 'Castle Island,' at the west side of
       the river, a little below the present city of Albany. … To
       compliment the family of the stadtholder, the little post was
       immediately named Fort Nassau. … It has been confidently
       affirmed that the year after the erection of Fort Nassau, at
       Castle Island, a redoubt was also thrown up and fortified 'on
       an elevated spot' near the southern point of Manhattan Island.
       But the assertion does not appear to be confirmed by
       sufficient authority. … The Holland merchants, who had
       obtained from the States General the exclusive right of
       trading for three years to New Netherland, though united
       together in one company to secure the grant of their charter,
       were not strictly a corporation, but rather 'participants' in
       a specific, limited, and temporary monopoly, which they were
       to enjoy in common. …
    {2326}
       On the 1st of January, 1618, the exclusive charter of the
       Directors of New Netherland expired by its own limitation.
       Year by year the value of the returns from the North River had
       been increasing; and the hope of larger gains incited the
       factors of the company to push their explorations further into
       the interior. … No systematic agricultural colonization of
       the country had yet been undertaken. The scattered agents of
       the Amsterdam Company still looked merely to peaceful traffic,
       and the cultivation of those friendly relations which had been
       covenanted with their savage allies on the banks of the
       Tawasentha [where they had negotiated a treaty of friendship
       and alliance with the Five Nations of the Iroquois, in 1617].
       Upon the expiration of their special charter, the merchants
       who had formed the United New Netherland Company applied to
       the government at the Hague for a renewal of their privileges,
       the value of which they found was daily increasing. But the
       States General, who were now contemplating the grant of a
       comprehensive charter for a West India Company avoided a
       compliance with the petition." In June, 1621, "the
       long-pending question of a grand commercial organization was
       finally settled; and an ample charter gave the West India
       Company almost unlimited powers to colonize, govern, and
       defend New Netherland."

          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of the State of New York,
          volume 1, chapters 2-3.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1615-1664.
       Dutch relations with the Iroquois.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, THEIR CONQUESTS.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1620.
       Embraced in the English patent of the Council for New England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
       Early operations of the Dutch West India Company.
       The purchase of Manhattan Island.
       The Patroons and their colonies.

       "When it became evident that the war [of the United Provinces]
       with Spain would be renewed, the way was opened for the
       charter of a company, so often asked and denied. Just before
       the expiration of the twelve years' truce, April, 1621, the
       great West India Company was formed, and incorporated by the
       States General. It was clothed with extraordinary powers and
       privileges. It could make alliances and treaties, declare war
       and make peace. Although its field of operations was limited
       to Africa, the West India Islands, and the continent of
       America, it could in case of war fight the Spaniards wherever
       found on land or sea. And finally, it was permitted to
       colonize unoccupied or subjugated countries. To it especially
       were committed the care and the colonization of New
       Netherland. The West India Company, after completing its
       organization in 1623, began its work in New Netherland by
       erecting a fort on Manhattan Island [called Fort Amsterdam],
       and another on the Delaware, and by reconstructing the one at
       Albany. It sent over to be distributed in these places 30
       families, not strictly as colonists, to settle and cultivate
       the land, but rather as servants of the Company, in charge of
       their factories, engaged in the purchase and preparation of
       furs and peltries for shipment. Some of them returned home at
       the expiration of their term of service, and no other
       colonists were brought out for several years. The Company
       found more profitable employment for its capital in fitting
       out fleets of ships of war, which captured the Spanish
       treasure-ships, and thus enabled the Company to pay large
       dividends to its stockholders. In 1626 its agents bought all
       Manhattan Island of the Indian owners for sixty guilders in
       goods on which an enormous profit was made; and about the same
       time they purchased other tracts of land in the vicinity,
       including Governor's and Staten Islands, on similar terms. The
       Company was now possessed of lands enough for the
       accommodation of a large population. They were fertile, and
       only needed farmers to develop their richness. But these did
       not come. … Accordingly, in 1629, the managers took up a new
       line of action. They enacted a statute, termed 'Freedoms and
       Exemptions,' which authorized the establishment of colonies
       within their territory by individuals, who were to be known as
       Patroons, or Patrons. An individual might purchase of the
       Indian owners a tract of land, on which to plant a colony of
       fifty souls within four years from the date of purchase. He
       who established such a colony might associate with himself
       other persons to assist him in his work, and share the
       profits, but he should be considered the Patroon, or chief, in
       whom were centred all the rights pertaining to the position,
       such as the administration of justice, the appointment of
       civil and military officers, the settlement of clergymen, and
       the like. He was a kind of feudal lord, owing allegiance to
       the West India Company, and to the States General, but
       independent of control within the limits of his own territory.
       The system was a modified relic of feudalism. The colonists
       were not serfs, but tenants for a specified term of years,
       rendering service to the Patroon for a consideration. When
       their term of service expired, they were free to renew the
       contract, make a new one, or leave the colony altogether. The
       privileges of a Patroon at first were restricted to the
       members of the company, but in about ten years were extended
       to others. The directors of the company were the first to
       improve the opportunity now offered of becoming 'princes and
       potentates' in the western hemisphere. … In 1630, the agents
       of Director Killian Van Rensselaer bought a large tract of
       land on the west side of the Hudson River below Albany, and in
       July following other tracts on both sides of the river,
       including the present site of Albany. In July, 1630, Director
       Michael Paauw bought lands on the west side of the Hudson
       opposite Manhattan Island, and named his territory Pavonia. A
       few months later Staten Island was transferred to him, and
       became a part of his domain. … Killian Van Rensselaer also
       formed a partnership with several of his brother directors,
       among whom was the historian De Laet, for the purpose of
       planting a colony on his lands on the upper Hudson, to be
       known as the colony of Rensselaerwyck. He seems to have had a
       clearer perception of what was required for such a work than
       the other Patroons. The colony was organized in accordance
       with the charter, and on business principles. Before the
       colonists left Holland they were assigned to specific places
       and duties. Civil and military officers were appointed,
       superintendents and overseers of the various departments were
       selected, and all were instructed in their duties.
       The number of the first colonists was respectable.
    {2327}
       They were chiefly farmers and mechanics, with their families.
       On their arrival, May, 1630, farms situated on either side the
       river were allotted to them, utensils and stock distributed,
       houses built, and arrangements made for their safety in case
       the natives should become hostile. Order was maintained, and
       individual rights respected. They were not long in settling
       down, each to his allotted work. Year by year new colonists
       arrived, and more lands were bought for the proprietors. In
       1646, when Killian Van Rensselaer, the first Patroon, died,
       over two hundred colonists had been sent from Holland, and a
       territory forty-eight by twenty-four miles, besides another
       tract of 62,000 acres, had been acquired. The West India
       Company had changed its policy under the direction of new men,
       and no longer favored the Patroons. The Van Rensselaers were
       much annoyed, and even persecuted, but they held firmly to
       their rights under the charter. Their colony was prosperous,
       and their estate in time became enormous. … Of all the
       Patroon colonies Rensselaerwyck alone survived. It owed its
       existence mainly to its management, but largely to its
       situation, remote from the seat of government, and convenient
       for the Indian trade."

          G. W. Schuyler,
          Colonial New York,
          introduction, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          I. Elting,
          Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson,
          pages 12-16.

          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of the State of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          See, also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1629-1631.
       Dutch occupancy of the Delaware.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.
       Introduction of public registry.

          See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1634.
       The city named New Amsterdam.

       Soon after the appointment of Wouter Van Twiller, who became
       governor of New Netherland in 1633, "the little town on
       Manhattan Island received the name of New Amsterdam … and
       was invested with the prerogative of 'staple right,' by virtue
       of which all the merchandise passing up and down the river was
       subject to certain duties. This right gave the post the
       commercial monopoly of the whole province."

          Mrs. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, page 73.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1634-1635.
       Dutch advance posts on the Connecticut.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1635.
       Territory granted to Lord Lennox and Lord Mulgrave,
       on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1638.
       Protest against the Swedish settlement on the Delaware.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.
       The colony thrown open to free immigration and free trade.
       Kieft's administration, and the ruinous Indian wars.

       "The colony did not thrive. The patroon system kept settlers
       away, and the paternal government of a trading corporation
       checked all vigorous and independent growth, while Van Twiller
       [Wouter Van Twiller, appointed governor in 1633] went steadily
       from bad to worse. He engaged in childish quarrels with
       everyone, from the minister down. … This utter misgovernment
       led at last to Van Twiller's removal. He retired in possession
       of large tracts of land, which he had succeeded in acquiring,
       and was replaced [1638] by William Kieft, a bankrupt merchant
       of bad reputation. Kieft practically abolished the Council,
       and got all power into his own hands; but he had some sense of
       order. … Despite his improvements, the place remained a mere
       trading-post, and would not develope into a colony. The
       patroons were the curse of the scheme, and too powerful to be
       overthrown; so they proposed, as a remedy for the existing
       evils, that their powers and privileges should be greatly
       enlarged. The Company had bought back some of the lands; but
       they were still helpless, and the State would do nothing for
       them. In this crisis they had a return of good sense, and
       solved the problem by destroying their stifling monopoly. They
       threw the trade to New Netherlands open to all comers, and
       promised the absolute ownership of land on the payment of a
       small quit-rent. The gates were open at last, and the tide of
       emigration swept in. De Vries who had bought land on Staten
       Island, came out with a company; while ship followed ship
       filled with colonists, and English came from Virginia, and
       still more from New England. Men of property and standing
       began to turn their attention to the New Netherlands; fine
       well-stocked farms rapidly covered Manhattan, and healthy
       progress had at last begun. Thus strengthened, the Company
       [1640] restricted the patroons to a water-front of one mile
       and a depth of two, but left them their feudal privileges,
       benefits which practically accrued to Van Rensselaer, whose
       colony at Beverwyck had alone, among the manors, thriven and
       grown at the expense of the Company. The opening of trade
       proved in one respect a disaster. The cautious policy of the
       Company was abandoned, and greedy traders who had already
       begun the business, and were now wholly unrestrained, hastened
       to make their fortunes by selling arms to the Indians in
       return for almost unlimited quantities of furs. Thus the
       Mohawks obtained guns enough to threaten both the Dutch and
       all the surrounding tribes, and this perilous condition was
       made infinitely worse by the mad policy of Kieft. He first
       tried to exact tribute from the Indians near Manhattan, then
       offered a price for the head of any of the Raritans who had
       destroyed the settlement of De Vries; and, when a young man
       was murdered by a Weckquaesgeek, the Governor planned
       immediate war." Public opinion among the colonists condemned
       the measures of Kieft, and forced him to accept a council of
       twelve select-men, chosen at a public meeting; but "the
       twelve," as they were called, failed to control their
       governor. Acting on the advice of two or three among them,
       whose support he had secured, he ordered a cowardly attack
       upon some fugitive Indians from the River tribes, who had been
       driven into the settlements by the onslaught of the Mohawks,
       and whom De Vries and others were trying to protect. "The
       wretched fugitives, surprised by their supposed protectors,
       were butchered in the dead of a winter's night [1643], without
       mercy, and the bloody soldiers returned in the morning to
       Manhattan, where they were warmly welcomed by Kieft. This
       massacre lighted up at once the flames of war among all the
       neighboring tribes of Algonquins. All the outlying farms were
       laid waste, and their owners murdered, while the smaller
       settlements were destroyed. Vriesendael alone was spared.
    {2328}
       A peace, patched up by De Vries, gave a respite until summer,
       and the war raged more fiercely than before, the Indians
       burning and destroying in every direction, while trade was
       broken up and the crews of the vessels slaughtered." Kieft's
       life was now in danger from the rage of his own people, and
       eight men, appointed by public meeting, took control of public
       affairs, as far as it was possible to do so. Under the command
       of John Underhill, the Connecticut Indian fighter, who had
       lately migrated to Manhattan, the war was prosecuted with
       great vigor and success on Long Island and against the
       Connecticut Indians who had joined in it; but little headway
       was made against the tribes on the Hudson, who harassed and
       ruined the colony. Thus matters went badly for a long period,
       until, in 1647, the Company in Holland sent out Peter
       Stuyvesant to take the place of Kieft. "In the interval, the
       Indian tribes, weary at last of war, came in and made peace.
       Kieft continued his quarrels; but his power was gone, and he
       was hated as the principal cause of all the misfortunes of the
       colony. The results of his miserable administration were
       certainly disastrous enough. Sixteen hundred Indians had
       perished in the war; but all the outlying Dutch settlements
       and farms had been destroyed, and the prosperity of the colony
       had received a check from which it recovered very slowly. In
       Connecticut, the English had left the Dutch merely a nominal
       hold, and had really destroyed their power in the East. On the
       South river [the Delaware] the Swedes had settled, and,
       disregarding Kieft's blustering proclamations, had founded
       strong and growing colonies. … The interests of Holland were
       at a low ebb."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies,
          chapter 16.

       A more favorable view of Kieft and his administration is taken
       by Mr. Gerard, who says: "Few proconsuls had a more arduous
       task in the administration of the government of a province
       than had Director Kieft. The Roman official had legions at
       command to sustain his power and to repel attack; and in case
       of disaster the whole empire was at hand for his support.
       Kieft, in a far distant province, with a handful of soldiers
       crowded in a dilapidated fort and a few citizens turbulent and
       unreliable, surrounded on all sides by savages ever on the
       alert for rapine and murder, receiving little support from the
       home government, and having a large territory to defend and
       two civilized races to contend with, passed the eight years of
       his administration amid turmoil and dissension within, and
       such hostile attack from without as to keep the province in
       continuous peril. The New England colonies were always in a
       state of antagonism and threatening war. … The Swedes and
       independent settlers on the South and Schuylkill rivers were
       constantly making encroachments and threatening the Company's
       occupancy there, while pretenders under patents and
       independent settlers, knowing the weakness of the government,
       kept it disturbed and agitated. What wonder that mistakes were
       made, that policy failed, that misfortunes came, and that
       Kieft's rule brought no prosperity to the land? The radical
       trouble with his administration was that he was under a
       divided rule—a political governor with allegiance to the
       States-General, and a commercial Director, as the
       representative of a great company of traders. The
       States-General was too busily occupied in establishing its
       independence and watching the balance of European power to
       give supervision to the affairs of a province of small
       political importance—while the Company, looking upon its
       colony merely as a medium of commercial gain, drew all the
       profit it could gather from it, disregarded its true
       interests, and gave it only occasional and grudging support.
       … Towards the Indians Kieft's dealings were characterized by
       a rigid regard for their possessory rights; no title was
       deemed vested and no right was absolutely claimed until
       satisfaction was made to the native owner. Historians of the
       period have been almost universal in their condemnation of him
       for the various contests and wars engaged in with the Indians,
       and have put on him all responsibility for the revolts. But
       this is an ex post facto criticism, which, with a false
       judgment, condemns a man for the results of his actions rather
       than for the actions themselves. Indeed, without the energy
       displayed by the Director towards the aborigines, the colony
       would probably have been annihilated. … Imprudence,
       rashness, arbitrary action, want of political sagacity may be
       imputed to Director Kieft, but not excessive inhumanity, nor
       want of effort, nor unfaithfulness to his employers or to his
       province. He has been generally condemned, but without
       sufficient consideration of the trials which he experienced,
       the anxiety to which he was subject, and the perplexities
       incident to a government over discontented, ignorant and
       mutinous subjects, and to the continued apprehension of
       outside attack. Left mostly to his own resources, and
       receiving no sympathy and little aid, his motives the subject
       of attack from both tavern and pulpit, and twice the object of
       attempted assassination, his rule as a whole, though
       disastrous, was not dishonorable."

          J. W. Gerard,
          The Administration of William Kieft
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 6).

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapters 6-8.

          E. B. O'Callaghan,
          History of New Netherland,
          book 2, chapter 7
          and book 3, chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1640-1643.
       Expulsion of New Haven colonists from the Delaware.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664.
       Peter Stuyvesant and his administration.

       Peter Stuyvesant, the director or governor who succeeded
       Kieft, "took possession of the government on the 11th of May,
       1647. On his arrival he was greeted with a hearty and cordial
       reception by the citizens, to which he responded by reciprocal
       professions of interest and regard. He had for several years
       been in the Company's service as Director of their colony at
       Curaçoa, and was distinguished for his energy and bravery.
       Having lost a leg in an attack on the Portuguese settlement at
       St. Martin's, he had been obliged to return to Europe for
       surgical aid, whence, still retaining his former commission,
       he was sent to the charge of the Province of New Netherlands.
       Immediately on his accession he organized a representative
       Council of nine members from a list of eighteen presented to
       him by the inhabitants of the province, and gave his assent to
       various important provisions for the regulation of trade and
       commerce. By a conciliatory and just treatment of the Indians
       so recently in revolt he speedily gained their affection and
       goodwill, and by his judicious measures for their mutual
       protection restored peace and harmony among all classes."

          S. S. Randall,
          History of the State of New York,
          period 2, chapter 5.

    {2329}

       "The powers of government—executive, legislative, and
       judicial—which he [Stuyvesant] assumed, were quite extensive,
       and often arbitrary. Directly or indirectly, he appointed and
       commissioned all public officers, framed all laws, and decided
       all important controversies. … He directed churches to be
       built, installed ministers, and even ordered them when and
       where to preach. Assuming the sole control of the public
       lands, he extinguished the Indian title thereto, and allowed
       no purchase to be made from the natives without his sanction;
       and granted at pleasure, to individuals and companies, parcels
       of land, subject to such conditions as he saw fit to impose.
       In the management of these complicated affairs the Director
       developed a certain imperiousness of manner and impatience of
       restraint, due, perhaps, as much to his previous military life
       as to his personal character. … During the whole of his
       predecessor's unquiet rule a constant struggle had been going
       on between the personal prerogative of the Executive and the
       inherent sentiment of popular freedom which prevailed among
       the commonalty, leading the latter constantly to seek for
       themselves the franchises and freedoms of the Fatherland, to
       which, as loyal subjects, they deemed themselves entitled in
       New Netherland. The contest was reopened soon after
       Stuyvesant's installation, and the firmness of both Director
       and people, in the maintenance of what each jealously
       considered their rights, gave indication of serious
       disturbance to the public weal." The governor, at length, in
       1647, conceded "a popular representation in the affairs of
       government. An election was therefore held, at which the
       inhabitants of Amsterdam, Breuckelen, Amersfoort and Pavonia
       chose eighteen of 'the most notable, reasonable, honest, and
       respectable' among them, from whom, according to the custom of
       the Fatherland, the Director and Council selected 'Nine Men'
       as an advisory Council; and although their powers and duties
       were jealously limited and guarded by the Director's
       Proclamation, yet the appointment of the Nine Men was a
       considerable gain to the cause of popular rights. … The
       subsequent history of Stuyvesant's government is a record of
       quarrels with colonial patroons, with the English in New
       England, the Swedes on the South River, and last—not
       least—with his own people. In fact, the government was by no
       means well adapted to the people or adequate to protect them.
       The laws were very, imperfect, and the Director and Council
       either incompetent or indisposed to remedy the serious defects
       which existed in the administration of civil and criminal
       justice."

          H. R. Stiles,
          History of the City of Brooklyn,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

       "Director Stuyvesant was recalled to Europe soon after the
       surrender [to the English—see below], to vindicate his
       conduct … and … found himself the object of serious
       charges and most virulent attacks. He returned to this country
       in 1668, and died on his bouwerie in 1672. … Throughout his
       chequered life he exhibited a character of high morality, and
       in his dealings with the Indians an energetic and dignified
       deportment, which contributed, no doubt, considerably to the
       success of his arms and policy. Alike creditable to his
       talents are his negotiations with the neighboring English
       colonies. His vindications of the rights of his country, on
       these occasions, betoken a firmness of manner, a sharpness of
       perception, a clearness of argument and a soundness of
       judgment, combined with an extent of reading, which few of his
       contemporaries could equal, and none surpass. … It would
       afford pleasure were we justified in pronouncing a like
       panegyric on other parts of his administration; but none can
       review [his arbitrary resistance to just popular demands] …
       and his persecution of the Lutherans and other Nonconformists,
       without reprobating his tyranny, and regretting that a
       character, so faultless in other respects, should be stained
       by traits so repulsive as these, and that the powers of a mind
       so strong should be exerted in opposing rather than promoting
       civil and religious freedom. The hostility this part of his
       public conduct evoked redounds most creditably to the
       character of the settlers, whose struggles for freer
       institutions cannot fail to win for them our sympathy and
       regard."

          E. B. O'Callaghan,
          History of New Netherland,
          book 6, chapter 8 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Remonstrance of New Netherlands
          (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
          volume 1, pages 275-317);
          also volume 13.

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Colonial Era,
          chapter 9.

          B. Fernow,
          Peter Stuyvesant
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 7).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
       The adjustment of boundaries with Connecticut.

       To settle the long pending controversy between Dutch and
       English respecting the territory claimed by each on Long
       Island and at the mouth of the Connecticut River, Governor
       Stuyvesant went in person to Hartford, September, 1650, and
       opened negotiations. His hands were tied from the beginning by
       instructions from his company to press no claim to the
       extremity of a quarrel, because the English were too strong in
       America to be fought with. He assented, therefore, to the
       appointment of two arbitrators on each side, and he named
       Englishmen as his arbitrators. "The four agreed upon a
       settlement of the boundary matter, ignoring all other points
       in dispute as having occurred under the administration of
       Kieft. It was agreed that the Dutch were to retain their
       lands, in Hartford [the post of 'Good Hope,' established in
       1633, and which they had continued to hold, in the midst of
       the spreading English settlement]; that the boundary line
       between the two peoples on the mainland was not to come within
       ten miles of the Hudson River, but was to be left undecided
       for the present, except the first 20 miles from the Sound,
       which was to begin on the west side of Greenwich Bay, between
       Stamford and Manhattan, running thence 20 miles north; and
       that Long Island should be divided by a corresponding line
       across it, 'from the westernmost part of Oyster Bay,' to the
       sea. The English thus got the greater part of Long Island, a
       recognition of the rightfulness of their presence in the
       Connecticut territory, and at least the initial 20 miles of a
       boundary line which must, in the nature of things, be
       prolonged in much the same direction, and which in fact has
       pretty closely governed subsequent boundary lines on that side
       of Connecticut. If these seem hard terms for the Dutch, and
       indicative of treachery on the part of their two English
       agents, it must be borne in mind that, by the terms of his
       instructions from his principals, Stuyvesant had to take the
       best terms he could get. The treaty of Hartford was dated
       September 19, 1650."

          A. Johnston,
          Connecticut
          (American Commonwealths),
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          E. B. O'Callaghan,
          History of New Netherland,
          book 4, chapters 1-9 (volume 2).

          C. W. Bowen,
          The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
          part 1, chapter 1.

          Division of the Boundary in America
          (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
          volume 1, pages 541-577).

    {2930}

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1653.
       The grant of municipal government to New Amsterdam.

       "An interesting moment arrived. A new city appeared in the
       annals of the world. Its birth was announced on the evening of
       February 2, 1653, at the feast of Candlemas. A proclamation of
       the governor defined its exceedingly limited powers and named
       its first officers. It was called New Amsterdam. There was
       nothing in the significant scene which inspired enthusiasm. It
       came like a favor grudgingly granted. Its privileges were few,
       and even those were subsequently hampered by the most
       illiberal interpretations which could be devised. Stuyvesant
       made a speech on the occasion, in which he took care to reveal
       his intention of making all future municipal appointments,
       instead of submitting the matter to the votes of the citizens,
       as was the custom in the Fatherland; and he gave the officers
       distinctly to understand, from the first, that their existence
       did not in any way diminish his authority, but that he should
       often preside at their meetings, and at all times counsel them
       in matters of importance. … A pew was set apart in the
       church for the City Fathers; and on Sunday mornings these
       worthies left their homes and families early to meet in the
       City Hall, from which, preceded by the bell-ringer, carrying
       their cushions of state, they marched in solemn procession to
       the sanctuary in the fort. On all occasions of ceremony,
       secular or religious, they were treated with distinguished
       attention. Their position was eminently respectable, but it
       had as yet no emoluments. … There were two burgomasters,
       Arent van Hattam and Martin Cregier. … There were five
       schepens,—Paulus Van der Grist, Maximilian Van Gheel, Allard
       Anthony, Peter Van Couwenhoven, and William Beekman."

          Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          D. T. Valentine,
          History of the City of New York,
          chapter 5.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1654.
       Threatened attack from New England.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1655.
       Subjugation of the Swedes on the Delaware.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
       The English conquest.
       New Amsterdam becomes New York.

       The Navigation Act of Cromwell, maintained by the English
       after the Stuart Restoration, was continually evaded, almost
       openly, in the British American colonies; and it was with the
       Dutch at New Amsterdam that the illicit trade of the New
       Englanders, the Virginians and the Marylanders was principally
       carried on. "In 1663 the losses to the revenue were so
       extensive that the framers of the customs … complained of
       the great abuses which, they claimed, defrauded the revenue of
       £10,000 a year. The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and
       the conquest of the New Netherland was resolved upon. … The
       next concern of the Chancellor [Clarendon] was to secure to
       the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as
       little satisfied with the self-rule of the New England
       colonies as with the presence of Dutch sovereignty on American
       soil; and in the conquest of the foreigner he found the means
       to bring the English subject into closer dependence on the
       King. James Duke of York, Grand Admiral, was the heir to the
       Crown. … A patent to James as presumptive heir to the crown,
       from the King his brother, would merge in the crown; and a
       central authority strongly established over the territory
       covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be
       extended over the colonies on either side which were governed
       under limitations and with privileges directly secured by
       charter from the King. … The first step taken by Clarendon
       was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling
       in 1635 by the grantees of the New England patent. This
       covered the territory of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and
       the Kennebec, in Maine, and the island of Matowack, or Long
       Island. … A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of
       Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by
       Charles II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine
       territory of Pemaquid, all the islands between Cape Cod and
       the Narrows, the Hudson River, and all the lands from the west
       side of the Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay,
       together with the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
       The inland boundary was 'a line from the head of Connecticut
       River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the
       Mohawk branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of
       Delaware Bay.' The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs,
       deputies, and assigns, 'absolute power to govern within this
       domain according to his own rules and discretions consistent
       with the statutes of England.' In this patent the charter
       granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in 1662 for
       Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners
       should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each
       colony, was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners
       for boundaries now developed with larger scope, and the King
       established a royal commission, consisting of four persons
       recommended by the Duke of York, whose private instructions
       were to reduce the Dutch to submission and to increase the
       prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies, which
       Clarendon considered to be 'already well nigh ripened, to a
       commonwealth.' Three of these commissioners were officers in
       the royal army,—Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr,
       Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth was Samuel Maverick. …
       To Colonel Nicolls the Duke of York entrusted the charge of
       taking possession of and governing the vast territory covered
       by the King's patent. To one more capable and worthy the
       delicate trust could not have been confided. … His title
       under the new commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the
       tenure of his office, the Duke's pleasure. … When the news
       of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and
       explanation was demanded of Downing [the English ambassador]
       as to the truth of the reports that it was intended for the
       reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly insisted on the
       English right to the territory by first possession. To a claim
       so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a
       declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little
       interest in the remote settlement, which was held to be a
       trading-post rather than a colony, and not a profitable post
       at best.
    {2331}
       The West India Company saw the danger of the situation, but
       its appeals for assistance were disregarded. Its own resources
       and credit were unequal to the task of defence. Meanwhile the
       English fleet, composed of one ship of 36, one of 30, a third
       of 16, and a transport of 10 guns, with three full companies
       of the King's veterans,—in an 450 men, commanded by Colonels
       Nicolls, Carr, and Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for
       Gardiner's Bay on the 15th of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls
       and Cartwright reached Boston, where they demanded military
       aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon
       Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a
       rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail
       with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside
       of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place
       of Lord Howe's troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by
       militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New
       Amsterdam … was defenceless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard
       of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany),
       whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians.
       Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The
       folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by
       which the Director-General sought to save something of his
       dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between
       the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation
       confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property,
       the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens.
       The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the
       29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified … and the
       city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on
       taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the
       civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam
       be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James,
       in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron. At the
       time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its
       magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not
       exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the
       point of the island. … Nicolls now established a new
       government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson
       under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort
       Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a
       title of the Duke of York."

          J. A. Stevens,
          The English in New York
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 3, chapter 10).

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 20.

          Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
          volumes 2-3.

          See, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
       The separation of New Jersey,
       by grant to Berkeley and Carteret.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
       The annexation of the Delaware settlements.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1664-1674.
       The province as the English received it.
       Dutch institutions, their influence and survival.

       "In the year 1664, when the government passed to the English,
       New Netherland is said by the Chevalier Lambrechtsen to have
       consisted of three cities and thirty villages. Its population
       was then about ten thousand souls, exclusive of the Indians,
       who were important auxiliaries for trade and peltries. The
       inhabitants enjoyed a fair measure of freedom and protection.
       High roads already existed, and there were numerous owners of
       flourishing farms, or bouweries, and other real property,
       while urban life was well policed by proper laws. The
       treatment by the Dutch of the many English and other aliens
       who already dwelt within the Dutch territory was rather in
       advance of the age, while the jurisprudence established here
       by the Dutch, being largely borrowed from the high
       civilization of Rome, was certainly superior in refinement to
       the contemporary feudal and folk law introduced by the English
       in 1664. Theoretically, the administration of justice
       conformed to a high standard, and both Dutch and aliens were
       protected by adequate constitutional guaranties. We cannot for
       an instant presume that the institutions which half a century
       had reared were swept into oblivion by a single stroke of the
       English conquerors in 1664. It would be more rational to
       suppose that the subsidence of the Dutch institutions was as
       gradual as the facts demonstrate it to have been. Negro
       slavery was introduced by the Dutch, but it existed here only
       under its least objectionable conditions. A large measure of
       religious liberty was tolerated, although the Dutch Reformed
       Church was the only one publicly sanctioned. On several
       occasions delegates of the commonalty were brought into
       consultation with the Director-General and Council, and thus,
       to some extent, a principle of representative government was
       at least recognized, although it was somewhat at variance with
       the company's standard of colonial government, and savored too
       much of the English idea and encroachment to be palatable. It
       must not be forgotten that at home the Dutch were a
       self-governing people and accustomed to that most important
       principle of free government—self-assessment in taxation. In
       common with all commercial peoples, they possessed a sturdy
       independence of mind and demeanor. There is no proof that
       these excellent qualities were diminished by transplantation
       to the still freer air of the new country. New Netherland was
       not altogether fortunate in its type of government, experience
       demonstrating that the selfish spirit of a mercantile monopoly
       is not the fit repository of governmental powers. Yet, on the
       whole, it must be conceded that the company's government
       introduced here much that was good and accomplished little
       that was pernicious. In 1664 it certainly surrendered to the
       English one of the finest and most flourishing colonies of
       America, possessing a hardy, vigorous, and thrifty people,
       well adapted to all the principles of civil and religious
       freedom. History shows that this people speedily coalesced
       with all that was good in the system introduced by the
       English, and sturdily opposed all that was undesirable. … It
       is certain … that after the overthrow of the Dutch political
       authority the English proceeded gradually to introduce into
       New York, by express command, their own laws and customs. Yet
       it requires a very much more extended examination of original
       sources than has ever been made to determine absolutely just
       how much of the English laws and institutions was in force at
       a particular epoch of colonial history. The subject perplexed
       the colonial courts, and it is still perplexing."

          R. L. Fowler,
          Constitutional and Legal History, of New York
          in the 17th Century
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 14).

    {2332}

       "Although the New Netherland became a permanent English colony
       under the Treaty of Westminster in 1674 [see below], its
       population remained largely Dutch until nearly the middle of
       the next century. The prosperity of New York, growing steadily
       with the progress of trade and the exportation of grains,
       attracted emigrants from Holland notwithstanding the change of
       flag. Many families now living on Manhattan Island are
       descended from Dutchmen who came out after the English
       occupation. The old names with which we have become familiar
       in the early annals of New Amsterdam continue in positions of
       honour and prominence through the English colonial records. In
       1673, we find among the city magistrates Johannes van Bruggh,
       Johannes de Peyster, Ægidius Luyck, Jacob Kip, Laurans van der
       Spiegel, Wilhelm Beeckman, Guleyn Verplanck, Stephen van
       Courtlandt. In 1677, Stephanus van Courtlandt is mayor, and
       Johannes de Peyster deputy mayor. In 1682, Cornelis Steenwyck
       is mayor; in 1685, the office is filled by Nicholas Bayard; in
       1686, by Van Courtlandt again. Abraham de Peyster was mayor
       from 1691 to 1695; and in his time the following Dutchmen were
       aldermen: W. Beeckman, Johannes Kip, Brandt Schuyler, Garrett
       Douw, Arent van Scoyck, Gerard Douw, Rip van Dam, Jacobus van
       Courtlandt, Samuel Bayard, Jacobus van Nostrandt, Jan
       Hendricks Brevoort, Jan van Home, Petrus Bayard, Abraham
       Wendell, John Brevoort. These names recur down to 1717. In
       1718, John Roosevelt, Philip van Courtlandt, and Cornelius de
       Peyster are aldermen. In 1719, Jacobus van Courtlandt is
       mayor, and among the aldermen are Philip van Courtlandt,
       Harmanus van Gilder, Jacobus Kip, Frederic Philipse, John
       Roosevelt, Philip Schuyler. In 1745, Stephen Bayard is mayor.
       During the last half of the eighteenth century the Dutch names
       are more and more crowded out by the English. … By the
       beginning of the nineteenth century, the Dutch names occur
       only occasionally. These Dutchmen not only preserved their
       leadership in public affairs, but carried on a large
       proportion of the city's trade. New York was an English
       colony, but its greatness was largely built on Dutch
       foundations. It is often said that the city became flourishing
       only after the English occupation. This is true, with the
       qualification that the Dutch trader and the Dutch farmer after
       that event had greater opportunities for successful activity.
       … Dutch continued to be the language of New York until the
       end of the seventeenth century, after which time English
       contended for the mastery with steady success. In the outlying
       towns of Long Island and New Jersey and along the Hudson
       River, Dutch was generally used for a century later. … In
       New York city the large English immigration, the requirements
       of commerce, and the frequent intermarriages of Dutch and
       English families had given to English the predominance by the
       year 1750. … In New York city the high-stoop house, and the
       peculiar observance of New Year's Day which continued until
       1870, are two familiar relics of Holland. The valuable custom
       of registering transfers of real estate has been received from
       the same source."

          B. Tuckerman,
          Peter Stuyvesant,
          chapter 4.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.
       The Duke's Laws.

       "At a general meeting held at Hempstead, on Long Island [March
       1, 1665], attended by deputies from all the towns, Governor
       Nichols presently published, on his own and the duke's
       authority, a body of laws for the government of the new
       province, alphabetically arranged, collated, and digested,
       'out of the several laws now in force in his majesty's
       American colonies and plantations,' exhibiting indeed, many
       traces of Connecticut and Massachusetts legislation. … The
       code [was] known as the 'Duke's Laws,' which Nichols imagined
       'could not but be satisfactory even to the most factious
       Republicans.' A considerable number of immigrants seem to have
       come in on the strength of it from the neighboring colonies of
       New England,"

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 17 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          The Duke of York's Book of Laws,
          compiled and edited by S. George, et al.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1665-1666.
       French invasions of the Iroquois country,
       under Courcelles and Tracy.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
       The reconquest of the city and province by the Dutch.

       The seizure of New Netherland by the English in 1664 was one
       of several acts of hostility which preceded an actual
       declaration of war between England and Holland. The war became
       formal, however, in the following year, and ended in 1666,
       ingloriously for England although she retained her American
       conquests.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666

       Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of
       Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to
       betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a
       perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

       During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis
       Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an
       unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been
       sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy
       in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico
       he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under
       the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two
       commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where
       they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in
       spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy
       them to England. As they were going out of the James River,
       the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received
       information from one of its passengers which satisfied them
       that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few
       days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships
       of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled
       by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy
       Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On
       the following day the city, which could make no defense, and
       all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their
       countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of
       New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open
       enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of
       capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was
       granted by the victors. …
    {2333}
       Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient
       New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary
       government in New York, with that of his grantees in New
       Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the
       Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered
       American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful
       war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected
       with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of
       course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held
       to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to
       the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long
       Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the
       province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.
       … It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a
       provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen
       or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky
       accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;
       upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest
       until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed
       Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.
       "Colve's commission described his government as extending from
       15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island
       and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to
       Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in
       1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate
       territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.
       … The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New
       Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The
       metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in
       several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition
       was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.

          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of the State of New York,
          volume 2, chapters 4-5.

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 14-15.

          Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
          volume 2.

          Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1674.
       Restored to England by the Treaty of Westminster.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.
       Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of
       Connecticut.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.
       Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the
       Iroquois country.

       "Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in
       procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in
       1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia,
       at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or
       council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel
       Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the
       Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even
       asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon
       their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most
       readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become
       necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe
       it into an act of at least partial submission to English
       authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians
       themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm,
       that might protect them against the French."

          W. L. Stone,
          Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
          volume 1, page 15.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.
       French invasions of the Iroquois country
       under De La Barre and De Nonville.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1686.
       The Dongan Charter.

       "The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the
       'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by
       Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one
       of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it,
       sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation.
       Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save
       in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which
       the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The
       instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great
       city."

          Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, page 317.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Benjamin,
          Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 11).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
       Joined with New England under the governorship of Andros.

       In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made
       Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new
       commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of
       all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except
       Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory
       and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country
       between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix,
       thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of
       government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to
       reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the
       administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor
       was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of
       whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in
       Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the
       government, and might pass laws, which however were, within
       three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy
       Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was
       to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the
       whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed,
       agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          Compendious History of New England,
          book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 18.

          J. R. Brodhead, editor
          Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
          volume 3, pages 537-554.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.
       The Revolution.
       Jacob Leisler and his fate.

       News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from
       the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband,
       William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in
       February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the
       public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the
       authority of the latter occurred until after the people of
       Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General,
       Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and
       casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a
       little later by like action in New York. Two parties had
       quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James,
       the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former
       embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard,
       the commander of the city militia, the members of the council,
       and the municipal authorities.
    {2334}
       The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the
       citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the
       imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been
       overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was
       invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the
       legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might
       delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the
       principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German
       by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five
       train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one
       of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous
       opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and
       determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by
       the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced
       great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of
       citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to
       become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel
       Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly
       for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the
       'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert
       Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of
       the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and
       champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was
       formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English.
       They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested
       him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief
       magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch.
       This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained
       to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the
       public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he
       proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary
       sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a
       letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had
       done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to
       assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but
       departed presently for England, "after formally giving
       authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his
       absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made
       known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and
       the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several
       counties of the province to elect their civil and military
       officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The
       counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually
       and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became
       greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who
       was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,'
       as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the
       indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was
       compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other
       councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they
       acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an
       independent government, and claimed to be the true and only
       rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained
       by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law,
       Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of
       their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his
       mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York
       by a special messenger from the British Privy Council,
       directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to
       such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the
       peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of
       New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to
       Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and
       attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned.
       "From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed
       an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler
       justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the
       people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at
       once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed
       councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts,
       and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war
       with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed
       Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of
       1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in
       the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take
       possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the
       governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme
       power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the
       province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of
       the fort, without deigning to show the governor his
       credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the
       troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to
       take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city
       was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and
       'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in
       March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort
       and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of
       Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious
       action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also
       Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a
       charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and
       sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne
       received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the
       governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As
       Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they
       intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature
       to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before
       the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and
       Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became
       sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly
       stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he
       died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment,
       enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high
       position in history of a patriot and martyr."

          B. J. Lossing,
          The Empire State,
          chapter 8.

       "Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs,
       but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are
       imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the
       utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an
       opposition led by persons who held office under King James.
       They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the
       office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity
       as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a
       patriot."

          R. Frothingham,
          The Rise of the Republic,
          chapter 3.

    {2335}

       "The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler.
       … And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a
       martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice,
       aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as
       one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors
       of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a
       traitor."

          W. Dunlap,
          History of the New Netherlands,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          C. F. Hoffman,
          The Administration of Jacob Leisler
          (Library of American Biographies,
          series 2, volume 3).

          Papers relating to
          Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration
          (O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2).

          Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration
          (New York Historical Society Collection, 1868).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.
       King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.
       Abortive expedition against Montreal.
       French plans of conquest.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1690.
       The first Colonial Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1692.
       Bradford's press set up.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1696.
       Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1696.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749.
       Suppression of colonial manufactures.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.
       Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.
       Capture of Port Royal.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.
       Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.
       Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.

          See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
       Conflicts of royal governors with the people.
       Zenger's trial.
       Vindication of the freedom of the press.

       "In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet
       and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New
       York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the
       assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he
       did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had
       lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and
       free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego,
       and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at
       Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was
       transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the
       chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the
       time when the ministry was warned that 'the American
       assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of
       Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as
       governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John
       Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate
       had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped
       contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all
       things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732,
       was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax,
       and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man,
       broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no
       sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch
       at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. …
       To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of
       Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and
       insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of
       the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered:
       'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in
       England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby
       displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent
       of the council or waiting for the approbation of the
       sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A
       newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in
       November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its
       printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an
       apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and
       afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the
       council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious
       libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the
       attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger
       took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they
       ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without
       the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by
       disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at
       the head of his profession in New York for sagacity,
       penetration, and application to business. All the central
       colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial
       the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable
       Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for
       Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You
       cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give
       the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to
       the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The
       jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and
       they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is
       not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is
       the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not
       guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York
       the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous
       defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the
       press.'"

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States (Author's last Revision)
          part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Grahame,
          History of the United States (Colonial),
          book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          W. L. Stone,
          History of New York City,
          2d period, chapter 2.

          E. Lawrence,
          William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 2, chapter 7).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1725.
       The first Newspaper.

          See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1726.
       How the Iroquois placed themselves
       under the protection of England.

       "Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at
       Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had
       received from England, and all the injuries that had been
       inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow
       to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The
       Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion
       of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it.
       They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the
       King of England for help to regain their country from the
       French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a
       surrender of their country to England, to be protected for
       their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for
       their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and
       represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian
       chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois
       confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of
       Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their
       territory to be subject to Great Britain."

          W. Dunlap,
          History of New York,
          volume 1, page 289.

    {2336}

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
       The pretended Negro Plot.
       Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.

       In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and
       bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than
       the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or
       8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine
       fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the
       burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An
       indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a
       reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot
       formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes,
       to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was
       confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a
       robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly
       turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among
       the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight
       lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by
       turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no
       counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient
       evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all
       sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in
       passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to
       save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy
       convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and
       seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement
       then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices
       against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being
       a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes
       to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and
       executed."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 25 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 26.

          G. W. Williams,
          History of the Negro Race in America,
          volume 1, chapter 13.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1744.
       Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1744-1748.
       King George's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754.
       The founding of King's College.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.
       The struggle for Vermont.
       The disputed New Hampshire Grants,
       and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.

          See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
       The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.
       The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.
       Abortive expedition against Niagara.
       Braddock's defeat.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
          and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.
       The French and Indian War:
       English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.
       The French and Indian War:
       Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
       Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
          and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.
       The French and Indian War:
       Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.
       The French and Indian War:
       Completed English conquest of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.
       Pontiac's War.
       Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Sugar Act.
       The Stamp Act and its repeal.
       The Declaratory Act.
       The Stamp Act Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1765.
       Patriotic self-denials.
       Non-importation agreements.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.
       The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
       Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773.
       Opening events of the Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,
          and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.
       The Revolutionary spirit abroad.
       The conflict of parties.
       The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,
       and the Committee of Sixty.

       "In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the
       Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were
       ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea
       ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that
       gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston.
       … An 'association' was now circulated for signatures,
       engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any
       connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or
       'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by
       Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers
       was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of
       Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee.
       Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of
       the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January
       20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch
       with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the
       year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve
       others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a
       proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April
       15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook,
       followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance
       assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy'
       landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat
       and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood
       out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried
       Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening
       before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by
       the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was
       enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by
       the ship Samson on the 12th.
    {2337}
       Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston
       Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most
       effectual, and assuring them that their course would be
       heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had
       been the march of events that not till now did the merchants
       and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their
       concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly
       compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible
       committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted
       more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had
       been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations
       condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men
       who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote
       Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and
       acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the
       lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the
       Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens
       seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal
       inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might
       run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a
       considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the
       Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by
       advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel
       Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.'
       … A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of
       twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the
       approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister
       colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these
       nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the
       Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added,
       Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which
       had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House
       again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and
       organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the
       Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response
       to another communication just received from Boston, by the
       famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged
       that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is
       of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions …
       not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances,
       but for the security of our common rights;' and that the
       advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to
       the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be
       exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative
       suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common
       rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York
       was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before
       a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of
       Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates
       to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose
       for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane,
       and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to
       the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at
       the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the
       committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to
       substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys."
       This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate
       expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently
       opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a
       unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately,
       at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest
       clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of
       the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the
       'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."

          G. Pellew,
          John Jay,
          chapter 2.

       "The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its
       object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of
       the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to
       enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late
       Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and
       organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was
       dissolved."

          Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, page 768.

          ALSO IN:
          I. Q. Leake,
          Life and Times of General John Lamb,
          chapter 6.

          J. A. Stevens,
          The Second Non-importation Agreement
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 2, chapter 11).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.
       The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
       and the Quebec Act.
       The First Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).
       Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.
       The first provincial Convention held.

       "The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far
       the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe
       disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his
       council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though
       chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the
       King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the
       representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any
       moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a
       rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where
       there was an elective council and an annually elected
       assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of
       power around which the people might assemble and claim to be
       heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon
       their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their
       integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every
       obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction
       of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally
       intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the
       Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and
       ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned
       to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized
       by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want
       of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in
       store several days without them. While they were on their way
       to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and
       seized them, but before they could be concealed they were
       retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war
       in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in
       the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates
       to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at
       Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to
       appeal to the people.
    {2338}
       The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the
       loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of
       popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and
       freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into
       consideration the election of delegates to a convention of
       representatives from such of the counties of the province as
       should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention
       being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in
       the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the
       loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon
       subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity
       to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a
       provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th
       [April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the
       Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the
       Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on
       the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence
       in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates
       to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention
       assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and
       consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside
       of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the
       delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the
       convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the
       convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first
       provincial convention in New York—the first positive
       expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that
       province. They remained in session three days, and chose for
       delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James
       Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,
       Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,
       Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given
       full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from
       other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such
       measures as shall be judged most effectual for the
       preservation and reestablishment of American rights and
       privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great
       Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in
       session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its
       way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the
       adjournment."

          B. J. Lossing,
          Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
          volume 1, chapters 17-18.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Dunlap,
          History of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 29.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
       The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       Action upon the news.
       Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.
       Siege of Boston.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).
       The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.
       The end of royal government.
       Flight of Governor Tryon.

       "On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of
       Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open
       hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of
       Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of
       the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it,
       together with a quantity which had been deposited in the
       arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom
       formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of
       Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the
       city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the
       custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the
       vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now
       became necessary to organize some provisional government for
       the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting
       of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a
       Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the
       charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to
       obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by
       the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part
       of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the
       popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by
       the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their
       more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the
       command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as
       their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any
       persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. …
       The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on
       their colleagues to present a placable address to
       Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment,
       and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve
       the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put
       the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey
       the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting
       fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered
       New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take
       command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress
       received him with a cautious address. Despite their
       patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing
       to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they
       desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights
       of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington
       quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial
       militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England
       since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands
       of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume
       it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought
       almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work
       such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America.
       The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with
       expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of
       the change which relieved them from the government of Colden.
       … Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the
       Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to
       the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly
       raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the
       seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and
       denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not
       long before the two powers came into collision." This was
       brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress,
       directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were
       exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat
       from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded
       the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens.
       "Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but
       finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the
       pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he
       determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the
       'Asia.'"

          Mary L. Booth,
          History of the City of New York,
          chapter 16.

          ALSO IN:
          I. Q. Leake,
          Life and Times of General John Lamb,
          chapter 7.

    {2339}

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August).
       Flight of Governor Tryon.
       New York City occupied by Washington.
       Battle of Long Island.
       Defeat of the American army.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
       The struggle for the city.
       Washington's retreat.
       The British in possession.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
       The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons.
       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
       A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
       The campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT;
          and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
       Adoption of a Constitution and
       organization of a State government.
       Religious freedom established.

       "After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies
       proceeded to form State governments, by adopting
       constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the
       1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the
       Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government
       was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County,
       were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The
       committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John
       Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer,
       Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John
       Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel
       Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the
       chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the
       Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the
       stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and
       winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then
       at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County,
       and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they
       continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the
       committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the
       12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It
       was under consideration in the Convention for more than a
       month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of
       April. Under it a State government was established by an
       ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first
       session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston
       in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay
       and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for
       Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor.
       But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the
       situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be
       neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in
       all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and
       Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General
       George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by
       successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for
       three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the
       Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was
       appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and
       John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert
       Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New
       York was organized and put into operation at a time when it
       was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern,
       southern, and western frontiers."

          B. J. Lossing,
          Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
          volume 2, chapter 9.

       The framers of this first constitution of the State of New
       York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established
       church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all
       such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to
       establish or maintain any particular denomination of
       Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section …
       which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being
       the first organized government of the world to assert by
       constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious
       freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by
       the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to
       expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual
       oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition
       of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,
       this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority
       of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and
       declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
       profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
       shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all
       mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly
       indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her
       Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well
       as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But
       the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York,
       which has since spread over most of the United States, and
       lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not
       freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought.
       Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they
       expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted
       to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the
       sea a century and a half before."

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
          volume 2, pages 251-252.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Jay,
          Life of John Jay,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          T. Roosevelt,
          Gouverneur Morris,
          chapter 3.

          B. F. Butler,
          Outline of Constitutional History of New York
          (New York Historical Society Collections,
          series 2, volume 2).

          See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776-1779.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
       Opposition to the recognition of
       the State independence of Vermont.

          See VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778.
       Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender.
       The Articles of Confederation.
       The alliance with France.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777(JULY-OCTOBER), to 1778 (FEBRUARY).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
       Fortifying West Point.

          See WEST POINT.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
       The war on the Indian Border.
       Activity of Tories and Savages.
       The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).

    {2340}

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1778-1779.
       Washington's ceaseless guard upon the Hudson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D.1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1779.
       Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1780.
       Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783.
       The war in the South.
       The surrender of Cornwallis.
       Peace with Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1781.
       Western territorial claims and
       their cession to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
       Flight of the Tories, or Loyalists.

          See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
       Evacuation of New York City by the British.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1784.
       Founding of the Bank of New York.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1786.
       Rejection of proposed amendments
       to the Articles of Confederation.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
       Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts.
       The Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
       The Holland Purchase.
       The founding of Buffalo.

       The conflicting territorial claims of New York and
       Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English
       crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims
       to the United States which New York made in 1781 and
       Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
       1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by
       these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000
       square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was
       finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by
       the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of
       December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by
       the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York
       all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction
       of all the territory lying west of the present east line of
       the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the
       pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of
       the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying
       west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of
       Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said
       state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake
       to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New
       York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of
       Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length.
       The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded,
       amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788,
       Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of
       Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville,
       Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to
       all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about
       6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in
       three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip
       Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was
       to be received, which was then in market much below par. In
       July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians
       by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title
       to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase
       from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded
       west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the
       state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of
       land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon
       (Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence
       north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the
       confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of
       said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras
       (Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence
       running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the
       westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario.
       On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts
       conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps,
       their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of
       said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs.
       Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This
       tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps
       and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the
       proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they
       had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square],
       which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of
       townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and
       others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November,
       1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two
       townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a
       quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who
       soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English
       gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold
       at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other
       property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity,
       is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps
       and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money
       of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence
       of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock
       (in which the payments for the land were to be received) from
       20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their
       engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to
       relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western
       section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the
       Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by
       Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris.
       Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his
       purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school
       fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the
       Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The
       remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western
       New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and
       came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.

          O. Turner,
          Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
          pages 325 and 396-424.

    {2341}

       "Much has been written and more has been said about the
       'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially
       precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet
       there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the
       Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city
       of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were
       citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the
       United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not
       hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts,
       comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase,
       was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the
       legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land
       within the State, and in the latter part of that year the
       American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real
       owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase
       surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of
       land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors
       reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their
       title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797.
       One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by
       the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland
       proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and
       made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he
       secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and
       the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of
       land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the
       founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which
       subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek,
       on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement,
       became its harbor.

          C. Johnson,
          Centennial History of Erie Company, New York,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          O. Turner,
          History of the Pioneer Settlement
          of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase,
          part 2.

          O. Turner,
          Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
          pages 401-424.

          H. L. Osgood,
          The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
          (Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788.
       The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
       The chief battle ground of the contest.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
       Inauguration of President Washington in New York City.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
       The beginnings of Tammany.

          See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1790.
       Renunciation of claims to Vermont.

          See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.
       Gradual emancipation of Slaves enacted.

       During the session of the legislature in April, 1799,
       "emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all
       children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July
       should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of
       males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age
       of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this
       process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that
       question of compensation which had been the secret of the
       failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves
       was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population
       of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and
       without excitement."

          G. Pellew,
          John Jay,
          page 328.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1805.
       The Free School Society in New York City.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1880.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1807.
       Fulton's first steamboat on the Hudson.

          See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1812-1815.
       The war on the Canadian frontier.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
          1813 (DECEMBER);
          1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
          1814 (SEPTEMBER).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
       The Clintonians and Bucktails.

       During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the
       State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between
       his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he
       audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison,
       assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican
       adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn
       on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been
       Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the
       'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later
       called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards,
       the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren],
       when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head
       of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between
       Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each
       accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the
       accusation of one of them was nearly always true."

          E. M. Shepard,
          Martin Van Buren,
          page 56.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Schouler,
          History of the United States,
          volume 3, page 227.

          J. D. Hammond,
          History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
          volume 1, page 450.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
       Construction of the Erie Canal.

       "History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first
       suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake
       Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the
       shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The
       praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the
       fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a
       uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the
       Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in
       1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It
       afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr.
       Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to
       have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley,
       under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,'
       continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first
       brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject.
       These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by
       a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment
       for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and
       displayed deep research, with singular vigor and
       comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic
       accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In
       1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in
       pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson,
       president of the United States, reported a plan for
       appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general
       government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads;
       and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly
       without exception, all the works which have since been
       executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. …
    {2342}
       In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from
       Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution,"
       referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to
       the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee
       be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of
       exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the
       most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a
       communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and
       Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to
       appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the
       accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee
       was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was
       directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the
       state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one
       of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native
       genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed,
       under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes
       to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed
       that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and
       could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion
       of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished
       throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts
       to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt
       Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William
       North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed
       commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland
       navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake
       Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian,
       himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the
       canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested
       this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of
       engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a
       member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811,
       submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which
       they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous
       canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate
       of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this
       report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law
       on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to
       provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this
       state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert
       Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to
       consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with
       powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress,
       or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the
       undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr.
       Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the
       subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison)
       and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that,
       although it was uncertain whether the national government
       would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would
       afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners
       then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national
       government, and that offer having virtually been declined,
       the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims
       of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the
       canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as
       soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of
       June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners
       and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the
       treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any
       measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the
       country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of
       internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic
       efforts required to maintain the national security and honor."
       But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise
       prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and
       "ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on
       the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking
       the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton,
       having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the
       state, and being president of the board of canal
       commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending,
       with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the
       26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable
       condition throughout its entire length, affording an
       uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the
       Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a
       telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at
       Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of
       the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on
       the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor
       Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the
       commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."

          W. H. Seward,
          Notes on New York
          (Works, volume 2), pages 88-117.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Hosack,
          Memoir of De Witt Clinton,
          pages 82-119 and 245-504.

          J. Renwick,
          Life of De Witt Clinton,
          chapters 10-19.

          C. D. Colden,
          Memoir: Celebration of the
          Completion of the New York Canals.

          M. S. Hawley,
          Origin of the Erie Canal.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1821.
       Revision of the Constitution.

       "The Constitution did not meet the expectations of its
       framers. The cumbrous machinery by which it was sought to
       insure the control of the People, through the supremacy of the
       Assembly, had only resulted in fortifying power practically
       beyond their reach. The Council of Revision was objected to
       because it had exercised the veto power contrary to the spirit
       of the Constitution, which was in harmony with the traditions
       of the Colony from the earliest conflict with the executive
       power; and because the officers who thus interposed their
       objections to the will of the Legislature, holding office for
       good behavior (except the Governor), were beyond the reach of
       the People. It was seen that this power was a dangerous one,
       in a Council so constituted; but it was thought that it could
       be safely intrusted to the Governor alone, as he was directly
       responsible to the People. The Council of Appointment,
       although not vested with any judicial authority, and in fact
       disclaiming it, nevertheless at an early day summoned its
       appointees before it, for the purpose of hearing accusations
       against them, and proving their truth or falsity. At a later
       day, more summary proceedings were resorted to. The office
       thus became very unpopular. Nearly every civil, military, and
       judicial officer of the commonwealth was appointed by this
       Council.
    {2343}
       In 1821, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their
       commissions from it, and this vast system of centralized power
       was naturally very obnoxious. The Legislature, in 1820, passed
       'an act recommending a Convention of the People of this
       State,' which came up for action in the Council of Revision,
       on November 20th of the same year; present, Governor Clinton,
       Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, and Justices Yates and
       Woodworth, on which day the Council, by the casting vote of
       the Governor, adopted two objections to it; first, because it
       did not provide for taking the sense of the People on the
       question; and second, because it submitted the new
       Constitution to the People in toto, instead of by sections.
       These objections were referred to a select committee, Michael
       Ulshoeffer, chairman, who submitted their report January 9,
       1821, in opposition to the opinion of the Council, which was
       adopted by the Assembly. The bill, however, failed to pass,
       not receiving a two-third vote. Immediately thereupon a
       committee was appointed to draft a new bill. The committee
       subsequently introduced a bill for submitting the question to
       the people, which passed both Houses; received the sanction of
       the Council of Revision on the 13th of March, and was
       subsequently amended, the amendments receiving the sanction of
       the Council on the third of April. The popular vote on holding
       the Convention was had in April, and resulted as follows: 'For
       Convention' 109,346. 'For No Convention' 34,901. The
       Convention assembled in Albany, August 28, and adjourned
       November 10, 1821. The Council of Revision was abolished, and
       its powers transferred to the Governor. The Council of
       Appointment was abolished without a dissenting voice. The
       principal department officers were directed to be appointed on
       an open separate nomination by the two Houses, and subsequent
       joint ballot. Of the remaining officers not made elective, the
       power of appointment was conferred upon the Governor, by and
       with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1846, two
       hundred and eighty-nine offices were thus filled. The elective
       franchise was extended. The Constitution was adopted at an
       election held in February, 1822, by the following vote:
       Constitution—For, 74,732: Against, 41,402. … The People
       took to themselves a large portion of the power they had felt
       it necessary, in the exercise of a natural conservatism, to
       intrust to the Assembly. They had learned that an elective
       Governor and an elective Senate are equally their agents, and
       interests which they thought ought to be conserved, they
       intrusted to them, subject to their responsibility to the
       People. The entire Senate were substituted in the place of the
       members who chanced to be the favorites with a majority in the
       Assembly, as a Council to the Governor, and thus the People of
       all the State were given a voice in appointments. The Supreme
       Judicial Tribunal remained the same. The direct sovereignty of
       the People was thus rendered far more effective, and popular
       government took the place of parliamentary administration."

          E. A. Werner,
          Civil List and Constitutional History of New York, 1887,
          pages 126-128.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1823.
       The rise of the Albany Regency.

       "The adoption of the new constitution in 1822 placed the
       political power of the State in the hands of Mr. Van Buren,
       the recognized representative leader of the Democratic party.
       Governor Clinton, as the end of his term of service
       approached, became as powerless as he was in 1816. … William
       L. Marcy was then State Comptroller, Samuel L. Talcott,
       Attorney-General; Benjamin Knower, Treasurer; and Edwin
       Crosswell, editor of the 'Argus' and state printer. These
       gentlemen, with Mr. Van Buren as their chief, constituted the
       nucleus of what became the Albany Regency. After adding Silas
       Wright, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, James Porter, Thomas W.
       Olcott, and Charles E. Dudley to their number, I do not
       believe that a stronger political combination ever existed at
       any state capital. … Their influence and power for nearly
       twenty years was almost as potential in national as in state
       politics."

          T. Weed,
          Autobiography,
          volume 1, chapter 11.

       "Even to our own day, the Albany Regency has been a strong and
       generally a sagacious influence in its party. John A. Dix,
       Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond and Samuel J. Tilden long
       directed its policy, and from the chief seat in its councils
       the late secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning, was chosen
       in 1885."

          E. M. Shepard,
          Martin Van Buren,
          page 96.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.
       Anti-Masonic excitement.
       The abduction of Morgan.

       "The society of free-masons included a large number of the
       foremost citizens in all walks of life, and the belief existed
       that they used their secret ties to advance their ambitions.
       … This belief was used to create prejudice among those who
       were not members, and it added fuel to the fires of faction.
       At this juncture, September 11, 1826, William Morgan, of
       Batavia, a free-mason, who had announced his intention to
       print a pamphlet exposing the secrets of masonry, was arrested
       on a charge of larceny, made by the master of a masonic lodge,
       but found not guilty, and then arrested for debt, and
       imprisoned in jail at Canandaigua. He was taken secretly from
       that jail and conveyed to Fort Niagara, where he was kept
       until September, when he disappeared. The masons were charged
       with his abduction, and a body found in the Niagara River was
       produced as proof that he was drowned to put him out of the
       way. Thurlow Weed, then an editor in Rochester, was aggressive
       in charging that Morgan was murdered by the masons, and as
       late as 1882 he published an affidavit rehearsing a confession
       made to him by John Whitney, that the drowning was in fact
       perpetrated by himself and four other persons whom he named,
       after a conference in a masonic lodge. In 1827, Weed, who was
       active in identifying the drowned body, was charged with
       mutilating it, to make it resemble Morgan, and the imputation
       was often repeated; and the abduction and murder were in turn
       laid at the door of the anti-masons. The disappearance became
       the chief topic of partisan discussion. De Witt Clinton was
       one of the highest officers in the masonic order, and it was
       alleged that he commanded that Morgan's book should be
       'suppressed at all hazards,' thus instigating the murder; but
       the slander was soon exposed. The state was flooded with
       volumes portraying masonry as a monstrous conspiracy, and the
       literature of the period was as harrowing as a series of
       sensational novels."

          E. H. Roberts,
          New York,
          volume 2, chapter 33.

    {2344}

       "A party soon grew up in Western New York pledged to oppose
       the election of any Free Mason to public office. The
       Anti-Masonic Party acquired influence in other States, and
       began to claim rank as a national political party. On most
       points its principles were those of the National Republicans.
       But Clay, as well as Jackson, was a Free Mason, and
       consequently to be opposed by this party. … In 1832 it even
       nominated a Presidential ticket of its own, but, having no
       national principle of controlling importance, it soon after
       declined."

          A. Johnston,
          History of American Politics,
          chapter 12, section 3, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Weed,
          Autobiography,
          chapters 20-30, 36, and 40.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.
       The last of Slavery in the state.

       "On the 28th of January, 1817, the governor sent a message to
       the legislature recommending the entire abolition of slavery
       in the State of New York, to take place on the fourth day of
       July, 1827. By an act passed some years before, all persons
       born of parents who were slaves after July 1799, were to be
       free; males at twenty-eight and females at twenty-five years
       of age. The present legislature adopted the recommendation of
       the governor. This great measure in behalf of human rights,
       which was to obliterate forever the black and foul stain of
       slavery from the escutcheon of our own favored state, was
       produced by the energetic action of Cadwallader D. Colden,
       Peter A. Jay, William Jay, Daniel D. Tompkins and other
       distinguished philanthropists, chiefly residing in the city of
       New York. The Society of Friends, who never slumber when the
       principles of benevolence and a just regard to equal rights
       call for their action, were zealously engaged in this great
       enterprise."

          J. D. Hammond,
          History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 22.

          ALSO IN:
          E. H. Roberts,
          New York,
          volume 2, page 565.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.
       The Loco-focos.

       "The Van Buren party began to be called the Loco-focos, in
       derision of the fancied extravagance of their financial
       doctrines. The Loco-foco or Equal Rights party proper was
       originally a division of the Democrats, strongly
       anti-monopolist in their opinions, and especially hostile to
       banks,—not only government banks but all banks,—which
       enjoyed the privileges then long conferred by special and
       exclusive charters. In the fall of 1835 some of the Democratic
       candidates in New York were especially obnoxious to the
       anti-monopolists of the party. When the meeting to regularly
       confirm the nominations made in committee was called at
       Tammany Hall, the anti-monopolist Democrats sought to capture
       the meeting by a rush up the main stairs. The regulars,
       however, showed themselves worthy of their regularity by
       reaching the room up the back stairs. In a general scrimmage
       the gas was put out. The anti-monopolists, perhaps used to the
       devices to prevent meetings which might be hostile, were ready
       with candles and loco-foco matches. The hall was quickly
       illuminated; and the anti-monopolists claimed that they had
       defeated the nominations. The regulars were successful,
       however, at the election; and they and the Whigs dubbed the
       anti-monopolists the Loco-foco men. … The hatred which Van
       Buren after his message of September, 1837, received from the
       banks commended him to the Loco-focos; and in October, 1837,
       Tammany Hall witnessed their reconciliation with the regular
       Democrats upon a moderate declaration for equal rights."

          E. M. Shepard,
          Martin Van Buren,
          pages 293-295.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1838.
       Passage of the Free Banking Act.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1839-1846.
       The Anti-rent disturbances.

          See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1840-1841.
       The McLeod Case.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1845-1846.
       Schism in the Democratic party over Slavery extension.
       Hunkers and Barnburners.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1846.
       Constitutional revision.

       During the twenty-five years of the existence of the
       constitution of 1821, "ten different proposals for amendments
       were submitted to the electors, who decided against choosing
       presidential electors by districts, but in favor of extending
       the franchise, in favor of electing mayors by the people, and
       in 1846 for no license except in the city of New York. The
       commonwealth grew not only in population, but in all the
       elements of progress and prosperity and power, and by the
       census of 1845 was shown to contain 2,604,495 inhabitants.
       Legislation had tended to the substitution of rights for
       privileges granted as favors. The tenure of land, especially
       under the claims of the patroons, had caused difficulties for
       which remedies were sought; and the large expenditures for
       internal improvements, involving heavy indebtedness, prompted
       demands for safe-guards for the creditor and the taxpayer. The
       judiciary system had confessedly become independent, and
       required radical reformation. When, therefore, in 1845, the
       electors were called upon to decide whether a convention
       should be held to amend the State constitution, 213,257 voted
       in the affirmative, against 33,860 in the negative. The
       convention met June 1, 1846, but soon adjourned until October
       9, when it proceeded with its task. John Tracy of Chenango
       presided; and among the members were Ira Harris of Albany,
       George 'V. Patterson of Chautauqua, Michael Hoffman and
       Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Samuel J. Tilden of New York,
       Samuel Nelson of Otsego, and others eminent at home and in
       State affairs. The convention dealt radically with the
       principles of government. The new constitution gave to the
       people the election of many officers before appointed at
       Albany. It provided for the election of members of both houses
       of the legislature by separate districts. Instead of the
       cumbrous court for the correction of errors, it established an
       independent court of appeals. It abolished the court of
       chancery and the circuit courts, and merged both into the
       supreme court, and defined the jurisdiction of county courts.
       All judges were to be elected by the people. Feudal tenures
       were abolished, and no leases on agricultural lands for a
       longer period than twelve years were to be valid, if any rent
       or service were reserved. The financial articles established
       sinking funds for both the canal and general fund debt,
       forbade the loan of the credit of the State, and limited
       rigidly the power of the legislature to create debts, except
       to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, and declared the
       school and literature funds inviolate. Provision was made for
       general laws for the formation of corporations. The
       constitution required the submission to the people once every
       twenty years of the question whether a convention shall be
       called or not."

          E. H. Roberts,
          New York,
          volume 2, pages 567-569.

    {2345}

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
       The Free Soil movement.
       The Buffalo Convention.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
       Legal Emancipation of Women.

          See LAW, COMMON; A. D. 1839-1848.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
       Adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure.

          See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1861 (April).
       The speeding of the Seventh Regiment
       to the defense of Washington.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1862-1886.
       The founding and growth of Cornell University.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1886.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.
       The Draft Riots in New York City.

       "A new levy of 300,000 men was called for in April, 1863, with
       the alternative of a draft if the quotas were not filled by
       volunteering. The quota of the city of New York was not
       filled, and a draft was begun there on Saturday, the 11th of
       July. There had been premonitions of trouble when it was
       attempted to take the names and addresses of those subject to
       call, and in the tenement-house districts some of the marshals
       had narrowly escaped with their lives. On the morning when the
       draft was to begin, several of the most widely read Democratic
       journals contained editorials that appeared to be written for
       the very purpose of inciting a riot. They asserted that any
       draft at all was unconstitutional and despotic, and that in
       this case the quota demanded from the city was excessive, and
       denounced the war as a 'mere abolition crusade.' It is
       doubtful if there was any well-formed conspiracy, including
       any large number of persons, to get up a riot; but the excited
       state of the public mind, especially among the laboring
       population, inflammatory handbills displayed in the
       grog-shops, the presence of the dangerous classes, whose best
       opportunity for plunder was in time of riot, and the absence
       of the militia that had been called away to meet the invasion
       of Pennsylvania, all favored an outbreak. It was unfortunate
       that the draft was begun on Saturday, and the Sunday papers
       published long lists of the names that were drawn—an instance
       of the occasional mischievous results of journalistic
       enterprise. … When the draft was resumed on Monday, the
       serious work began. One provost-marshal's office was at the
       corner of Third Avenue and Forty-Sixth street. It was guarded
       by sixty policemen, and the wheel was set in motion at ten
       o'clock. The building was surrounded by a dense, angry crowd,
       who were freely cursing the draft, the police, the National
       Government, and 'the nigger.' The drawing had been in progress
       but a few minutes when there was a shout of 'stop the cars!'
       and at once the cars were stopped, the horses released, the
       conductors and passengers driven out, and a tumult created.
       Then a great human wave was set in motion, which bore down
       everything before it and rolled into the marshal's office,
       driving out at the back windows the officials and the
       policemen, whose clubs, though plied rapidly and knocking down
       a rioter at every blow, could not dispose of them as fast as
       they came on. The mob destroyed everything in the office, and
       then set the building on fire. The firemen came promptly, but
       were not permitted to throw any water upon the flames. At this
       moment Superintendent John A. Kennedy, of the police,
       approaching incautiously and unarmed, was recognized and set
       upon by the crowd, who gave him half a hundred blows with
       clubs and stones, and finally threw him face downward into a
       mud-puddle, with the intention of drowning him. When rescued,
       he was bruised beyond recognition, and was lifted into a wagon
       and carried to the police headquarters. The command of the
       force now devolved upon Commissioner Thomas C. Acton and
       Inspector Daniel Carpenter, whose management during three
       fearful days was worthy of the highest praise. Another
       marshal's office, where the draft was in progress, was at
       Broadway and Twenty-Ninth street, and here the mob burned the
       whole block of stores on Broadway between Twenty-Eighth and
       Twenty-Ninth streets. … In the afternoon a small police
       force held possession of a gun-factory in Second Avenue for
       four hours, and was then compelled to retire before the
       persistent attacks of the rioters, who hurled stones through
       the windows and beat in the doors. Toward evening a riotous
       procession passed down Broadway, with drums, banners, muskets,
       pistols, pitchforks, clubs, and boards inscribed 'No Draft!'
       Inspector Carpenter, at the head of two hundred policemen,
       marched up to meet it. His orders were, 'Take no prisoners,
       but strike quick and hard.' The mob was met at the corner of
       Amity (or West Third) street. The police charged at once in a
       compact body, Carpenter knocking down the foremost rioter with
       a blow that cracked his skull, and in a few moments the mob
       scattered and fled, leaving Broadway strewn with their wounded
       and dying. From this time, the police were victorious in every
       encounter. During the next two days there was almost constant
       rioting, mobs appearing at various points, both up-town and
       down-town. The rioters set upon every negro that
       appeared—whether man, woman, or child—and succeeded in
       murdering eleven of them. … This phase of the outbreak found
       its worst expression in the sacking and burning of the Colored
       Orphan Asylum, at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Fourth street. The
       two hundred helpless children were with great difficulty taken
       away by the rear doors while the mob were battering at the
       front. … One of the saddest incidents of the riot was the
       murder of Colonel Henry J. O'Brien of the 11th New York
       Volunteers, whose men had dispersed one mob with a deadly
       volley. An hour or two later the Colonel returned to the spot
       alone, when he was set upon and beaten and mangled and
       tortured horribly for several hours, being at last killed by
       some frenzied women. … Three days of this vigorous work by
       the police and the soldiers brought the disturbance to an end.
       About fifty policemen had been injured, three of whom died;
       and the whole number of lives destroyed by the rioters was
       eighteen. The exact number of rioters killed is unknown, but
       it was more than 1,200. The mobs burned about 50 buildings,
       destroying altogether between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 worth
       of property. Governor Seymour incurred odium by a speech to
       the rioters, in which he addressed them as his friends, and
       promised to have the draft stopped; and by his communications
       to the President, in which he complained of the draft, and
       asked to have it suspended till the question of its
       constitutionality could be tested in the courts."

          R. Johnson,
          Short History of the War of Secession,
          chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
          Abraham Lincoln,
          volume 7, chapter 1.

          H. Greeley,
          The American Conflict,
          volume 2, chapter 21.

          D. M. Barnes,
          The Draft Riots in New York.

    {2346}

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
       The Tweed Ring.

       Between 1863 and 1871 the city of New York, and, to a
       considerable extent, the state at large, fell under the
       control and into the power of a combination of corrupt
       politicians commonly known as the Tweed Ring. Its chief was
       one William Marcy Tweed, of Scotch parentage, who first
       appeared in public life as an alderman of the city, in 1850.
       Working himself upward, in the Democratic party, to which he
       adhered, he attained in 1863 the powerful dignity of Grand
       Sachem of the Tammany Society and chairman or "Boss" of the
       general committee of Tammany Hall. "At this time, however, the
       Tammany 'Ring,' as it afterwards was called, was not
       completely formed, and Tammany Hall, though by far the most
       important political organization in the city, was not absolute
       even in the Democratic party. It had a bitter enemy in Mozart
       Hall, a political organization led by Fernando Wood, a former
       mayor of the city. The claims of Mozart Hall were satisfied in
       this same year, 1863, by granting to its leader the Democratic
       nomination to Congress. … Soon afterwards Tweed was
       appointed deputy-commissioner of streets. The 'Ring' was now
       fast consolidating. The enormous patronage possessed by its
       members enabled them to control almost all the nominations of
       the Democratic party to positions in the city. They provided
       their adherents with places in the city government, and when
       the supply of places became inadequate, they enlarged the city
       pay-roll to create new places. By means of the political
       influence they exerted over the Democratic party in the State,
       they packed the State legislature with their followers, and
       placed upon the bench judges on whom they could rely. … In
       1865 the Ring obtained control of the mayoralty. Its
       candidate, John T. Hoffman, was a man of much higher character
       than his supporters and associates. He was personally honest,
       but his ambition blinded him to the acts of his political
       friends. … In 1868 … Hoffman was nominated for governor
       and was elected. His election was secured by the grossest and
       most extensive frauds ever perpetrated in the city, e. g.
       illegal naturalization of foreigners, false registration,
       repeating of votes, and unfair counting. The mayoralty, left
       vacant by the promotion of Hoffman, was filled by the election
       of Hall [A. Oakey Hall], who took his seat on the 1st day of
       January 1869. As Samuel J. Tilden said, by this election 'the
       Ring became completely organized and matured.' It controlled
       the common council of the city and the legislature of the
       State, and its nominee sat in the gubernatorial chair. Hall
       was mayor; Sweeny [Peter B. Sweeny, 'the great schemer of the
       Ring'] was city chamberlain or treasurer of both city and
       county; Tweed was practically supreme in the street
       department; Connolly [Richard B.] was city comptroller, and
       thus had charge of the city finances; the city judiciary was
       in sympathy with these men." But great as were the power and
       the opportunities of the Ring, it obtained still more of both
       through its well-paid creatures in the State legislature, by
       amendments of the city charter and by acts which gave Tweed
       and his partners free swing in debt-making for the city. In
       1871, the last year of the existence of the Ring, it had more
       than $48,000,000 of money at its disposal. Its methods of
       fraud were varied and numerous. "But all the other enterprises
       of the Ring dwindle into insignificance when compared with the
       colossal frauds that were committed in the building of the new
       court-house for the county. When this undertaking was begun,
       it was stipulated that its total cost should not exceed
       $250,000; but before the Ring was broken up, upwards of
       $8,000,000 had been expended, and the work was not completed.
       … Whenever a bill was brought in by one of the contractors,
       he was directed to increase largely the total of his charge.
       … A warrant was then drawn for the amount of the bill as
       raised; the contractor was paid, perhaps the amount of his
       original, bill, perhaps a little more; and the difference
       between the original and the raised bills was divided between
       the members of the Ring. It is said that about 65 per cent. of
       the bills actually paid by the county represented fraudulent
       addition of this sort." The beginning of the end of the reign
       of the Ring came in July, 1871, when copies of some of the
       fraudulent accounts, made by a clerk in the auditor's office,
       came into the possession of the New York Times and were
       published. "The result of these exposures was a meeting of
       citizens early in September. … It was followed by the
       formation of a sort of peaceable vigilance committee, under
       the imposing title of the 'Committee of Seventy.' This
       committee, together with Samuel J. Tilden (long a leading
       Democratic politician, and afterwards candidate for the
       presidency of the United States), went to work at once, and
       with great energy, to obtain actual proof of the frauds
       described by the 'Times.' It was owing mainly to the tireless
       endeavours of Mr. Tilden … that this work was successful,
       and that prosecutions were brought against several members of
       the Ring." The Tammany leaders attempted to make a scapegoat
       of Connolly; but the latter came to terms with Mr. Tilden, and
       virtually turned over his office to Mr. Andrew H. Green, of
       the Committee of Seventy, appointing him deputy-comptroller,
       with full powers. "This move was a tremendous step forward for
       the prosecution. The possession of the comptroller's office
       gave access to papers which furnished almost all the evidence
       afterwards used in the crusade against the Ring." At the
       autumn election of 1871 there was a splendid rally of the
       better citizens, in the city and throughout the state, and the
       political power of the Ring was broken. "None of the leading
       actors in the disgraceful drama failed to pay in some measure
       the penalty of his deeds. Tweed, after a chequered experience
       in eluding the grasp of justice, died in jail. Connolly passed
       the remainder of his life in exile. Sweeny left the country
       and long remained abroad. … Hall was tried and obtained a
       favourable verdict, but he has chosen to live out of America.
       Of the judges whose corrupt decisions so greatly aided the
       Ring, Barnard and M'Cunn were impeached and removed from the
       bench, while Cardozo resigned his position in time to avoid
       impeachment. The following figures will give an approximate
       idea of the amount the Ring cost the city of New York. In
       1860, before Tweed came into power, the debt of the city was
       reported as amounting only to $20,000,000 while the tax rate
       was about 1.60 per cent. on the assessed valuation of the
       property in the city liable to taxation.
    {2347}
       In the middle of the year 1871, the total debt of the city and
       the county—which were coterminous, and for all practical
       purposes the same—amounted to $100,955,333.33, and the tax
       rate had risen to over 2 per cent. During the last two years
       and a half of the government of the Ring the debt increased at
       the rate of $28,652,000 a year."

          F. J. Goodnow,
          The Tweed Ring in New York City
          (chapter 88 of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          S. J. Tilden,
          The New York City "Ring": its Origin, Maturity and Fall.

          C. F. Wingate,
          An episode in Municipal Government
          (N. A. Rev., Oct. 1874, January and July, 1875,
          October. 1876).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1867.
       The Public Schools made entirely free.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1867-1882.
       Amendments of the Constitution.

       The constitution of 1846 having provided for its own revision
       at the end of twenty years, if so willed by the people, the
       calling of a constitutional convention was approved by popular
       vote in 1866, and the convention of elected delegates
       assembled June 4, in the following year. Its final adjournment
       was not reached until February 28, 1868. The constitution
       proposed by the convention was submitted to the people in
       1869, and rejected, with the exception of the judiciary
       article, which reorganized the Court of Appeals, and provided
       for a temporary Commission of Appeals, to determine the cases
       pending in the Court, where business in arrears had
       accumulated to a serious extent. The rejection of the
       constitution framed in 1867 led, in 1872, to the creation by
       the governor and legislature of a Commission for the revision
       of the constitution, which met at Albany, December 4, 1872,
       and adjourned March 15, 1873. Several amendments proposed by
       the Commission were submitted to popular vote in 1874 and
       1876, and were adopted. By the more important of these
       amendments, colored citizens were admitted to the franchise
       without property qualifications; a strong, specific enactment
       for the prevention and punishment of bribery and corruption at
       elections was embodied in the constitution itself; some
       changes were made in the provisions for districting the state,
       after each census, and the pay of members of the legislature
       was increased to $1,500 per annum; the power of the
       legislature to pass private bills was limited; the term of the
       governor was extended from two years to three; the governor
       was empowered to veto specific items in bills which
       appropriate money, approving the remainder; the governor was
       allowed thirty days for the consideration of bills left in his
       hands at the adjournment of the legislature, which bills
       become law only upon his approval within that time; a
       superintendent of public works was created to take the place
       of the Canal Commissioners previously existing, and a
       superintendent of state prisons to take the place of the three
       inspectors of state prisons; a selection of judges from the
       bench of the Supreme Court of the state to act as Associate
       Judges of the Court of Appeals was authorized; the loaning or
       granting of the credit or money of the state, or that of any
       county, city, town, or village to any association,
       corporation, or private undertaking was forbidden; corrupt
       conduct in office was declared to be felony. By an amendment
       of the constitution submitted by the legislature to the people
       in 1882, the canals of the state were made entirely free of
       tolls.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.
       Black Friday.

       "During the war gold had swollen in value to 285, when the
       promise of the nation to pay a dollar on demand was only worth
       thirty-five cents. Thence it had gradually sunk. … All our
       purchases from foreign nations, all duties on those purchases,
       and all sales of domestic produce to other nations are payable
       in gold. There is therefore a large and legitimate business in
       the purchase and sale of gold, especially in New York, the
       financial centre of the nation. But a much larger business of
       a gambling nature had gradually grown up around that which was
       legitimate. … These gambling operations were based on the
       rise and fall of gold, and these in turn depended on
       successful or unsuccessful battles, or on events in foreign
       nations that could be neither foreseen nor guarded against.
       The transactions were therefore essentially gambling. … So
       large was the amount of this speculative business, gathering
       up all the gold-betting of the nation in a single room, that
       it more than equalled the legitimate purchase and sale of
       gold. There were large and wealthy firms who made this their
       chief business; and prominent among them was the firm of
       Smith, Gould, Martin & Co., four gentlemen under one
       partnership name, all wealthy and all accustomed to this
       business for years. Their joint wealth and business skill made
       them a power in Wall street. The leading mind of the firm,
       though not the first named, was Mr. Jay Gould, President of
       the Erie Railway, joint owner with Colonel James Fisk Jr., of
       two lines of steamboats, and largely interested in a number of
       railroads and other valuable properties. Mr. Gould looked upon
       gold, railroads, and steamboats as the gilded dice wherewith
       to gamble. … During the spring of 1869 he was a buyer of
       gold. There was perhaps fifteen millions of that rare currency
       in New York outside the Sub-Treasury; and he had bought half
       that amount, paying therefor a bonus of a little more than two
       millions of dollars. As fast as he had purchased the precious
       metal he had loaned it out to those who needed it for the
       payment of duties, and who hoped to repurchase it at a lower
       rate. And so, though the owner of seven millions, he had none
       of it in hand; he merely possessed the written acknowledgment
       of certain leading merchants and brokers that they owed him
       that amount of specie, which they would repay with interest on
       demand. Having this amount obtainable at any moment, Mr. Gould
       had the mercantile community at his mercy. But there was some
       hundred millions of gold in the Treasury, more or less, and
       the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
       Treasury might at any time throw it on the market. On this
       point it was very desirable to ascertain the opinion of
       President Grant; more desirable to have constant access to his
       private ear." In various ways, argumentative influences were
       brought to bear on President Grant and the Secretary of the
       Treasury, Mr. Boutwell, to persuade them that it was desirable
       for the country, while the crops were being moved, to hold up
       the price of gold. One important channel for such influences
       was supplied by the President's brother-in-law, a retired New
       York merchant, named Corbin, who was drawn into the
       speculation and given a share in Gould's gold purchases.
    {2348}
       By strenuous exertions, Gould and his associates pushed up the
       price till "in May it stood at 144 7/8; but as soon as they
       ceased to buy, the price began to recede until in the latter
       part of June it again stood at 136. The others were then
       frightened and sold out. 'All these other fellows deserted me
       like rats from a ship,' said Gould. But for him to sell out
       then would involve a heavy loss, and he preferred a gain. He
       therefore called upon his friend and partner Fisk to enter the
       financial arena. It is but justice to Mr. Fisk to say that for
       some time he declined; he clearly saw that the whole tendency
       of gold was downward. But when Gould made the proposition more
       palatable by suggesting corruption, Fisk immediately swallowed
       the bait. … He … entered the market and purchased twelve
       millions. There is an old adage that there is honor among
       thieves. This appears not to be true on the Gold Exchange. All
       Mr. Gould's statements to his own partner were false, except
       those relating to Corbin and Butterfield. And Mr. Corbin did
       his best. He not only talked and wrote to the President
       himself; not only wrote for the New York 'Times,' but when
       General Grant visited him in New York, he sent Gould to see
       him so often that the President, unaware of the financial trap
       set for him, rebuked the door servant for giving Mr. Gould
       such ready access. But it is worthy of note that neither
       Corbin, Gould, nor Fisk ever spoke to the President of their
       personal interest in the matter. They were only patriots
       urging a certain course of conduct for the good of the
       country. These speculations as to the advantage to the country
       of a higher price of gold seem to have had some effect on the
       Presidential mind; for early in September he wrote to Mr.
       Boutwell, then at his Massachusetts home, giving his opinion
       of the financial condition of the country, and suggesting that
       it would not be wise to lower the price of gold by sales from
       the Treasury while the crops were moving to the seaboard. Mr.
       Boutwell therefore telegraphed to the Assistant Secretary at
       Washington only to sell gold sufficient to buy bonds for the
       sinking fund. Through Mr. Corbin or in some other way this
       letter came to the knowledge of the conspirators; for they at
       once began to purchase and the price began to rise. … On the
       13th of September, gold, swelling and falling like the tide,
       stood at 135½. The clique then commenced their largest
       purchases, and within nine days had bought enough to hold
       sixty-six millions—nearly every cent of it fictitious, and
       only included in promises to pay. On the evening of Wednesday,
       September 22, the price was 140½; but it had taken the
       purchase of thirty or forty millions to put it up that five
       cents. Could it be forced five cents higher, and all sold, the
       profits would be over ten millions of dollars! It was a stake
       worth playing for. But the whole mercantile community was
       opposed to them; bountiful harvests were strong arguments
       against them; and more than all else, there stood the
       Sub-Treasury of the United States, with its hundred millions
       of dollars in its vaults, ready at any time to cast its
       plethora of wealth on their unfortunate heads. … Corbin,
       while assuring Gould that there was no danger of any
       Government sale, and yet himself greatly in trepidation,
       addressed a letter to General Grant urging him not to
       interfere with the warfare then raging between the bulls and
       the bears, nor to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to do
       so. … The letter would probably have had some effect, but
       unfortunately the ring overdid their business in the way in
       which they sent it." The letter was conveyed by a private
       messenger. The messenger, "Mr. Chapin, delivered his letter,
       asked General Grant if there was any reply, and being told
       there was none, started for his home, first telegraphing to
       his employer, 'Letter delivered all right.' It was a most
       unfortunate telegraphic message he sent back. He swears that
       his meaning was that the letter was delivered all right; and
       so the despatch reads. But the gold gamblers, blinded by the
       greatness of the stake at risk, interpreted the 'all right' of
       the message as an answer to the contents of Mr. Corbin's
       letter—that the President thought the letter all right; and
       on the strength of that reading Fisk rushed into the market
       and made numerous purchases of gold. But that very letter,
       which was intended to be their governmental safeguard, led to
       their ruin. Carried by special messenger for a day and a half,
       its urgency that the Administration should sell no gold,
       coupled with frequent assertions in the newspapers that Mr.
       Corbin was a great bull in gold, excited General Grant's
       suspicions. He feared that Corbin was not actuated by
       patriotic motives alone in this secret correspondence. At the
       President's suggestion, therefore, Mrs. Grant wrote to her
       sister, Mrs. Corbin, telling her that rumors had reached them
       that Mr. Corbin was connected with speculators in New York,
       and that she hoped if this was so he would at once disengage
       himself from them; that the President was much distressed at
       such rumors. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Corbin was
       greatly excited." Corbin showed the letter to Gould, and got
       himself let out of the game, so that he might be able to say
       to President Grant that he had no interest in gold; but Fisk
       was not told of the President's suspicions. "On the evening of
       Wednesday, September 21, it was determined to close the corner
       within two days." A desperate attack on the market began next
       morning. Gold opened that day at 39½; it closed at 44. The
       next day was "Friday, September 24, commonly called Black
       Friday, either from the black mark it caused on the characters
       of dealers in gold, or, as is more probable, from the ruin it
       brought to both sides. The Gold Room was crowded for two hours
       before the time of business. … Fisk was there, gloating over
       the prospect of great gains from others' ruin. His brokers
       were there, noisy and betting on the rapid rise of gold and
       the success of the corner. All alike were greatly excited,
       palpitating between hope and fear, and not knowing what an
       hour might bring forth. … Gold closed on Thursday at 144;
       Speyers [principal broker of the conspirators] commenced his
       work on Friday by offering 145, one per cent. higher than the
       last purchase. Receiving no response, he offered to buy at
       146, 147, 148, and 149 respectively, but without takers. Then
       150 was offered, and half a million was sold him by Mr. James
       Brown, who had quietly organized a band of prominent merchants
       who were determined to meet the gold gamblers on their own
       ground. … Amid the most tremendous confusion the voices of
       the excited brokers could be heard slowly bidding up the value
       of their artificial metal.
    {2349}
       Higher and higher rose the tide of speculation; from 156 to
       159 there was no offer whatever; amid deep silence Speyers
       called out, 'Any part of five millions for 160.' 'One million
       taken at 160,' was the quiet response of James Brown. Further
       offers were made by the brokers of the clique all the way from
       160 to 163½. But Mr. Brown preferred to grapple the enemy by
       the throat, and he sold Speyers five millions more, making
       seven millions of gold sold that hour for which Speyers agreed
       to pay eleven millions in currency. Such figures almost
       stagger one to read of them! But Speyers continued to buy till
       before noon he had purchased nearly sixty millions. … As the
       price rose cent by cent, men's hearts were moved within them
       as the trees are shaken by the swelling of the wind. But when
       the first million was taken at 160 a great load was removed,
       and when the second million was sold there was such a burst of
       gladness, such a roar of multitudinous voices as that room,
       tumultuous as it had always been, never heard before.
       Everybody instantly began to sell, desiring to get rid of all
       their gold before it had tumbled too deep. And just as the
       precious metal was beginning to flow over the precipice, the
       news was flashed into the room that Government had telegraphed
       to sell four millions. Instantly the end was reached; gold
       fell to 140, and then down, down, down, to 133. There were no
       purchasers at any price. … The gold ring had that day bought
       sixty millions of gold, paying or rather agreeing to pay
       therefor ninety-six millions of dollars in currency!" But
       Gould, Fisk & Co., who owned several venal New York judges,
       placed injunctions and other legal obstacles in the way of a
       settlement of claims against themselves. "Of course these
       judicious and judicial orders put an end to all business
       except that which was favorable to Fisk and Gould. They
       continued to settle with all parties who owed them money; they
       were judicially enjoined from settling with those to whom, if
       their own brokers may be believed, they were indebted, and
       they have not yet settled with them. … As the settlements
       between the brokers employed by the ring and their victims
       were all made in private, there is no means of knowing the
       total result. But it is the opinion of Mr. James B. Hodskin,
       Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Exchange, and
       therefore better acquainted with its business than anyone
       else, that the two days' profits of the clique from the
       operations they acknowledged and settled for were not less
       than twelve millions of dollars; and that the losses on those
       transactions which they refused to acknowledge were not less
       than twenty millions. The New York 'Tribune' a day or two
       afterward put the gains of the clique at eleven million
       dollars. Some months after 'Black Friday' had passed away,
       Congress ordered an investigation into its causes. … For two
       or three days the whole business of New York stood still
       awaiting the result of the corner. … In good-will with all
       the world, with grand harvests, with full markets on both
       sides the Atlantic, came a panic that affected all business.
       Foreign trade came to a stand-still. The East would not send
       to Europe: the West could not ship to New York. Young men saw
       millions of dollars made in a few days by dishonesty; they
       beheld larger profits result from fraud than from long lives
       of honesty. Old men saw their best-laid plans frustrated by
       the operations of gamblers. Our national credit was affected
       by it. Europe was told that our principal places of business
       were nests of gamblers, and that it was possible for a small
       clique, aided by our banking institutions, to get possession
       of all the gold there was in the land; and that when one firm
       had gone through business transactions to the amount of over
       one hundred millions of dollars, the courts of the United
       States would compel the completion of those bargains which
       resulted in a profit, while those that ended in a loss were
       forbidden. For two or three months the sale of bonds in Europe
       was affected by the transactions of that day; and not until
       the present generation of business men has passed away will
       the evil influence of Black Friday be entirely lost."

          W. R. Hooper,
          Black Friday
          (The Galaxy, December, 1871).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1875-1881.
       Stalwarts and Half-breeds.

          See STALWARTS.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1881.
       Adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

          See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1892.
       Restored Tammany government in the City.

       The Tammany organization was greatly discredited and crippled
       for a time by the exposure and overthrow of Tweed and his
       "ring," in 1871; but after a few years, under the
       chieftainship of John Kelly and Richard Croker, successive
       "grand sachems," it recovered its control of the city
       government so completely that, in 1892, Dr. Albert Shaw was
       justified in describing the latter as follows: "There is in
       New York no official body that corresponds with the London
       Council. The New York Board of Aldermen, plus the Mayor, plus
       the Commissioners who are the appointive heads of a number of
       the working departments such as the Excise, Park, Health and
       Police departments, plus the District Attorney, the Sheriff,
       the Coroners, and other officials pertaining to the county of
       New York as distinct from the city of New York, plus a few of
       the head Tammany bosses and the local Tammany bosses of the
       twenty-four Assembly Districts—all these men and a few other
       officials and bosses, taken together, would make up a body of
       men of about the same numerical strength as the London
       Council; and these are the men who now dominate the official
       life of the great community of nearly eighteen hundred
       thousand souls. In London the 137 councillors fight out every
       municipal question in perfectly open session upon its actual
       merits before the eyes of all London, and of the whole British
       empire. In New York, the governing group discusses nothing
       openly. The Board of Aldermen is an obscure body of
       twenty-five members, with limited power except for mischief,
       its members being almost to a man high Tammany politicians who
       are either engaged directly in the liquor business or are in
       one way or another connected with that interest. So far as
       there is any meeting in which the rulers of New York discuss
       the public affairs of the community, such meetings are held in
       the Tammany wigwam in Fourteenth Street. But Tammany is not an
       organization which really concerns itself with any aspects of
       public questions, either local or general, excepting the
       'spoils' aspect. It is organized upon what is a military
       rather than a political basis, and its machinery extends
       through all the assembly districts and voting precincts of New
       York, controlling enough votes to hold and wield the balance
       of power, and thus to keep Tammany in the possession of the
       offices.
    {2350}
       Its local hold is maintained by the dispensing of a vast
       amount of patronage. The laborers on public works, the members
       of the police force and the fire brigades, the employees of
       the Sanitary Department, of the Excise Department, of the
       Street Cleaning and Repair Department and of the Water and
       Dock and Park Departments, the teachers in the public schools
       and the nurses in the public hospitals, all are made to feel
       that their livelihood depends on the favor of the Tammany
       bosses; and they must not only be faithful to Tammany
       themselves, but all their friends and relatives to the
       remotest collateral degree must also be kept subservient to
       the Tammany domination. The following characterization of
       Tammany leadership and method is from the New York Evening
       Post. … 'None of the members occupy themselves with any
       legislation, except such as creates salaried offices and
       contracts in this city, to be got hold of either by capture at
       the polls or "deals" with the Republican politicians here or
       in Albany. When such legislation has been successful, the only
       thing in connection with it which Tammany leaders consider is
       how the salaries shall be divided and what "assessments" the
       places or contracts can stand. If any decent outsider could
       make his way into the inner conferences at which these
       questions are settled, he would hear not the grave discussion
       of the public interests, how to keep streets clean, or how to
       repave them, or how to light them or police them, or how to
       supply the city with water, but stories of drunken or amorous
       adventure, larded freely with curious and original oaths,
       ridicule of reformers and "silk-stockinged" people generally,
       abuse of "kickers," and examination of the claims of gamblers,
       liquor-dealers, and pugilists to more money out of the public
       treasury. In fact, as we have had of late frequent occasion to
       observe, the society is simply an organization of clever
       adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the
       control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an
       attack on the property of the tax-payers. There is not a
       particle of politics in the concern any more than in any
       combination of Western brigands to "hold up" a railroad train
       and get at the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in
       any form which will not attract the immediate notice of the
       police.'"

          A. Shaw,
          Municipal Problems of New York and London
          (Review of Reviews, April 1892).

    NEW YORK: A. D. 1894.
       Constitutional Convention.

       A bill passed by the legislature of 1892, calling a convention
       to revise the constitution of the State, provided for the
       election of 128 delegates by Assembly districts, and 32 at
       large, but added 9 more whom the Governor should appoint, 3 to
       represent labor interests, 3 woman-suffrage claims, and 3 the
       advocates of prohibition. By the legislature of 1893 this act
       was set aside and a new enactment adopted, making the total
       number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention 165, all
       elective, and apportioning five to each senatorial district.
       The convention assembled at Albany, May 9, 1894. Its labors
       are unfinished at the time this volume goes to press.
       Questions of reform in municipal government have claimed the
       greatest attention.

       ----------NEW YORK: End----------

    NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.

          See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

       ----------NEW ZEALAND: Start--------

    NEW ZEALAND:
       The aborigines.

       "The traditions of these people [the Maoris] lead to the
       conclusion that they first came to New Zealand about 600 years
       ago, from some of the islands between Samoa and Tahiti; but
       some ethnologists put the migration as far back as 3,000
       years. Their language is a dialect of the Polynesian, most
       resembling that of Rarotonga, but their physical characters
       vary greatly. Some are fair, with straight hair, and with the
       best type of Polynesian features; others are dusky brown, with
       curly or almost frizzly hair, and with the' long and broad
       arched nose of the Papuan; while others have the coarse thick
       features of the lower Melanesian races. Now these variations
       of type cannot be explained unless we suppose the Maoris to
       have found in the islands an indigenous Melanesian people, of
       whom they exterminated the men, but took the better-looking of
       the women for wives; and as their traditions decidedly state
       that they did find such a race when they first arrived at New
       Zealand, there seems no reason whatever for rejecting these
       traditions, which accord with actual physical facts, just as
       the tradition of a migration from 'Hawaiki,' a Polynesian
       island, accords with linguistic facts."

          Hellwald-Wallace,
          Australasia
          (Stanford's Compendium, new issue, 1893),
          chapter 14, section 9 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Shortland,
          Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders.

          J. S. Polack,
          Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders.

          Lady Martin,
          Our Maoris.

          W. D. Hay,
          Brighter Britain,
          volume 2, chapters 3-5.

          See, also, MALAYAN RACE.

    NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.
       Discovery.
       Colonization.
       Early dealings with Natives.
       Constitutional organization.

       "The honour of the actual discovery of New Zealand must be
       accorded to the Dutch Navigator, Tasman, who visited it in
       1642, discovering Van Dieman's Land during the same voyage.
       As, however, he does not appear to have landed, the knowledge
       of the country derived by Europeans from his account of it
       must have been of very limited extent. … It was our own
       countryman, Captain Cook, to whom we are so largely indebted
       for what we now know of the geography of the Pacific, who made
       us acquainted with the nature of the country and the character
       of its inhabitants. The aborigines were evidently of a much
       higher type than those of the Australian continent. They are a
       branch of the Polynesian race, and according to their own
       traditions came about 600 years ago from 'Hawaiki,' which
       ethnologists interpret to mean either Hawaii (the Sandwich
       Islands), or Savaii in the Samoa group. They are divided into
       some twenty clans, analogous to those of the Scottish
       Highlands. Cook's first visit was paid in 1769, but he touched
       at the islands on several occasions during his subsequent
       voyages, and succeeded in making, before his final departure,
       a more or less complete exploration of its coasts. The
       aborigines were divided into numerous tribes, which were
       engaged in almost constant wars one with another. … As has
       been the case in so many distant lands, the first true
       pioneers of civilization were the missionaries.
    {2351}
       In 1814, thirty-seven years after Captain Cook's last visit to
       New Zealand, a few representatives of the English Church
       Missionary Society landed in the North Island, less with the
       intention of colonising than with the hope of converting the
       natives to Christianity. The first practical steps in the
       direction of settlement were taken by the New Zealand Land
       Company, composed of a very strong and influential body of
       gentlemen headed by Lord Durham, and having much the same
       ideas as those which actuated the South Australian
       Colonisation Society. The proposal to found a new Colony was
       at first bitterly opposed by the Government of the day, but in
       consequence of the energetic action of the Company, who sent
       out agents with large funds to purchase land of the natives,
       the Government ultimately gave way, and despatched as Consul
       Captain Hobson, who arrived in January 1840. One of his first
       steps on assuming office was to call a meeting of the natives
       and explain to them the object of his mission, with the view
       of entering into a treaty for placing the sovereignty of their
       island in Her Majesty the Queen. He was not at first
       successful, the natives fearing that if they acceded to the
       proposal, their land would be taken from them; but being
       reassured on this point, the majority of the chiefs ultimately
       signed the treaty in February of the same year. By the terms
       of this treaty, called the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs, in
       return for their acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Queen
       of England, were guaranteed for themselves and their people
       the exclusive possession of their lands so long as they wished
       to retain them, and they, on their side, accorded to the Crown
       the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as might,
       from time to time, come into the market. It will thus be seen
       that the acquisition of land in New Zealand by European
       settlers was effected in a manner entirely different from that
       which obtained in other colonies; for, although the right of
       pre-emption by the Crown was subsequently waived, no land
       could be obtained from natives unless they were perfectly
       willing to part with it. It is true that lands have in some
       instances been confiscated as a punishment for native
       insurrections, but, with this exception, all lands have passed
       from natives to Europeans by the ordinary processes of bargain
       and sale. Captain Hobson's next action was to place himself in
       communication with the New Zealand Company's agents, and
       ascertain what they were doing in the way of colonisation. He
       found that besides acquiring various blocks of land in the
       North and South Islands, they had formed a permanent
       settlement at Wellington, at which they were organising a
       system of government incompatible with the Queen's authority,
       which he therefore promptly suppressed. … In June of 1840
       the settlement was made a colony by Charter under the Great
       Seal, Captain Hobson naturally becoming the first Governor.
       This eminent public servant died at his post in September
       1842, being succeeded by Captain R. Fitzroy, who, however, did
       not reach the Colony till a year afterwards. In the interval
       occurred that lamentable incident, the massacre of white
       settlers by the natives at Wairu, in the South Island. Shortly
       after this the Company made strenuous efforts to obtain a
       share in the Executive Government, but this was twice
       disallowed by the Home authorities. Captain Fitzroy's term of
       office was in all respects a stormy one, the native chiefs
       rising in rebellion, open and covert, against the terms of the
       Waitangi treaty. With only 150 soldiers, and destitute of any
       military facilities, this governor deemed it prudent to come
       to a compromise with the rebels, fearing the effect upon the
       minds of the natives generally of the certain defeat which he
       must sustain in active warfare. Receiving, however,
       reinforcements from Sidney, Captain Fitzroy took the field,
       sustaining in his first expedition a decided defeat. Two other
       expeditions followed this, and at length the success of the
       British arms was assured, Captain Fitzroy suffering from the
       irony of fate, since, having been neglected in his peril, he
       was recalled in the moment of victory. Captain (afterwards Sir
       George) Grey succeeded to the Governorship in November 1845;
       having the good fortune to be surrounded by ministers of
       exceptional ability, and arriving in the Colony at a fortunate
       turn in its affairs, he takes his place among the successful
       Governors of New Zealand. Colonel Gore Browne—after an
       interregnum of nearly two years—succeeded to power, and
       during his viceroyalty in 1853, responsible government, which,
       however, did not provide for ministerial responsibility, was
       inaugurated. … The Home Government shortly afterwards (May
       1856) … established responsible government in its fullest
       form, but unfortunately without any special provisions for the
       representation of the native races. … Up to 1847 New Zealand
       remained a Crown Colony, the Government being administered by
       a Governor appointed by the Crown, an Executive Council, and a
       Legislative Council. Under this system, the Governor had very
       large powers, since the only control over him was that
       exercised by the Home Government. The Executive Council
       consisted of the Governor and three official members, while
       the Legislative Council was made up of the Executive Council
       and three non-official members nominated by the Governor. At
       that time Auckland was the seat of Government, which has since
       been moved to Wellington. In 1852, before the expiration of
       the period over which the provisional charter granted in 1847
       was to extend, the Imperial Parliament granted a new
       constitution to New Zealand (15 & 16 Vic. cap. 72), and in the
       following year it came into force and is still [1886]
       operative. The Legislature, under this Constitution, consists
       of a Governor, a Legislative Council, composed of life members
       nominated by the Crown, and a House of Representatives elected
       by the people, under a franchise which practically amounts to
       household suffrage."

          Her Majesty's Colonies
          (Colonial and Ind. Exhibition, 1886),
          pages 245-248.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Rusden,
          History of New Zealand,
          volume 1.

          G. Tregarthen,
          Story of Australasia.

    NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.
       Land questions with the Natives.
       The King movement.
       The Maori War.

       "In the course of years, as it was evident to the natives that
       the Europeans were the coming power in the land, suspicion and
       distrust were excited, and at last the tocsin sounded. … It
       was considered that a head was needed to initiate a form of
       Government among the tribes to resist the encroachments daily
       made by the Europeans, and which seemed to threaten the
       national extinction of the native race. The first to endeavour
       to bring about a new order of things was a native chief named
       Matene Te Whiwi, of Otaki.
    {2352}
       In 1853 he marched to Taupo and Rotorua, accompanied by a
       number of followers, to obtain the consent of the different
       tribes to the election of a king over the central parts of the
       island, which were still exclusively Maori territory, and to
       organize a form of government to protect the interests of the
       native race. Matene … met with little success. … The
       agitation, however, did not stop, the fire once kindled
       rapidly spread, ardent followers of the new idea sprang up,
       and their numbers soon increased, until finally, in 1854, a
       tribal gathering was convened at Manawapou. … After many
       points had been discussed, a resolution was come to among the
       assembled tribes that no more land should be sold to
       Europeans. A solemn league was entered into by an present for
       the preservation of the native territory, and a tomahawk was
       passed round as a pledge that all would agree to put the
       individual to death who should break it. In 1854 another bold
       stand was made, and Te Heuheu, who exercised a powerful sway
       over the tribes of the interior, summoned a native council at
       Taupo, when the King movement began in earnest. It was there
       decided that the sacred mountain of Tongariro should be the
       centre of a district in which no land was to be sold to the
       government, and that the districts of Hauraki, Waikato,
       Kawhia, Mokau, Taranaki, Whanganui, Rangitikei, and Titiokura,
       should form the outlying portions of the boundary; that no
       roads should be made by the Europeans within the area, and
       that a king should be elected to reign over the Maoris. In
       1857 Kingite meetings were held, … at which it was agreed
       that Potatau Te Wherowhero, the most powerful chief of
       Waikato, should be elected king, under the title of Potatau
       the First, and finally, in June, 1858, his flag was formally
       hoisted at Ngaruawahia. Potatau, who was far advanced in life
       when raised to this high office, soon departed from the scene,
       and was succeeded by his son Matutaera Te Wherowhero, under
       the title of Potatau the Second. The events of the New Zealand
       war need not here be recited, but it may be easily imagined
       that during the continuance of the fighting the extensive area
       of country ruled over by the Maori monarch was kept clear of
       Europeans. But in 1863 and 1864 General Cameron, at the head
       of about 20,000 troops, composed of Imperial and Colonial
       forces, invaded the Waikato district, and drove the natives
       southward and westward, till his advanced corps were at
       Alexandra and Cambridge. Then followed the Waikato
       confiscation of Maori lands and the military settlements. The
       King territory was further broken into by the confiscations at
       Taranaki and the East Coast. … Since the termination of the
       lamentable war between the two races, the King natives have,
       on all occasions, jealously preserved their hostile spirit to
       Europeans. … The New Zealand war concluded, or rather died
       out, in 1865, when the confiscated line was drawn, the
       military settlements formed, and the King natives isolated
       themselves from the Europeans. For ten years it may be said
       that no attempt was mane to negotiate with them. They were not
       in a humour to be dealt with. About 1874 and 1875, however, it
       became evident that something would have to be done. The
       colony had greatly advanced in population, and a system of
       public works had been inaugurated, which made it intolerable
       that large centres of population should be cut off from each
       other by vast spaces of country which Europeans were not
       allowed even to traverse." Then began a series of
       negotiations, which, up to 1883, had borne no fruit.

          J. H. Kerry-Nicholls,
          The King Country, introduction.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Rusden,
          History of New Zealand.

          Colonel Sir J. E. Alexander,
          Incidents of the Maori War.

    NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1887-1893.
       Maori representation.
       Women Suffrage.

       An act passed in 1887 created four districts in each of which
       the Maoris elect a member of the House of Representatives.
       Every adult Maori has a vote in this election. By an act
       passed in 1893 the elective franchise was extended to women.

       ----------NEW ZEALAND: End----------

    NEWAB-WUZEER,
    OR NAWAB-VIZIER, of Oude.

          See OUDE; also NABOB.

    NEWARK, NEW JERSEY:
       The founding of the city by migration
       from New Haven (1666-1667).

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

    NEWBERN, North Carolina: Capture by the national forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

    NEWBURGH, Washington's headquarters at.

       "At the close of 1780, the army was cantoned at three points:
       at Morristown and at Pompton, in New Jersey, and at
       Phillipstown, in the Hudson Highlands. Washington established
       his head-quarters at New Windsor in December, 1780, where he
       remained until June, 1781, when the French, who had quartered
       during the winter at Newport and Lebanon, formed a junction
       with the Americans on the Hudson. In April, 1782, he
       established his head-quarters at Newburgh, two miles above the
       village of New Windsor, where he continued most of the time
       until November, 1783, when the Continental army was
       disbanded."

          B. J. Lossing,
         Field-book of the Revolution,
         volume 1, page 671.

    NEWBURGH ADDRESSES, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

    NEWBURN, Battles of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

    NEWBURY, First Battles of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    NEWBURY, Second Battle.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Origin of.

          See PONS ÆLII.

    NEWCOMEN, and the invention of the steam engine.

          See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

       ----------NEWFOUNDLAND: Start--------

    NEWFOUNDLAND:
          Aboriginal inhabitants.

            See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1000.
       Supposed identity with the Helluland of Norse Sagas.

          See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1498.
       Discovery by Sebastian Cabot.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1500.
       Visited by Cortereal, the Portuguese explorer.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
       The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fisheries.

       "It is a very curious circumstance, that the country in which
       the Cabots started their idea for a navigation to the
       north-west, and in which they at first proclaimed their
       discovery of the rich fishing-banks near their
       New-found-Isles, did not at once profit by it so much as their
       neighbors, the French and the Portuguese. …
    {2353}
       During the first half of the 16th century we hear little of
       English fishing and commercial expeditions to the great banks;
       although they had a branch of commerce and fishery with
       Iceland. … 'It was not until the year 1548 that the English
       government passed the first act for the encouragement of the
       fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, after which they
       became active competitors in this profitable occupation.'" In
       Portugal, Cortereal's discovery had revealed "the wealth to be
       derived from the fish, particularly cod-fish, which abounded
       on that coast. The fishermen of Portugal and of the Western
       Islands, when this news was spread among them, made
       preparations for profiting by it, and soon extended their
       fishing excursions to the other side of the ocean. According
       to the statement of a Portuguese author, very soon after the
       discoveries by the Cortereals, a Portuguese Fishing Company
       was formed in the harbors of Vianna, Aveiro and Terceira, for
       the purpose of colonizing Newfoundland and making
       establishments upon it. Nay, already, in 1506, three years
       after the return of the last searching expedition for the
       Cortereals, Emanuel gave order, 'that the fishermen of
       Portugal, at their return from Newfoundland, should pay a
       tenth part of their profits at his custom-houses.' It is
       certain, therefore, that the Portuguese fishermen must,
       previous to that time, have been engaged in a profitable
       business. And this is confirmed by the circumstance that they
       originated the name of 'tierra de Bacalhas' [or Bacalhao] (the
       Stockfish-country) and gave currency to it; though the word,
       like the cod-fishery itself, appears to be of Germanic origin.
       …. The nations who followed them in the fishing business
       imitated their example, and adopted the name 'country of the
       Bacalhas' (or, in the Spanish form, Baccallaos), though
       sometimes interchanging it with names of their own invention,
       as the 'Newfoundland: 'Terre neuve,' etc. … They [the
       Portuguese] continued their expeditions to Newfoundland and
       its neighborhood for a long time. They were often seen there
       by later English and other visitors during the course of the
       16th century; for instance, according to Herrera, in 1519;
       again by the English in 1527; and again by Sir Humphrey
       Gilbert in 1583. … The Portuguese engaged in this fishery as
       early as 1501, according to good authorities, and perhaps
       under the charter of Henry VII. In 1578, they had 50 ships
       employed in that trade, and England as many more, and France
       150. … The inhabitants of the little harbors of Normandy and
       Brittany, the great peninsulas of France, … were also among
       the first who profited by the discoveries of the Cabots and
       Cortereals, and who followed in the wake of the Portuguese
       fishermen toward the north-west cod-fish country. … The
       first voyages of the Bretons of St. Malo and the Normans of
       Dieppe to Newfoundland, are said to have occurred as early as
       1504. … They probably visited places of which the Portuguese
       had not taken possession; and we therefore find them at the
       south of Newfoundland, and especially at the island of Cape
       Breton, to which they gave the name, still retained,—the
       oldest French name on the American north-east coast. … The
       Spaniards, and more particularly the mariners and fishermen of
       Biscay, have pretended, like those of Brittany and Normandy,
       that they and their ancestors, from time immemorial, had
       sailed to Newfoundland; and, even before Columbus, had
       established their fisheries there. But the Spanish historian
       Navarette, in more modern times, does not sustain this
       pretension of his countrymen. … We may come to the
       conclusion that, if the fisheries of the Spanish Basques on
       the Banks of Newfoundland and in the vicinity, did not begin
       with the voyage of Gomez [in 1525], they received from it a
       new impulse. … From this time, for more than a century, they
       [the Basques] appeared in these waters every year with a large
       fleet, and took their place upon the banks as equals by the
       side of the Bretons, Normans, and Basques of France, until the
       middle of the 17th century, when rival nations dispossessed
       them of their privileges."

          J. G. Kohl,
          History of the Discovery of Maine
          (Maine Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 1),
          chapters 6 and 8, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Brown,
          History of Cape Breton,
          chapters 1-2.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1534.
       Visited by Jacques Cartier.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1583.
       Formal possession taken for England by Sir Humphrey Gilbert.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
       Early English attempts at colonization.
       The grants to Lord Baltimore and Sir David Kirke.

       "For 27 years after the failure of the Gilbert expedition no
       fresh attempt was made to establish a colony in the island.
       During this interval fishermen of various nationalities
       continued to frequent its shores. … The French were actively
       engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries in the neighboring
       seas. Their success in this direction strengthened their
       desire to gain possession of Newfoundland. Hence it is that in
       the history of the country France has always been an important
       factor. Having from time to time held possession of various
       points of the land, England's persistent rival in these
       latitudes has given names to many towns, villages, creeks, and
       harbors. To this day Newfoundland has not completely shaken
       off French influence. … In 1610 another attempt was made to
       plant a colony of Englishmen in Newfoundland. John Guy, a
       merchant, and afterwards mayor of Bristol, published in 1609 a
       pamphlet on the advantages which would result to England from
       the establishment of a colony in the island. This publication
       made such a deep impression on the public mind that a company
       was formed to carry out the enterprise it suggested. The most
       illustrious name on the roll was that of Lord Bacon. … The
       importance of Newfoundland as a site for an English colony did
       not escape the wide-ranging eye of Bacon. He pronounced its
       fisheries 'more valuable than all the mines of Peru,' a
       judgment which time has amply verified. … To this company
       James I., by letters patent dated April, 1610, made a grant of
       all the part of Newfoundland which lies between Cape Bonavista
       in the north and Cape St. Mary. Mr. Guy was appointed
       governor, and with a number of colonists he landed at Mosquito
       Harbor, on the north side of Conception Bay, where he
       proceeded to erect huts. … We have no authentic account of
       the progress of this settlement, begun under such favourable
       auspices, but it proved unsuccessful from some unexplained
       cause. Guy and a number of the settlers returned to England,
       the rest remaining to settle elsewhere in the New World.
    {2354}
       Five years afterwards, in 1615, Captain Richard Whitbourne,
       mariner, of Exmouth, Devonshire, received a commission from
       the Admiralty of England to proceed to Newfoundland for the
       purpose of establishing order among the fishing population and
       remedying certain abuses which had grown up. … It was shown
       that there were upwards of 250 English vessels, having a
       tonnage of 1,500 tons, engaged in the fisheries along the
       coast. Fixed habitations extended at intervals along the shore
       from St. John's to Cape Race. … Having done what he could
       during the active part of his life to promote its interests,
       on his return to England, in his advanced years, he
       [Whitbourne] wrote an account of the country, entitled 'A
       Discourse and Discovery of Newfoundland.' … His book made a
       great impression at the time. … So highly did King James
       think of the volume that he ordered a copy to be sent to every
       parish in the kingdom. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York
       issued a letter recommending it, with the view of encouraging
       emigration to Newfoundland. … A year after the departure of
       Whitbourne, in 1623, by far the most skilfully-organized
       effort to carry out the settlement of Newfoundland was made,
       under the guidance of Sir George Calvert, afterwards Lord
       Baltimore. … When Secretary of State he obtained a patent
       conveying to him the lordship of the whole southern peninsula
       of Newfoundland, together with all the islands lying within
       ten leagues of the eastern shores, as well as the right of
       fishing in the surrounding waters, all English subjects
       having, as before, free liberty of fishing. Being a Roman
       Catholic, Lord Baltimore had in view to provide an asylum for
       his co-religionists who were sufferers from the intolerant
       spirit of the times. The immense tract thus granted to him
       extended from Trinity Bay to Placentia, and was named by him
       Avalon, from the ancient name of Glastonbury, where, it is
       believed, Christianity was first preached in Britain. … Lord
       Baltimore called his Newfoundland province Avalon and his
       first settlement Verulam. The latter name, in course of time,
       became corrupted into Ferulam, and then into the modern
       Ferryland. At this spot, on the eastern coast of Newfoundland,
       about 40 miles north of Cape Race, Lord Baltimore planted his
       colony, and built a noble mansion, in which he resided with
       his family during many years." But after expending some
       £30,000 upon the establishment of his colony, Lord Baltimore
       abandoned it, on account of the poor quality of the soil and
       its exposure to the attacks of the French. Not long afterwards
       he obtained his Maryland grant [see MARYLAND: A. D. 1632] and
       resumed the enterprise under more favorable conditions. "Soon
       after the departure of Lord Baltimore, Viscount Falkland,
       Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, hoping to permanently increase the
       scanty population of Newfoundland, sent out a number of
       emigrants from that country. At a later date, these were so
       largely reinforced by settlers from Ireland that the Celtic
       part of the population at this day is not far short of
       equality in numbers with the Saxon portion. In 1638, Sir David
       Kirke, one of Britain's bravest sea-captains, arrived in
       Newfoundland and took up his abode at Ferryland, where Lord
       Baltimore had lived. Sir David was armed with the powers of a
       Count Palatine over the island, having obtained from Charles
       I. a grant of the whole." This was by way of reward for his
       exploit in taking Quebec

          See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

       Kirke "governed wisely and used every effort to promote the
       colonization of the country. His settlement prospered greatly.
       The Civil War, however, broke out in England, and, Kirke being
       a staunch loyalist, all his possessions in Newfoundland were
       confiscated by the victorious Commonwealth. By the aid of
       Claypole, Cromwell's son-in-law, Kirke eventually got the
       sequestration removed, and, returning to Ferryland, died there
       in 1655, at the age of 56. At this time Newfoundland contained
       a population of 350 families, or nearly 2,000 inhabitants,
       distributed in 15 small settlements along the eastern coast."

          J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
          Newfoundland,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Kirke,
          The First English Conquest of Canada,
          chapters 3-4.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
       The French gain their footing.

       "With the possession of Cape Breton, Acadia, and the vast
       regions stretching from the gulf of the River St. Lawrence,
       and the mighty lakes, Newfoundland obtained a new value in the
       estimation of the government of France, as it formed one side
       of the narrow entrance to its transatlantic dependencies:
       consequently the pursuit of the fishery by its seamen was
       encouraged, and every opportunity was improved to gain a
       footing in the country itself. This encroaching tendency could
       not, however, be manifested without a protest on the part of
       the somewhat sluggish English, both by private individuals and
       by the government. Charles I. … imposed a tribute of five
       per cent. on the produce taken by foreigners in this fishery,
       to which exaction the French, as well as others, were forced
       to submit. During the distracted time of the Commonwealth, it
       does not appear that the struggling government at home found
       leisure to attend to these distant affairs, though the tribute
       continued to be levied. The Restoration brought to England a
       sovereign who owed much to the monarch of France, to whom he
       was therefore attached by the ties of gratitude, and by the
       desire to find a counterpoise to the refractory disposition of
       which he was in continual apprehension among his own subjects.
       It was not until 1675 that Louis XIV. prevailed on Charles to
       give up the duty of five per cent., and by that time the
       French had obtained a solid footing on the southern coast of
       Newfoundland, so that, with Cape Breton in their possession,
       they commanded both sides of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Over a
       territory of some 200 miles in extent, belonging to the
       British sovereignty, they had built up imperceptibly an almost
       undisputed dominion. At Placentia, situated in the bay of that
       name, a strong fort was erected, sustained by other forts
       standing at intervals along the shore, and at the same place a
       royal government was established. How real was the authority
       assumed, and how completely was the English sovereignty
       ignored, needs no better proof than is furnished in an
       ordinance issued by Louis in the year 1681, concerning the
       marine of France. In this state paper, Newfoundland is
       reckoned as situate in those seas which are free and common to
       all French subjects, provided that they take a license from
       the admiral for every voyage. …
    {2355}
       Thus that period which is regarded as among the most
       humiliating in the annals of our nation,—when the king was a
       pensioner of France, and his ministers received bribes from
       the same quarter, witnessed the partial sliding under this
       alien power of the most ancient of the colonial possessions of
       the Crown. Not less than half of the inhabited coast of
       Newfoundland was thus taken under that despotic rule, which,
       while swaying the councils of England to the furtherance of
       its ambitious designs, was labouring for the subjugation of
       the European continent. The revolution of 1688 broke the spell
       of this encroaching autocracy."

          C. Pedley,
          History of Newfoundland,
          chapter 2.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
       French success in the war with England.
       The Treaty of Ryswick and its unsatisfactory terms.

       "On the accession of William III. to the throne of England
       hostilities broke out between the rival nations. In William's
       declaration of war against the French, Newfoundland holds a
       prominent place among the alleged causes which led to the
       rupture of pacific relations. The grievance was tersely set
       forth in the royal manifesto: 'It was not long since the
       French took license from the Governor of Newfoundland to fish
       upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licenses as an
       acknowledgement of the sole right of the Crown of England to
       that island; but of late the encroachments of the French, and
       His Majesty's subjects trading and fishing there, had been
       more like the invasions of an enemy than becoming friends, who
       enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission.'
       Newfoundland now became the scene of military skirmishes,
       naval battles, and sieges by land and water." In 1692 the
       English made an unsuccessful attack on Placentia. In 1694, a
       French fleet, under the Chevalier Nesmond, intended for an
       attack upon Boston and New York, stopped at Newfoundland on
       the way and made a descent on the harbor and town of St.
       John's. Nesmond "was repulsed, and instead of going on to
       Boston he returned to France. A more determined effort at
       conquest was made later in the same year. The new expedition
       was under the command of Iberville and Brouillan, the former
       being at the head of a Canadian force. The garrison of St.
       John's was weak in numbers, and, in want of military stores,
       could only make a feeble resistance; capitulating on easy
       terms, the troops were shipped to England. The fort and town
       were burned to the ground, and the victors next proceeded to
       destroy all the other adjacent English settlements; Carbonear
       and Bonavista alone proved too strong for them. The English
       Government at once commenced dispositions for dislodging the
       invaders; but before anything was attempted the treaty of
       Ryswick was signed, in 1697. This treaty proved most
       unfortunate for Newfoundland. It revived in the island the
       same state of division between France and England which had
       existed at the beginning of the war. The enemy retired from
       St. John's and the other settlements which they had forcibly
       occupied. Their claims upon Placentia and all the other
       positions on the south-west coast were, however, confirmed.
       The British inhabitants of Newfoundland were, therefore, once
       more left open to French attacks, should hostilities be again
       renewed between the rival powers."

          J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
          Newfoundland,
          part 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Parkman,
          Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
          chapter 18.

          W. Kingsford,
          History of Canada,
          book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1705.
       English settlements destroyed by the French.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.
       Relinquished to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht.
       French fishing rights reserved.

       In the 12th and 13th articles of the Treaty signed at Utrecht,
       April 11, 1713, which terminated the War of the Spanish
       Succession (commonly known in American history as Queen Anne's
       War) it was stipulated that "All Nova Scotia or Acadié, with
       its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port Royal, now
       called Annapolis Royal, … the island of Newfoundland, with
       the adjacent islands, … the town and fortress of Placentia,
       and whatever other places in the island are in possession of
       the French, shall from this time forward belong of right
       wholly to Great Britain. … That the subjects of France
       should be allowed to catch fish and dry them on that part of
       the island of Newfoundland which stretches from Cape Bonavista
       to the northern point of the island, and from thence down the
       western side as far as Point Riché; but that no fortifications
       or any buildings should be erected there, besides Stages made
       of Boards, and Huts necessary and usual for drying fish. …
       But the island of Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the
       mouth of the river of St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same
       name, shall hereafter belong of Right to the King of France,
       who shall have liberty to fortify any place or places there."

          R. Brown,
          History of the Island of Cape Breton,
          letter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
          Newfoundland,
          part 1, chapters 3-4;
          and part 3, chapter 7.

          See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1744.
       Attack on Placentia by the French.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1748.
       The islands of St. Pierre and Michelon ceded to France.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D: 1745-1748.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1763.
       Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris,
       with rights of fishing reserved to France.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
          also FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1778.
       French fishery rights on the banks recognized
       in the Franco-American Treaty.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1783.
       American fishing rights conceded in the
       Treaty of Peace with the United States.

           See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1818.
       Fisheries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

          See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1854-1866.
       Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION
          (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1871.
       The Treaty of Washington.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

    NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1877.
       The Halifax Fishery award.
       Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
       Renewed fishery disputes.

          See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

       ----------NEWFOUNDLAND: End----------

    NEWNHAM HALL.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

    NEWPORT, England, The Treaty at.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER),
          and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    {2356}

       ----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: Start--------

    NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1524.
       Visited by Verrazano.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

    NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1639.
       The first settlement.

          See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

    NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1778.
       Held by the British.
       Failure of French-American attack.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

       ----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: End--------

    NEWSPAPERS.

          See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650, and after.

    NEWTON BUTLER, Battle of (1689).

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

    NEWTONIA, Battles of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS);
          and 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

    NEY, Marshal, Campaigns and execution of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER),
          1806-1807, 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
          SPAIN: A. D. 1809;
          RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1813;
          FRANCE: A. D. 1815, and 1815-1830.

    NEZ PERCÉS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

       ----------NIAGARA: Start--------

    NIAGARA:
       The name and its original applications.

       "Colden wrote it [the name] 'O-ni-ag-a-ra,' in 1741, and he
       must have received it from the Mohawks or Oneidas. It was the
       name of a Seneca village at the mouth of the Niagara river;
       located as early as 1650, near the site of Youngstown. It was
       also the place where the Marquis de Nonville constructed a
       fort in 1687, the building of which brought this locality
       under the particular notice of the English. The name of this
       Indian village in the dialect of the Senecas was 'Ne-ah'-gä,'
       in Tuscarora 'O-ne-ä'-kars,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-ah'-gä,' in
       Oneida 'O-ne-ah'-gäle,' and in Mohawk 'O-ne-a'-gä-rä.' These
       names are but the same word under dialectical changes. It is
       clear that Niagara was derived from some one of them, and thus
       came direct from the Iroquois language. The signification of
       the word is lost, unless it is derived, as some of the present
       Iroquois suppose, from the word which signifies 'neck,' in
       Seneca 'O-ne-ah'-ä,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-yä'-ä' and in Oneida
       'O-ne-arle.' The name of this Indian village was bestowed by
       the Iroquois upon Youngstown; upon the river Niagara, from the
       falls to the Lake; and upon Lake Ontario."

          L. H. Morgan,
          League of the Iroquois,
          book 3, chapter 3.

       "It [the name Niagara] is the oldest of all the local
       geographical terms which have come down to us from the
       aborigines. It was not at first thus written by the English,
       for with them it passed through almost every possible
       alphabetical variation before its present orthography was
       established. We find its germ in the 'On-gui-aah-ra' of the
       Neutral Nation, as given by Father L'Allemant in a letter
       dated in 1641, at the mission station of Sainte Marie, on Lake
       Huron. … The name of the river next occurs on Sanson's map
       of Canada, published in Paris in 1656, where it is spelled
       'Ongiara.' Its first appearance as Niagara is on Coronelli's
       map, published in Paris in 1688. From that time to the
       present, the French have been consistent in their orthography,
       the numerous variations alluded to occurring only among
       English writers. The word was probably derived from the
       Mohawks, through whom the French had their first intercourse
       with the Iroquois. The Mohawks pronounced it Nyah,-ga-rah',
       with the primary accent on the first syllable; and the
       secondary on the last. … The corresponding Seneca name,
       Nyah'-gaah, was always confined by the Iroquois to the section
       of the river below the Falls, and to Lake Ontario. That
       portion of the river above the Falls being sometimes called
       Gni-gwaah-geh, one of their names for Lake Erie."

          O. H. Marshall,
          The Niagara Frontier
          (Historical Writings, page 283).

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1687-1688.
       Fort constructed by De Nonville and destroyed a year later.

       "We arrived there [at Niagara] on the morning of the 30th [of
       July, 1687]. We immediately set about choosing a place, and
       collecting stakes for the construction of the Fort which I had
       resolved to build at the extremity of a tongue of land,
       between the river Niagara and Lake Ontario, on the Iroquois
       side. On the 31st of July and 1st of August we continued this
       work, which was the more difficult from there being no wood on
       the place suitable for making palisades, and from its being
       necessary to draw them up the height. We performed this labor
       so diligently that the fort was in a state of defence on the
       last mentioned day. … The 2d day of August, the militia
       having performed their allotted task, and the fort being in a
       condition of defence in case of assault, they set out at noon,
       in order to reach the end of the lake on their return to their
       own country. On the morning of the 3d, being the next day, I
       embarked for the purpose of joining the militia, leaving the
       regular troops under the direction of M. de Vaudreuil to
       finish what was the most essential, and to render the fort not
       only capable of defence, but also of being occupied by a
       detachment of 100 soldiers, which are to winter there under
       the command of M. Troyes."

          Marquis de Nonville,
          Journal of Expedition against the Senecas
          (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).

       "De Nonville's journal removes the doubt which has been
       entertained as to the location of this fortress, some having
       supposed it to have been first built at Lewiston. … It
       occupied the site of the present fort on the angle formed by
       the junction of the Niagara with Lake Ontario. … De Nonville
       left De Troyes with provisions and munitions for eight months.
       A sickness soon after broke out in the garrison, by which they
       nearly all perished, including their commander. … They were
       so closely besieged by the Iroquois that they were unable to
       supply themselves with fresh provisions. The fortress was soon
       after abandoned and destroyed [1688], much to the regret of De
       Nonville."

          Marquis de Nonville,
          Journal of Expedition against the Senecas
          (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).
          Foot-notes

          ALSO IN:
          F. Parkman,
          Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
          pages 155 and 166.

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1725-1726.
       The stone fort built.
       How the French gained their footing.
       Joncaire's wigwam.

       Captain Joncaire "had been taken prisoner when quite young by
       the Iroquois, and adopted into one of their tribes. This was
       the making of his fortune. He had grown up among them,
       acquired their language, adapted himself to their habits, and
       was considered by them as one of themselves. On returning to
       civilized life he became a prime instrument in the hands of
       the Canadian government, for managing and cajoling the
       Indians. … When the French wanted to get a commanding site
       for a post on the Iroquois lands, near Niagara, Joncaire was
       the man to manage it.
    {2357}
       He craved a situation where he might put up a wigwam, and
       dwell among his Iroquois brethren. It was granted, of course,
       'for was he not a son of the tribe—was he not one of
       themselves?' By degrees his wigwam grew into an important
       trading post; ultimately it became Fort Niagara."

          W. Irving,
          Life of Washington,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

       "In 1725 the Fort of Niagara was commenced by Chaussegross de
       Léry, on the spot where the wooden structure of de Denonville
       formerly stood; it was built of stone and completed in 1726."

          W. Kingsford,
          History of Canada,
          volume 2, page 516.

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1755.
       Abortive expedition against the fort, by the English.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1756.
       The fort rebuilt by Pouchot.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1759.
       The fort taken by the English.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1763.
       The ambuscade and massacre at Devil's Hole.

          See DEVIL'S HOLE.

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1764.
       Sir William Johnson's treaty with the Indians.
       Cession of the Four Mile Strip' along both banks of the river.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1783.
       Retention of the Fort by Great Britain
       after peace with the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1796.
       Surrender of the fort by Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

    NIAGARA: A. D. 1813.
       Surprise and capture of the fort by the British.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
         A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

       ----------NIAGARA: End--------

    NIAGARA, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    NIAGARA FRONTIER: A. D. 1812-1814.
       The War.
       Queenstown.
       Buffalo.
       Chippewa.
       Lundy's Lane.
       Fort Erie.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          1813 (DECEMBER);
          1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    NIAGARA PEACE MISSION, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

    NIAGARA RIVER, Navigated by La Salle (1679).

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    NIBELUNGEN LIED, The.

       "Of the bequests made to us of the [German] Popular Poetry of
       the time of the Hohenstauffen, by far the most important, in
       fact the most important literary memorial of any kind, is the
       epic of between nine and ten thousand lines known as the
       Nibelungen Lied. The manuscripts which have preserved for us
       the poem come from about the year 1200. For full a thousand
       years before that, however, many of the lays from which it was
       composed had been in existence; some indeed proceed from a
       still remoter antiquity, sung by primitive minstrels when the
       Germans were at their wildest, untouched by Christianity or
       civilization. These lays had been handed down orally, until at
       length a poet of genius elaborated them and intrusted them to
       parchment."

          J. K. Hosmer,
          Short History of German Literature,
          part 1, chapter 1.

       "In the year 1757, the Swiss Professor Bodmer printed an
       ancient poetical manuscript, under the title of Chriemhilden
       Rache und die Kluge (Chriemhilde's Revenge, and the Lament);
       which may be considered as the first of a series, or stream of
       publications and speculations still rolling on, with increased
       current, to the present day. … Some fifteen years after
       Bodmer's publication, which, for the rest, is not celebrated
       as an editorial feat, one C. H. Müller undertook a Collection
       of German Poems from the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth
       Centuries; wherein, among other articles, he reprinted
       Bodmer's Chriemhilde and Klage, with a highly remarkable
       addition prefixed to the former, essential indeed to the right
       understanding of it; and the whole now stood before the world
       as one Poem, under the name of the Nibelungen Lied, or Lay of
       the Nibelungen. It has since been ascertained that the Klage
       is a foreign inferior appendage; at best related only as
       epilogue to the main work: meanwhile out of this Nibelungen,
       such as it was, there soon proceeded new inquiries and kindred
       enterprises. For much as the Poem, in the shape it here bore,
       was defaced and marred, it failed not to attract observation:
       to all open-minded lovers of poetry, especially where a strong
       patriotic feeling existed, the singular antique Nibelungen was
       an interesting appearance. Johannes Müller, in his famous
       Swiss History, spoke of it in warm terms: subsequently, August
       Wilhelm Schlegel, through the medium of the Deutsche Museum,
       succeeded in awakening something like a universal popular
       feeling on the subject; and, as a natural consequence, a whole
       host of Editors and Critics, of deep and of shallow endeavour,
       whose labours we yet see in progress. The Nibelungen has now
       been investigated, translated, collated, commented upon, with
       more or less result, to almost boundless lengths. … Apart
       from its antiquarian value, and not only as by far the finest
       monument of old German art; but intrinsically, and as a mere
       detached composition, this Nibelungen has an excellence that
       cannot but surprise us. With little preparation, any reader of
       poetry, even in these days, might find it interesting. It is
       not without a certain Unity of interest and purport, an
       internal coherence and completeness; it is a Whole, and some
       spirit of Music informs it: these are the highest
       characteristics of a true Poem. Considering farther what
       intellectual environment we now find it in, it is doubly to be
       prized and wondered at; for it differs from those Hero-books,
       as molten or carved metal does from rude agglomerated ore;
       almost as some Shakspeare from his fellow Dramatist, whose
       Tamburlaines and Island Princesses, themselves not destitute
       of merit, first show us clearly in what pure loftiness and
       loneliness the Hamlets and Tempests reign. The unknown Singer
       of the Nibelungen, though no Shakspeare, must have had a deep
       poetic soul; wherein things discontinuous and inanimate shaped
       themselves together into life, and the Universe with its
       wondrous purport stood significantly imaged; overarching, as
       with heavenly firmaments and eternal harmonies, the little
       scene where men strut and fret their hour, His Poem, unlike so
       many old and new pretenders to that name, has a basis and
       organic structure, a beginning, middle and end; there is one
       great principle and idea set forth in it, round which all its
       multifarious parts combine in living union. … With an
       instinctive art, far different from acquired artifice, this
       Poet of the Nibelungen, working in the same province with his
       contemporaries of the Heldenbuch [Hero-book] on the same
       material of tradition, has, in a wonderful degree, possessed
       himself of what these could only strive after; and with his
       'clear feeling of fictitious truth,' avoid as false the errors
       and monstrous perplexities in which they vainly struggled.
    {2358}
       He is of another species than they; in language, in purity and
       depth of feeling, in fineness of invention, stands quite apart
       from them.' The language of the Heldenbuch … was a feeble
       half-articulate child's-speech, the metre nothing better than
       a miserable doggerel; whereas here in the old Frankish
       (Oberdeutsch) dialect of the Nibelungen, we have a clear
       decisive utterance, and in a real system of verse not without
       essential regularity, great liveliness, and now and then even
       harmony of rhythm. … No less striking than the verse and
       language is the quality of the invention manifested here. Of
       the Fable, or narrative material of the Nibelungen we should
       say that it had high, almost the highest merit; so daintily
       yet firmly is it put together; with such felicitous selection
       of the beautiful, the essential, and no less felicitous
       rejection of whatever was unbeautiful or even extraneous. The
       reader is no longer afflicted with that chaotic brood of
       Fire-drakes, Giants, and malicious turbaned Turks, so fatally
       rife in the Heldenbuch: all this is swept away, or only hovers
       in faint shadows afar off; and free field is open for
       legitimate perennial interests. Yet neither is the Nibelungen
       without its wonders; for it is poetry and not prose; here too,
       a supernatural world encompasses the natural, and, though at
       rare intervals and in calm manner, reveals itself there. …
       The whole story of the Nibelungen is fateful, mysterious,
       guided on by unseen influences; yet the actual marvels are
       few, and done in the far distance; those Dwarfs, and Cloaks of
       Darkness, and charmed Treasure-caves, are heard of rather than
       beheld, the tidings of them seem to issue from unknown space.
       Vain were it to inquire where that Nibelungen-land specially
       is: its very name is Nebel-land or Nift-land, the land of
       Darkness, of Invisibility. The 'Nibelungen Heroes' that muster
       in thousands and tens of thousands, though they march to the
       Rhine or Danube, and we see their strong limbs and shining
       armour, we could almost fancy to be children of the air."

          T. Carlyle,
          The Nibelungen Lied
          (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 3).

       "The traditions of German heroic poetry extend over more than
       300 years, and are drawn from various German tribes. King
       Ostrogotha reigned over the Goths about the year 250, and was
       the contemporary of the emperors Philip and Decius. Ermanaric
       governed the Ostrogoths about 100 years later, and was a very
       warlike king, ruling over a large extent of territory. The
       invasion of the Huns drove him to despair, and he fell by his
       own hand before the year 374. Soon after the year 400 the
       Burgundians founded a mighty empire in the most fertile part
       of the Upper Rhine, where Cæsar had already fought with the
       Germans, near Spiers, Worms, and Mayence. The Roman Aëtius,
       who ruled Gaul with the aid of his Hun allies, defeated the
       Burgundians by means of these barbarians in a terrible battle
       about the year 437; 20,000 men fell, amongst them their king
       Gundicarius (Gunther). The Burgundians seemed to be
       annihilated, and soon after retreated to Savoy. About the same
       time Attila was king of the Huns and Ostrogoths to the terror
       of the world. His name is Gothic, the arrangements of his
       court were Gothic, and he reckoned among his knights
       Theodomer; the king of the Ostrogoths. The West had just
       learnt all the terror of this 'Scourge of God,' when news came
       of his sudden death (453), and in the following year his
       followers succumbed to the attacks of the Germans (454).
       Twenty-two years later, Odoacer deposed the last shadow of a
       Roman emperor; and again, twelve years later, Theodoric led
       the Ostrogoths into Italy and Odoacer fell by his hand. About
       the same period the Merovingian Clovis founded the kingdom of
       the Franks; about the year 530 his sons destroyed the
       Thuringian empire; and his grandson Theodebert extended his
       kingdom so far, that, starting from Hungary, he planned an
       attack on the Byzantine emperor. The Merovingians also offered
       a successful resistance to the Vikings, who were the terror of
       the North Sea, and who appeared even at the mouths of the
       Rhine. From another quarter the Longobards in little more than
       a century reached Italy, having started from Lüneburg, in the
       neighbourhood of Brunswick, and their King Alboin took
       possession of the crown of Italy in 568. These wonderful
       transferences of power, and this rapid founding of new
       empires, furnished the historical background of the German
       hero-legends. The fact that the movement was originally
       against Rome was forgotten; the migration was treated as a
       mere incident in the internal history of the German nation.
       There is no trace of chronology. … Legend adheres to the
       fact of the enmity between Odoacer and Theodoric, but it
       really confuses Theodoric with his father Theodomer,
       transplants him accordingly to Attila's court, and supposes
       that he was an exile there in hiding from the wrath of
       Odoacer. Attila becomes the representative of everything
       connected with the Huns. He is regarded as Ermanaric's and
       Gunther's enemy, and as having destroyed the Burgundians.
       These again are confused with a mythical race, the Nibelungen,
       Siegfried's enemies, and thus arose the great and complicated
       scheme of the Nibelungen legend. … This Middle High-German
       Epic is like an old church, in the building of which many
       architects have successively taken part. … Karl Lachmann
       attempted the work of restoring the Nibelungen lied and
       analysing its various elements, and accomplished the task, not
       indeed faultlessly, yet on the whole correctly. He has pointed
       out later interpolations, which hide the original sequence of
       the story, and has divided the narrative which remains after
       the removal of these accretions into twenty songs, some of
       which are connected, while others embody isolated incidents of
       the legend. Some of them, but certainly only a few, may be by
       the same author. … We recognise in most of these songs such
       differences in conception, treatment, and style, as point to
       separate authorship. The whole may have been finished in about
       twenty years, from 1190-1210. Lachmann's theory has indeed
       been contested. Many students still believe that the poem, as
       we have it, was the work of one hand; but on this hypothesis
       no one has succeeded in explaining the strange contradictions
       which pervade the work, parts of which show the highest art,
       while the rest is valueless."

          W. Scherer,
          History of German Literature,
          chapters 2 and 5 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          B. Taylor,
          Studies in German Literature,
          chapter 4.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 3, GREECE TO NIBELUNGEN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.