Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net









Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
      printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
      underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
      paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
      inserted.

(5) The following typographical errors have been corrected:

    ARTICLE EUBOEA: "The whole of the eastern coast is rocky and
      destitute of harbours, especially the part called Coela, or 'the
      Hollows,' where part of the Persian fleet was wrecked." 'Persian'
      amended from 'Perisan'.

    ARTICLE EUCHARIST: "'This is my blood of the covenant which is
      poured out for many,' Matthew adding 'for the remission of sins,' a
      phrase which savours of Heb. ix. 22:" 'Matthew' amended from
      'Mathew'.

    ARTICLE EUDAEMONISM: "The fundamental difficulty which confronts
      those who would distinguish between pleasure and eudaemonia is that
      all pleasure is ultimately a mental phenomenon ..." 'fundamental'
      amended from 'fundametal'.

    ARTICLE EUPHRATES: "... and the latter is still one of the chief
      productions of the country, but in later years rice has taken the
      place of wheat as the staff of life." 'productions' amended from
      'poductions'.

    ARTICLE EUROPE: "... Germany and Austria-Hungary, the slates of
      Wales, Scotland and France, the kaolin of Germany, England and
      France, and the abundant glass sands of Belgium, France and
      Bohemia." 'abundant' amended from 'abundand'.

    ARTICLE EUROPE: "Here the altitude is reduced to 3785 ft., about
      3150 ft. below the summit-level of the pass, but the tunnel length
      is increased to rather more than 9¼ m." 'summit' amended from
      'sumit'.

    ARTICLE EUROPE: "... and the Catholic Church had become 'more
      united, less worldly [** amended from wordly]; and more dependent
      on herself.'" 'worldly' amended from 'wordly'.

    ARTICLE EUROPE: "Until the treaty of Tilsit had been signed in 1807
      there was no visible growth of a national uprising in any part of
      Europe." 'there' amended from 'these'.




          ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

  A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
           AND GENERAL INFORMATION

              ELEVENTH EDITION


            VOLUME IX, SLICE VIII

     Ethiopia to Evangelical Association




ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:


  ETHIOPIA                        EUONYMUS
  ETHNOLOGY and ETHNOGRAPHY       EUPALINUS
  ETHYL                           EUPATORIA
  ETHYL CHLORIDE                  EUPATRIDAE
  ETHYLENE                        EUPEN
  ÉTIENNE, CHARLES GUILLAUME      EUPHEMISM
  ETIQUETTE                       EUPHONIUM
  ETNA (volcano)                  EUPHORBIA
  ETNA (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)     EUPHORBIACEAE
  ETON                            EUPHORBIUM
  ÉTRETAT                         EUPHORBUS
  ETRURIA                         EUPHORION
  ETTENHEIM                       EUPHRANOR
  ETTINGSHAUSEN, CONSTANTIN       EUPHRATES
  ETTLINGEN                       EUPHRONIUS
  ETTMÜLLER, ERNST MORITZ LUDWIG  EUPHROSYNE
  ETTMÜLLER, MICHAEL              EUPHUISM
  ETTRICK                         EUPION
  ETTY, WILLIAM                   EUPOLIS
  ETYMOLOGY                       EUPOMPUS
  EU                              EURASIAN
  EUBOEA                          EURE
  EUBULIDES                       EURE-ET-LOIR
  EUBULUS (of Anaphlystus)        EUREKA
  EUBULUS (Athenian poet)         EUREKA SPRINGS
  EUCALYPTUS                      EURIPIDES
  EUCHARIS                        EUROCLYDON
  EUCHARIST                       EUROPA
  EUCHRE                          EUROPE
  EUCKEN, RUDOLF CHRISTOPH        EUROPIUM
  EUCLASE                         EURYDICE
  EUCLID (of Megara)              EURYMEDON
  EUCLID (Greek mathematician)    EUSDEN, LAURENCE
  EUCRATIDES                      EUSEBIUS (many bishops)
  EUDAEMONISM                     EUSEBIUS (bishop of Rome)
  EUDOCIA AUGUSTA                 EUSEBIUS (of Caesarea)
  EUDOCIA MACREMBOLITISSA         EUSEBIUS (of Emesa)
  EUDOXIA LOPUKHINA               EUSEBIUS (of Myndus)
  EUDOXUS (of Cnidus)             EUSEBIUS (of Nicomedia)
  EUDOXUS (of Cyzicus)            EUSKIRCHEN
  EUGENE OF SAVOY                 EUSTACE
  EUGENE                          EUSTATHIUS (of Antioch)
  EUGENICS                        EUSTATHIUS (Macrembolites)
  EUGÉNIE                         EUSTATHIUS (of Thessalonica)
  EUGENIUS                        EUSTYLE
  EUGENOL                         EUTAWVILLE
  EUHEMERUS                       EUTHYDEMUS
  EULENSPIEGEL, TILL              EUTIN
  EULER, LEONHARD                 EUTROPIUS
  EUMENES (rulers of Pergamum)    EUTYCHES
  EUMENES (Macedonian general)    EUTYCHIANUS
  EUMENIDES                       EUTYCHIDES
  EUMENIUS                        EUYUK
  EUMOLPUS                        EVAGORAS
  EUNAPIUS                        EVAGRIUS
  EUNOMIUS                        EVANDER
  EUNUCH                          EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE
  EUNUCH FLUTE                    EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION




ETHIOPIA, or AETHIOPIA (Gr. [Greek: Aithiopia]), the ancient classical
name of a district of north-eastern Africa, bounded on the N. by Egypt
and on the E. by the Red Sea.[1] The application of the name has varied
considerably at different times. In the Homeric poems the _Aethiopes_
are the furthest of mankind both eastward and westward; the gods go to
their banquets and probably the Sun sets in their country. With the
growth of scientific geography they came to be located somewhat less
vaguely, and indeed their name was employed as the equivalent of the
Assyrian and Hebrew Cush (q.v.), the Kesh or Ekosh of the Hieroglyphics
(first found in Stele of Senwosri I.), i.e. a country extending from
about the 24th to the 10th degree of N. lat., while its limits to the E.
and W. were doubtful. The etymology of the name, which to a Greek ear
meant "swarthy-faced," is unknown, nor can we say why in official
inscriptions of the Axumite dynasty the word is used as the equivalent
of Habashat (whence the modern Abyssinia), which, from the context
would appear to denote a tribe located in S. Arabia, whose name was
rendered by the Greek geographers as _Abaseni_ and _Abissa_.

The inhabitants of Ethiopia, partly perhaps owing to their honourable
mention in the Homeric poems, attracted the attention of many Greek
researchers, from Democritus onwards. Herodotus divides them into two
main groups, a straight-haired race and a woolly-haired race, dwelling
respectively to the East and West, and this distinction is confirmed by
the Egyptian monuments. From his time onwards various names of tribes
are enumerated, and to some extent geographically located, most of these
appellations being Greek words, applied to the tribes by strangers in
virtue of what seemed to be their leading characteristics, e.g.
"Long-lived," "Fish-eaters," "Troglodytes," &c. The bulk of our
information is derived from Egyptian monuments, whence it appears that,
originally occupied by independent tribes, who were raided (first by
Seneferu or Snefru, first king of the IVth or last of the IIIrd Dynasty)
and gradually subjected by Egyptian kings (the steps in this process are
traced by E.W. Budge, _The Egyptian Sudan_, 1907, i. 505 sqq.), under
the XVIIIth Dynasty it became an Egyptian province, administered by a
viceroy (at first the Egyptian king's son), called prince of Kesh, and
paying tributes in negroes, oxen, gold, ivory, rare beads, hides and
household utensils. The inhabitants frequently rebelled and were as
often subdued; records of these repeated conquests were set up by the
Egyptian kings in the shape of steles and temples; of the latter the
temple of Amenhotep (Amenophis) III. at Soleb or Sulb seems to have been
the most magnificent. Ethiopia became independent towards the 11th
century B.C., when the XXIst Dynasty was reigning in Egypt. A state was
founded, having for its capital Napata (mod. _Merawi_) at the foot of
Jebel Barkal, "the sacred mountain," which in time became formidable,
and in the middle of the 8th century conquered Egypt; an Egyptian
campaign is recorded in the famous stele of King Pankhi. The fortunes of
the Ethiopian (XXVth) Dynasty belong to the history of Egypt (q.v.).
After the Ethiopian yoke had been shaken off by Egypt, about 660 B.C.,
Ethiopia continued independent, under kings of whom not a few are known
from inscriptions. Besides a number whose names have been discovered in
cartouches at Jebel Barkal, the following, of whom all but the third
have left important steles, can be roughly dated: Tandamane, son of
Tirhaka (667-650), Asperta (630-600), Pankharer (600-560), Harsiotf
(560-525), Nastasen (525-500). From the evidence of the stele of the
second (the Coronation Stele) and that of the fifth it has been inferred
that the sovereignty early in this period became elective, a deputation
of the various orders in the realm being (as Diodorus states), when a
vacancy occurred, sent to Napata, where the chief god Amen selected out
of the members of the royal family the person who was to succeed, and
who became officially the god's son; and it seems certain that the
priestly caste was more influential in Ethiopia than in Egypt both
before and after this period. Another stele (called the Stele of
Excommunication) records the expulsion of a priestly family guilty of
murder (H. Schäfer, _Klio_, vi. 287): the name of the sovereign who
expelled them has been obliterated. The stele of Harsiotf contains the
record of nine expeditions, in the course of which the king subdued
various tribes south of Meroë and built a number of temples. The stele
of the last of these sovereigns, now in the Berlin Museum, and edited by
H. Schäfer (Leipzig, 1901), contains valuable information concerning the
state of the Ethiopian kingdom in its author's time. Shortly after his
accession he was threatened with invasion by Cambyses, the Persian
conqueror of Egypt, but (according to his own account) destroyed the
fleet sent by the invader up the Nile, while (as we learn from
Herodotus) the land-force succumbed to famine (see CAMBYSES). It further
appears that in his time and that of his immediate predecessors the
capital of the kingdom had been removed from Napata, where in the time
of Harsiotf the temples and palaces were already in ruins, to Mercë at a
distance of 60 camel-hours to the south-east. But Napata retained its
importance as the religious metropolis; it was thither that the king
went to be crowned, and there too the chief god delivered his oracles,
which were (it is said) implicitly obeyed. The local names in Nastasen's
inscription, describing his royal circuit, are in many cases obscure. A
city named Pnups (Hierogl. Pa-Nebes) appears to have constituted the
most northerly point in the empire. These Ethiopian kings seem to have
made no attempt to reconquer Egypt, though they were often engaged in
wars with the wild tribes of the Sudan. For the 5th and 4th centuries
B.C. the history of the country is a blank. A fresh epoch was, however,
inaugurated by Ergamenes, a contemporary of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who is
said to have massacred the priests at Napata, and destroyed sacerdotal
influence, till then so great that the king might at the priests' order
be compelled to destroy himself; Diodorus attributes this measure to
Ergamenes' acquaintance with Greek culture, which he introduced into his
country. A temple was built by this king at Pselcis (Dakka) to Thoth.
Probably the sovereignty again became hereditary. Occasional notices of
Ethiopia occur from this time onwards in Greek and Latin authors, though
the special treatises by Agatharchides and others are lost. According to
these the country came to be ruled by queens named Candace. One of them
was involved in war with the Romans in 24 and 23 B.C.; the land was
invaded by C. Petronius, who took the fortress Premis or Ibrim, and
sacked the capital (then Napata); the emperor Augustus, however, ordered
the evacuation of the country without even demanding tribute. The
stretch of land between Assuan (Syene) and Maharraka (Hiera Sycaminus)
was, however, regarded as belonging to the Roman empire, and Roman
cohorts were stationed at the latter place. To judge by the monuments it
is possible that there were queens who reigned alone. Pyramids were
erected for queens as well as for kings, and the position of the queens
was little inferior to that of their consorts, though, so far as
monumental representations go, they always yielded precedence to the
latter. Candace appears to be found as the name of a queen for whom a
pyramid was built at Meroë. A great builder was Netekamane, who is
represented with his queen Amanetari on temples of Egyptian style at
many points up the Nile--at Amara just above the second cataract, and at
Napata, as well as at Meroë, Benaga and Naga in the distant Isle of
Meroë. He belongs, probably, to the Ptolemaic age. Later, in the Roman
period, the type in sculpture changed from the Egyptian. The figures are
obese, especially the women, and have pronounced negro features, and the
royal person is loaded with bulging gold ornaments. Of this period also
there is a royal pair, Netekamane and Amanetari, imitating the names of
their conspicuous predecessors. In the 4th century A.D. the state of
Meroë was ravaged by the Nubas(?) and the Abyssinians, and in the 6th
century its place was taken by the Christian state of Nubia (see
DONGOLA).

Contrary to the opinion of the Greeks, the Ethiopians appear to have
derived their religion and civilization from the Egyptians. The royal
inscriptions are written in the hieroglyphic character and the Egyptian
language, which, however, in the opinion of experts, steadily
deteriorate after the separation of Ethiopia from Egypt. About the time
of Ergamenes, or (according to some authorities) before, a vernacular
came to be employed in inscriptions, written in a special alphabet of 23
signs in parallel hieroglyphic and cursive forms. The cursive is to be
read from right to left, the hieroglyphic, contrary to the Egyptian
method, in the direction in which the figures face. The Egyptian
equivalents of six characters have been made out by the aid of bilingual
cartouches. Words are divided from each other by pairs of dots, and it
is clear that the forms and values of the signs are largely based on
Egyptian writing; but as yet decipherment has not been attained, nor can
it yet be stated to what group the language should be assigned (F. Ll.
Griffith in D.R. MacIver's _Areika_, Oxford, 1909, and later
researches).

  Notices in Greek authors are collected by P. Paulitschke, _Die
  geographische Erforschung des afrikanischen Continents_ (Vienna,
  1880); the inscriptions were edited and interpreted by G. Maspero,
  _Revue archéol_. xxii., xxv.; _Mélanges d'Assyriologie et
  d'Égyptologie_, ii., iii.; _Records of the Past_, vi.; T.S.B.A. iv.;
  Schäfer, l.c., and _Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache_, xxxiii. See
  also J.H. Breasted, "The Monuments of Sudanese Nubia," in _American
  Journal of Semitic Languages_ (October 1908), and the work of E.W.
  Budge cited above. A description of the chief ruins and the results of
  Dr D.R. MacIver's researches in northern Nubia, begun in 1907, will be
  found under SUDAN: _Anglo-Egyptian_.

_The Axumite Kingdom_.--About the 1st century of the Christian era a new
kingdom grew up at Axum (q.v.), of which a king Zoscales is mentioned in
the _Periplus Maris Erythraei_. Fragments of the history of this
kingdom, of which there is no authentic chronicle, have been made out
chiefly by the aid of inscriptions, of which the following is a
list:--(1) Greek inscription of Adulis, copied by Cosmas Indicopleustes
in 545, the beginning, with the king's name, lost. (2) Sabaean
inscription of Ela Amida in two halves, discovered by J. Theodore Bent
at Axum in 1893, and completed by E. Littmann in 1906. (3) Ethiopic
inscription probably of the same king, imperfect (Littmann). (4)
Trilingual inscription of Aeizanes, the Greek version discovered by
Henry Salt in 1805, the Sabaean by Bent, and the Ethiopic (Geez) by
Littmann. (5) Ethiopic inscription of Aeizanes (so Littmann), son of Ela
Amida, discovered by Eduard Rüppell in 1833. (6) Ethiopic inscriptions
of Hetana-Dan'el, son of Dabra Efrem. These are all long inscriptions
giving details of wars, &c. The sixth is later than the rest, which are
to be attributed to the most flourishing period of the kingdom, the 4th
and 5th centuries A.D. The fourth is pagan, the fifth Christian,
Aeizanes having in the interval embraced Christianity. It was to this
king that the emperor Constantius addressed a letter in 356 A.D.

Aeizanes and his successors style themselves kings of the Axumites,
Homerites (Himyar), Raidan, the Ethiopians (Habasat), the Sabaeans,
Silee, Tiamo, the Bugaites (Bega) and Kasu. This style implies
considerable conquests in South Arabia, which, however, must have been
lost to the Axumites by A.D. 378. They claim to rule the Kasu or
Meroitic Ethiopians; and the fifth inscription records an expedition
along the Atbara and the Nile to punish the Nuba and Kasu, and a
fragment of a Greek inscription from Meroë was recognized by Sayce as
commemorating a king of Axum. Except for these inscriptions Axumite
history is a blank until in the 6th century we find the Axumite king
sending an expedition to wreck the Jewish state then existing in S.
Arabia, and reducing that country to a state of vassalage: the king is
styled in Ethiopian chronicles Caleb (Kaleb), in Greek and Arabic
documents El-Esbaha. In the 7th century a successor to this king, named
Abraha or Abraham, gave refuge to the persecuted followers of Mahomet at
the beginning of his career (see ARABIA: _History, ad init_.). A few
more names of kings occur on coins, which were struck in Greek
characters till about A.D. 700, after which time that language seems
definitely to have been displaced in favour of Ethiopic or Geez: the
condition of the script and the coins renders them all difficult to
identify with the names preserved in the native lists, which are too
fanciful and mutually contradictory to furnish of themselves even a
vestige of history. For the period between the rise of Islam and the
beginning of the modern history of Abyssinia there are a few notices in
Arabic writers; so we have a notice of a war between Ethiopia and Nubia
about 687 (C.C. Rossini in _Giorn. Soc. Asiat. Ital_. x. 141), and of a
letter to George king of Nubia from the king of Abyssinia some time
between 978 and 1003, when a Jewish queen Judith was oppressing the
Christian population (I. Guidi, _ibid_. iii. 176, 7).

The Abyssinian chronicles, it may be noted, attribute the foundation of
the kingdom to Menelek (or Ibn el-Hakim), son of Solomon and the queen
of Sheba. The Axumite or Menelek dynasty was driven from northern
Abyssinia by Judith, but soon after another Christian dynasty, that of
the Zagués, obtained power. In 1268 the reigning prince abdicated in
favour of Yekuno Amlak. king of Shoa, a descendant of the monarch
overthrown by Judith (see ABYSSINIA).

  See A. Dillman, _Die Anfänge des axumitischen Reiches_ (Berlin, 1879);
  E. Drouin, _Revue archéol_. xliv. (1882); T. Mommsen, _Geschichte der
  römischen Provinzen_, chap. xiii.; W. Dittenberger, _Orientis Graeci
  Inscriptiones selectae_, Nos. 199, 200; Littmann u. Kroncker,
  _Vorbericht der deutschen Aksum-Expedition_ (Berlin, 1906), and
  Littman's subsequent researches.


ETHIOPIC LITERATURE

The employment of the Geez or Ethiopic language for literary purposes
appears to have begun no long time before the introduction of
Christianity into Abyssinia, and its pagan period is represented by two
Axumite inscriptions (published by D.H. Müller in J.T. Bent's _Sacred
City of the Ethiopians_, 1893), and an inscription at Matara (published
by C.C. Rossini, _Rendiconti Accad. Lincei_, 1896). As a literary
language it survived its use as a vernacular, but it is unknown at what
time it ceased to be the latter. In Sir W. Cornwallis Harris's
_Highlands of Aethiopia_ (1844) there is a list of rather more than 100
works extant in Ethiopic; subsequent research has chiefly brought to
light fresh copies of the same works, but it has contributed some fresh
titles. A conspectus of all the MSS. known to exist in Europe (over 1200
in number) was published by C.C. Rossini in 1899 (_Rendiconti Accad.
Lincei_, ser. v. vol. viii.); of these the largest collection is that in
the British Museum, but others of various sizes are to be found in the
chief libraries of Europe. R.E. Littmann (in the _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, xv. and xvi.) describes two collections at Jerusalem, one
of which contains 283 MSS.; and Rossini (Rendiconti, 1904) a collection
of 35 MSS. belonging to the Catholic mission at Cheren. Other
collections exist in Abyssinia, and many MSS. are in private hands. In
1893 besides portions of the Bible some 40 Ethiopic books had been
printed in Europe (enumerated in L. Goldschmidt's _Bibliotheca
Aethiopica_), but many more have since been published.

Geez literature is ordinarily divided into two periods, of which the
first dates from the establishment of Christianity in the 5th century,
and ends somewhere in the 7th; the second from the re-establishment of
the Salomonic dynasty in 1268, continuing to the present time. It
consists chiefly of translations, made in the first period from Greek,
in the second from Arabic. It has no authors of the first or even of the
second rank. Its character as a sacred and literary language is due to
its translation of the Bible, which in the ordinary enumeration is made
to contain 81 books, 46 of the Old Testament, and 35 of the New. These
figures are most probably obtained by adding to the ordinary canonical
books _Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch,
Jubilees, Enoch_, the _Ascension of Isaiah, Ezra IV., Shepherd of
Hermas, the Synodos_ (Canons of the Apostles), the _Book of Adam_, and
_Joseph Ben Gorion_. For the distinction between canonical and
apocryphal appears to be unknown to the Ethiopic Church, whose chief
service to Biblical literature consists in its preservation of various
apocryphal works which other parts of Christendom have lost or possess
only in an imperfect form (see ENOCH; JUBILEES, BOOK OF, &c.). It should
be observed that the _Maccabees_ of the Ethiopic Bible is an entirely
different work from the books of that name included in the Septuagint,
of which, however, the Abyssinians have a recent version made from the
Vulgate; specimens of their own _Maccabees_ have been published by J.
Horovitz in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vol. xx. The MSS. of the
Biblical books vary very much, and none of them can claim any great
antiquity; the oldest extant MS. of the four Books of Kings appears to
be one in the Museo Borgiano, presented by King Amda Sion (1314) to the
Virgin Mary in Jerusalem (described by N. Roupp, _ibid._ xvi. 296-342).
Hence P. de Lagarde supposed the Ethiopic version to have been made from
the Arabic, which indeed is in accordance with a native tradition. This
opinion is held by few; C.F.A. Dillman distinguished in the case of the
Old Testament three classes of MSS., a _versio antiqua_, made from the
Septuagint (probably in the Hesychian text), a class revised from Greek
MSS., and a class revised from the Hebrew (probably through the medium
of an Arabic version). An examination of ten chapters of St Matthew by
L. Hackspill (ibid. vol. xi.) led to the result that the Ethiopic
version of the Gospels was made about A.D. 500, from a Syro-occidental
text, and that this original translation is represented by Cod. Paris.
Aeth. 32; whereas most MSS. and all printed editions contain a text
influenced by the Alexandrian Vulgate, and show traces of Arabic.
Rossini (_ibid._ x. 232) has made it probable that the Abba Salama,
whom the native tradition identifies with Frumentius, evangelist of
Abyssinia, to whom the translation of the Bible was ascribed, was in
reality a Metropolitan of the early 14th century, who revised the
corrupt text then current. Of the ancient translation the latest book is
said to be Ecclesiasticus, translated in the year 678. The New Testament
has been published repeatedly (first in Rome, 1548-1549; some letters
about its publication were edited by I. Guidi in the _Archivio della
Soc. Rom. di Storia Patria_, 1886), and C.F.A. Dillmann edited a
critical text of most of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, but did not
live to complete it; portions have been edited by J. Bachmann and
others.

Other translations thought to belong to the first period are the
_Sher'ata Makhbar_, ascribed to S. Pachomius; the _Kerilos_, a
collection of homilies and tracts, beginning with Cyril of Alexandria
_De recta fide_; and the _Physiologus_, a fanciful work on Natural
History (edited by F. Hommel, Leipzig, 1877).

Of the works belonging to the second period much the most important are
those which deal with Abyssinian history. A court official, called
_sahafe te'ezazenet_ (secretary), having under him a staff of scribes,
was employed to draw up the public annals year by year; and on these
official compositions the Abyssinian histories are based. The earliest
part of the Axum chronicle preserved is that recording the wars of Amda
Sion (1314-1344) against the Moslems; it is doubtful, however, whether
even this exists in its original form, as some scholars think; according
to its editor (J. Perruchon in the _Journ. Asiat._ for 1889) it is
preserved in a recension of the time of King Zar'a Ya'kub. Under King
Lebna Dengel (1508-1540) the annals of his four predecessors, Zar'a
Ya'kub, Baeda Maryam, Eskender and Na'od (1434-1508) were drawn up;
those of the first two were published by J. Perruchon (Paris, 1893); in
the _Journ. Asiat._ for 1894 the same scholar published a further
fragment of the history of Baeda Maryam, written by the tutor to the
king's children, and the history of Eskender, Amda Sion II. and Na'od as
compiled in Lebna Dengel's time. The history of Lebna Dengel was
published by the same scholar (_Journ. Semit._ i. 274) and Rossini
(_Rendiconti_, 1894, v. p. 617); that of his successor Claudius
(1540-1559) by Conzelmann (Paris, 1895); that of his successor Minas
(1559-1563) by F.M.E. Pereira (Lisbon, 1888); those of the three
following kings, Sharsa Dengel, Za Dengel, and Ya'kub, by Rossini
(_Rendiconti_, 1893). The history of the next king Sysenius (1606-1632)
by Abba Meherka Dengel and Tekla Shelase was edited by Pereira (Lisbon,
1892); the chronicles of Joannes I., Iyasu I. and Bakaffa (1682-1730) by
I. Guidi, with a French translation (Paris, 1903-1905); all are
contemporary, and the names of the chroniclers of the last two kings are
recorded. Besides these we have the partly fabulous chronicle of
Lalibela (of uncertain date, but before the Salomonian dynasty was
restored), edited by Perruchon (Paris, 1892); and a brief chronicle of
Abyssinia, drawn up in the reign of Iyasu II. (1729-1753), embodying
materials abridged, but often unaltered, was published by R. Basset, in
the _Journ. Asiat._ for 1882 (cf. Rossini in the _Rendiconti_,
1893-1894, p. 668), and has since formed the basis for Abyssinian
history. Many compilations of the sort exist in MS. in libraries, and
great praise is bestowed on the one which E. Rüppell, when travelling in
Abyssinia, ordered to be drawn up for his use. It is now in the
collection of his MSS. at Frankfurt. Ethiopic scholars speak of a
special "historical style" which comes from the mixture of the styles of
different periods, and the admixture of Amharic phrases and idioms. The
historian of the wars of Amda Sion is credited with some literary merit;
most of the chroniclers have little.

The remaining literature of the second period is thought to begin
somewhat earlier than these chronicles. To the time of King Yekuno Amlak
(1268-1283) the historical romance called _Kebra Nagaset_ (Glory of
Kings) is assigned by its editor, C. Bezold (Bavarian Academy, 1904);
other scholars gave it a somewhat later date. Its purpose is to glorify
the Salomonian dynasty, whence, in spite of a colophon which declares it
to be a translation, it was regarded as an original work; since,
however, it shows evident signs of having been translated from Arabic,
Bezold supposes that its author, Ishak, was an immigrant whose native
language was Arabic, in which therefore he would naturally write the
first draft of his book. To the time of Yagbea Sion (ob. 1294) belongs
the _Vision of the Prophet Habakkuk in Kartasa_, as also the works of
Abba Salama, regarded as the founder of the Ethiopic renaissance, one of
whose sermons is preserved in a Cheren MS. With his name are connected
the _Acts of the Passion_, the _Service for the Dead_ and the
translation of Philexius, i.e. Philoxenus. King Zar'a Ya'kub composed or
had composed for him as many as seven books; the most important of these
is the _Book of Light_ (Mashafa Berhan), paraphrased as
_Kirchenordnung_, by Dillmann, who gave an analysis of its contents
(_Über die Regierung des Königs Zar'a Ya'kob_, Berl. Acad., 1884). He
also organized the compilation of the Miracles of the Virgin Mary, one
of the most popular of Ethiopic books; a magnificent edition was printed
by E.W. Budge in the Meux collection (London, 1900). In the same reign
the Arabic chronicle of al-Makin was translated into Geez. Under Lebna
Dengel (ob. 1540), besides the above-mentioned collection of chronicles,
we hear of the translation from the Arabic of the history and martyrdom
of St George, the Commentary of J. Chrysostom on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the ascetic works of J. Saba called _Aragawi manfasawi._
Under Claudius (1540-1559) Maba Sion is said to have translated from the
Arabic _The Faith of the Fathers_, a vast compilation, including the
_Didascalia Apostalorum_ (edited by Platt, London, 1834), and the _Creed
of Jacob Baradaeus_ (published by Cornill, _ZDMG_. xxx. 417-466), and to
the same reign belong the _Book of Extreme Unction (Mashafa Kandil_),
and the religious romance _Barlaam et Joasaph_ also paraphrased from the
Arabic (partly edited by A. Zotenberg in _Notices et Extraits_, vol.
xxviii.). _The Confession of Faith_ of King Claudius has been repeatedly
printed. The reign of Sharsa Dengel (ob. 1595) was marked by many
literary monuments, such as the religious and controversial compilation
called _Mazmura Chrestos_, and the translation, by a certain Salik, of
the religious encyclopaedia (Mashafa Haia) of the monk Nikon; an Arab
merchant from Yemen, who took on conversion the name Anbakom (Habakkuk),
translated a number of books from the Arabic. Under Ya'kub (ob. 1605)
the valuable chronicle of John of Nikiou was translated from Arabic
(edited by A. Zotenberg with French translation in _Notices et
extraits_, vol. xxiv.). Under John, about 1687, the _Spiritual Medicine_
of Michael, bishop of Adtrib and Malig, was translated. The literature
that is not accurately dated consists largely of liturgies, prayers and
hymns; Ethiopic poetry is chiefly, if not entirely, represented by the
last of these, the most popular work of the kind being an ode in praise
of the Virgin, called _Weddase Maryam_ (edited by K. Fries, Leipzig,
1892). Various hymn-books bear the names _Degua, Zemmare_ and _Mawas'et_
(Antiphones); there is also a biblical history in verse called _Mashafa
Madbal_ or _Mestira Zaman_. Homilies also exist in large numbers, both
original and translated, sometimes after the Arabic fashion in rhymed
prose. Hagiology is naturally an important department in Ethiopic
literature. In the great collection called _Synaxar_ (translated
originally from Arabic, but with large additions) for each day of the
year there is the history of one or more saints; an attempt has been
made by H. Dünsing (1900) to derive some actual history from it. Many
texts containing lives of individual saints have been issued. Such are
those of Maba Sion and Gabra Chrestos, edited by Budge in the Meux
collection (London, 1899); the Acts of S. Mercurius, of which a fragment
was edited by Rossini (Rome, 1904); the unique MS. of the original, one
of the most extensive works in the Geez language, was burned by thieves
who set fire to the editor's house. The same scholar began a series of
_Vitae Sanctorum antiquiorum_, while _Monumenta Aethiopiae hagiologica_
and _Vitae Sanctorum indigenarum_ have been edited by B. Turaiev
(Leipzig and St Petersburg, 1902, and Rome, 1905). Other lives have been
edited by Pereira, Guidi, &c. Similar in historical value to these works
is the _History of the Exploits of Alexander_, of which various
recensions have been edited by Budge (London, 1895). See further
ALEXANDER THE GREAT, section on the legends, ad fin.

Of Law the most important monument is the _Fatha Nagaset_ (Judgment of
Kings), of which an official edition was issued by I. Guidi (Rome,
1899), with an Italian translation; it is a version probably made in the
early 16th century of the Arabic code of Ibn 'Assal, of the 12th
century, whose work, being meant for Christians living under Moslem
rule, was not altogether suitable for an independent Christian kingdom;
yet the need for such a code made it popular and authoritative in
Abyssinia. The translator was not quite equal to his task, and the Brit.
Mus. MS. 800 exhibits an attempt to correct it from the original.

Science can scarcely be said to exist in Geez literature, unless a
medical treatise, of which the British Museum possesses a copy, comes
under this head. Philosophy is mainly represented by mystical
commentaries on Scripture, such as the _Book of the Mystery of Heaven
and Earth_, by Ba-Hailu Michael, probably of the 15th century, edited by
Perruchon and Guidi (Paris, 1903). There is, however, a translation of
the Book of the Wise Philosophers, made by Michael, son of Abba Michael,
consisting of various aphorisms; specimens have been edited by Dillmann
in his Chrestomathy, and J. Cornill (Leipzig, 1876). There is also a
translation of _Secundus the Silent_, edited by Bachmann (Berlin, 1888).
Far more interesting than these is the treatise of Zar'a Ya'kub of Axum,
composed in the year 1660 (edited by Littman, 1904), which contains an
endeavour to evolve rules of life according to nature. The author
reviews the codes of Moses, the Gospel and the Koran, and decides that
all contravene the obvious intentions of the Creator. He also gives some
details of his own life and his occupation of scribe. A less original
treatise by Walda Haywat accompanies it. Epistolography is represented
by the diplomatic correspondence of some of the kings with the
Portuguese and Spanish courts; some documents of this sort have been
edited by C. Beccari, _Documenti inediti per la storia d' Etiopia_
(Rome, 1903); lexicography, by the vocabulary called _Sawasew_. The
first Ethiopic book printed was the Psalter (Rome, 1513), by John Potken
of Cologne, the first European who studied the language.

  See C.C. Rossini, "Note per la storia letteraria Abissina," in
  _Rendiconti della R. Accad. dei Lincei_ (1899); Fumagalli,
  _Bibliografia Etiopica_ (1893); Basset, _Études sur l'histoire de
  l'Éthiopie_ (1882); Catalogues of various libraries, especially
  British Museum (Wright), Paris (Zotenberg), Oxford and Berlin
  (Dillmann), Frankfurt (Goldschmidt). Plates illustrating Ethiopic
  palaeography are to be found in Wright's Catalogue; an account of the
  illustrations in Ethiopic MSS. is given by Budge in his _Life of Maba
  Sion_; and a collection of inscriptions in the church of St Stefano
  dei Mori, in Rome, by Gallina in the _Archivio della Soc. Rom. di
  Storia Patria_ (1888).     (D. S. M.*)


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] For the topography and later history see SUDAN and ABYSSINIA.




ETHNOLOGY and ETHNOGRAPHY (from the Gr. [Greek: ethnos], race, and
[Greek: logos], science, or [Greek: graphein], to write), sciences which
in their narrowest sense deal respectively with man as a racial unit
(_mankind_), i.e. his development through the family and tribal stages
into national life, and with the distribution over the earth of the
races and nations thus formed. Though the etymology of the words permits
in theory of this line of division between ethnology and ethnography, in
practice they form an indivisible study of man's progress from the point
at which anthropology (q.v.) leaves him.

Ethnology is thus the general name for investigations of the widest
character, including subjects which in this encyclopaedia are dealt with
in detail under separate headings, such as ARCHAEOLOGY, ART (and allied
articles), COMMERCE, GEOGRAPHY (and the headings for countries and
tribes), FAMILY, NAME, ETHICS, LAW, MYTHOLOGY, FOLK-LORE (and allied
articles), PHILOLOGY (and allied articles), AGRICULTURE, ARCHITECTURE,
RELIGION, SOCIOLOGY, &c., &c. It covers generally the whole history of
the material and intellectual development of man, as it has passed
through the stages of (a) hunting and fishing, (b) sheep and cattle
tending, (c) agriculture, (d) industry. It investigates his food, his
weapons, tools and implements, his housing, his social, economic and
commercial organization, forms of government, language, art, literature,
morals, superstitions and religious systems. In this sense ethnology is
the older term for what now is called sociology. At the present day the
progress of research has in practice, however, restricted the
"ethnologist" as a rule to the study of one or more branches only of so
wide a subject, and the word "ethnology" is used with a somewhat vague
meaning for any ethnological study; each country or nation has thus its
own separate ethnology. It becomes more convenient, therefore, to deal
with the ethnology as a special subject in each case. "Ethnography," in
so far as it has a distinctive province, is then conveniently restricted
to the scientific mapping out of different racial regions, nations and
tribes; and it is only necessary here to refer the reader to the
separate articles on continents, &c., where this is done. The only
fundamental problem which need here be referred to is that of the whole
question of the division of mankind into separate races at all, which is
consequential on the earlier problem (dealt with in the article
ANTHROPOLOGY) as to man's origin and antiquity.

If we assume that man existed on the earth in remote geological time,
the question arises, was this pleistocene man specifically one? What
evidence is there that he represented in his different habitats a series
of varieties of one species rather than a series of species? The
evidence is of three kinds, (1) anatomical, (2) physiological, (3)
cultural and psychical.

1. Dr Robert Munro, in his address to the Anthropological section of the
British Association in 1893, said: "All the osseous remains of man which
have hitherto been collected and examined point to the fact that, during
the larger portion of the quarternary period, if not, indeed, from its
very commencement, he had already acquired his human characteristics."
By "characteristics" is here meant those anatomical ones which
distinguish man from other animals, not the physical criteria of the
various races. Do, then, these anatomical characteristics of pleistocene
man show such differences among themselves and between them and the
types of man existing to-day as to justify the assumption that there has
ever been more than one species of man?

The undoubted "osseous remains" of pleistocene man are few. Burial was
not practised, and the few bones found are for the most part those which
have by mere chance been preserved in caves or rock-shelters. Of these
the three chief "finds," in order of probable age, are the Trinil (Java)
brain-cap, the lowest human skull yet described, characterized by
depressed cranial arch, with a cephalic index of 70; the Neanderthal
(Germany) skull, remarkable for its flat retreating curve with an index
of 73-76; and the two nearly perfect skeletons found at Spy (Belgium),
the skulls of which exhibit enormous brow ridges with cranial indices of
70 and 75. All these skulls, taken in conjunction with other
well-authenticated human remains such as those found at La Naulette
(Belgium), Shipka (Balkan Peninsula), Olmo (Italy), Predmert (Bohemia)
and in Argentina and Brazil, make it possible to reconstruct
anatomically the varying types of pleistocene man, and to establish the
fact that in essential features the same primitive type has persisted
through all time. The skeleton bones show differences so slight as to
admit of pathological or other explanation. What Professor Kollmann says
of man to-day was true in the remotest ages. Referring to Cuvier's
statement that from a single bone it is possible to determine the very
species to which an animal belongs, he says, "Precisely on this ground I
have mainly concluded that the existence of several human species cannot
be recognized, for we are unacquainted with a single tribe from a single
bone of which we might with certainty determine to what species it
belonged." Such differences as the bones exhibit are progressive
modifications towards the higher neolithic and modern types, and are in
themselves entirely incapable of supporting the theory that the owner of
the Trinil skull, say, and the "man of Spy" belonged to separate
species. All these "osseous remains" belong to the palaeolithic period,
and from the cranial indices it is thus clear that palaeolithic man was
long-headed. Neolithic man is, speaking generally, round-headed, and it
has been urged that round-headedness is entirely synchronous with the
neolithic age, and that the long-headed palaeolithic species of mankind
gave place all at once to the round-headed neolithic species. The point
thus raised involves the physiological as well as, indeed more than, the
anatomical proofs of man's specific unity.

2. All physiologists agree that species cannot breed with species.
Darwin himself laid it down as a fundamental principle. If then the
palaeolithic and neolithic types represented separate species, they
would be found to remain distinct through all time. This is not the
case. There is evidence that extreme dolichocephaly continued into
neolithic times, and was only slowly modified into brachycephaly. In the
neolithic caves of Italy, Austria, Belgium, and the barrows of Great
Britain, skulls of all types are found. The later cave-dwellers and
early dolmen builders of Europe were at first long-headed, then of
medium type, and finally in some places exclusively round-headed. In
England the round-heads appear to be synchronous with the metal age, as
shown by the contents of the barrows, and, as on the continental
mainland, the two types gradually blended. Permanent fertility between
them in prehistoric Europe is thus proved. And this is the case
throughout the habitable globe. An examination of the osseous remains of
American man supports the view that the human species has not varied
since quaternary times. The palaeolithic type is to be found among
modern European populations. Certain skulls from South Australia seem
cast in almost the same mould as the Neanderthal. After thousands of
years nearly pure descendants of quaternary man are found among living
races. And man's mutual fertility in prehistoric is repeated throughout
historic times: strict racial purity is almost unknown. Thus the unity
of the species man is proved by the test of fertility.

3. The works of early man everywhere present the most startling
resemblance. The palaeolithic implements all over the globe are all of
one pattern. "The implements in distant lands," writes Sir J. Evans,
"are so identical in form and character with the British specimens that
they might have been manufactured by the same hands.... On the banks of
the Nile, many hundreds of feet above its present level, implements of
the European types have been discovered; while in Somaliland, in an
ancient river-valley at a great elevation above the sea, Sir H.W.
Seton-Karr has collected a large number of implements formed of flint
and quartzite, which, judging from their form and character, might have
been dug out of the drift-deposits of the Somme and the Seine, the
Thames or the ancient Solent." This identity in the earliest arts is
repeated in the later stages of man's culture; his arts and crafts, his
manners and customs, exhibit a similarity so close as to compel the
presumption that all the races are but divisions of one family. But
perhaps the greatest psychical proof of man's specific unity is his
common possession of language. Theodore Waitz writes: "Inasmuch as the
possession of a language of regular grammatical structure forms a fixed
barrier between man and brute, it establishes at the same time a near
relationship between all people in psychical respects.... In the
presence of this common feature of the human mind, all other differences
lose their import" (_Anthropology_, p. 273). As Dr J.C. Prichard urged,
"the same inward and mental nature is to be recognized in all races of
men. When we compare this fact with the observations, fully established,
as to the specific instincts and separate psychical endowments of all
the distinct tribes of sentient beings in the Universe we are entitled
to draw confidently the conclusion that all human races are of one
species and one family." It has been argued that stock languages imply
stock races, but this assumption is untenable. There are some fifty
irreducible stock languages in the United States and Canada, yet, taking
into consideration the physical and moral homogeneity of the American
Indian races, he would be a reckless theorist who held that there were
therefore fifty separate human species. If it were so, how have they
descended? There are no anthropoid apes in America, none of the ape
family higher than the Cebidae, from which it is impossible to trace
men. Again, in Australia there is certainly one stock language, yet
there are not even Cebidae. In Caucasia, there are many distinct forms
of speech, yet all the peoples belong to the Caucasic division of
mankind.

Man, then, may be regarded as specifically one, and thus he must have
had an original cradle-land, whence the peopling of the earth was
brought about by migration. The evidence tends to prove that the world
was peopled by a generalized proto-human form. Each division of mankind
would thus have had its pleistocene ancestors, and would have become
differentiated into races by the influence of climatic and other
surroundings. As to the man's cradle-land there have been many theories,
but the weight of evidence is in favour of Indo-Malaysia.

Of all animals man's range alone coincides with that of the habitable
globe, and the real difficulty of the "cradle-land" theory lay in
explaining how the human race spread to every land. This problem has
been met by geology, which proves that the earth's surface has undergone
great changes since man's appearance, and that continents, long since
submerged, once existed, making a complete land communication from
Indo-Malaysia. The evidence for the Indo-African continent has been
summed up by R.D. Oldham,[1] and proofs no less cogent are available of
the former existence of an Eurafrican continent, while the extension of
Australia in the direction of New Guinea is more than probable. Thus the
ancestor of man was free to move in all directions over the eastern
hemisphere. The western hemisphere was more than probably connected with
Europe and Asia, in Tertiary times, by a continent, the existence of
which is evidenced by a submarine bank stretching from Scotland through
the Faeroes and Iceland to Greenland, and on the other side by
continuous land at what is now the Behring Straits.

Acclimatization has been urged as an argument against the cradle-land
theory, but the peopling of the globe took place in inter-Glacial if not
pre-Glacial ages, when the climate was much milder everywhere, and thus
pleistocene man met no climatic difficulties in his migrations.

Probably before the close of Palaeolithic times all the primary
divisions of man were specialized in their several habitats by the
influence of their surroundings. The profound effect of climate is seen
in the relative culture of races. Thus, tropical countries are inhabited
by savage or semi-savage peoples, while the higher races are confined to
temperate zones. The primary divisions of mankind, Ethiopic, Mongolic,
Caucasic, were certainly differentiated in neolithic times, and these
criteria had almost certainly occurred not consecutively in one area but
simultaneously in several areas. A Negro was not metamorphosed into a
Mongol, nor the latter into a White, but the several semi-simian
precursors under varying environments developed into generalized Negro,
generalized Mongol, generalized Caucasian.

Taking, then, these three primary divisions as those into which it is
most reasonable broadly to divide mankind they may be analysed as to
their racial constituents and their habitats as follows:--

1. Caucasic or White Man is best divided, following Huxley, into (a)
Xanthochroi or "fair whites" and (b) Melanochroi or "dark whites." (a)
The first--tall, with almost colourless skin, blue or grey eyes, hair
from straw colour to chestnut, and skulls varying as to proportionate
width--are the prevalent inhabitants of Northern Europe, and the type
may be traced into North Africa and eastward as far as India. On the
south and west it mixes with that of the Melanochroi and on the north
and east with that of the Mongoloids. (b) The "dark whites" differ from
the fair whites in the darkening of the complexion to brownish and
olive, and of the eyes and hair to black, while the stature is somewhat
lower and the frame lighter. To this division belong a large part of
those classed as Celts, and of the populations of Southern Europe, such
as Spaniards, Greeks and Arabs, extending as far as India, while endless
intermediate grades between the two white types testify to ages of
intermingling. Besides these two main types, the Caucasic division of
mankind has been held with much reason to include such aberrant types as
the brown Polynesian races of the Eastern Pacific, Samoans, Hawaiians,
Maoris, &c., the proto-Malay peoples of the Eastern archipelago,
sometimes termed Indonesians, represented by the Dyaks of Borneo and the
Battaks of Sumatra, the Todas of India and the Ainus of Japan.

2. Mongolic or Yellow Man prevails over the vast area lying east of a
line drawn from Lapland to Siam. His physical characteristics are a
short squat body, a yellowish-brown or coppery complexion, hair lank,
straight and black, flat small nose, broad skull, usually without
prominent brow-ridges, and black oblique eyes. Of the typical Mongolic
races the chief are the Chinese, Tibetans, Burmese, Siamese; the Finnic
group of races occupying Northern Europe, such as Finns, Lapps,
Samoyedes and Ostyaks, and the Arctic Asiatic group represented by the
Chukchis and Kamchadales; the Tunguses, Gilyaks and Golds north of, and
the Mongols proper west of, Manchuria; the pure Turkic peoples and the
Japanese and Koreans. Less typical, but with the Mongolic elements so
predominant as to warrant inclusion, are the Malay peoples of the
Eastern archipelago. Lastly, though differentiated in many ways from the
true Mongol, the American races from the Eskimo to the Fuegians must be
reckoned in the Yellow division of mankind.

3. Negroid or Black Man is primarily represented by the Negro of Africa
between the Sahara and the Cape district, including Madagascar. The skin
varies from dark brown to brown-black, with eyes of the same colour, and
hair usually black and always crisp or woolly. The skull is narrow, with
orbital ridges not prominent, the jaws protrude, the nose is flat and
broad, and the lips thick and everted. Two important families are
classed in this division; some authorities hold, as special
modifications of the typical Negro to-day, others as actually nearer the
true generalized Negroid type of neolithic times. First are the Bushman
of South Africa, diminutive in stature and of a yellowish-brown colour:
the neighbouring Hottentot is believed to be the result of crossing
between the Bushman and the true Negro. Second are the large Negrito
family, represented in Africa by the dwarf races of the equatorial
forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others, and beyond Africa by the
Andaman Islanders, the Aetas of the Philippines, and probably the
Senangs and other aboriginal tribes of the Malay Peninsula. The Negroid
type seems to have been the earliest predominant in the South Sea
islands, but it is impossible to say certainly whether it is itself
derived from the Negrito, or the latter is a modification of it, as has
been suggested above. In Melanesia, the Papuans of New Guinea, of New
Caledonia, and other islands, represent a more or less Negroid type, as
did the now extinct Tasmanians.

Excluded from this survey of the grouping of Man are the aborigines of
Australia, whose ethnical affinities are much disputed. Probably they
are to be reckoned as Dravidians, a very remote blend of Caucasic and
Negro man. For a detailed discussion of the branches of these three
main divisions of Man the reader must refer to articles under race
headings, and to NEGRO; NEGRITOS; MONGOLS; MALAYS; INDIANS, NORTH
AMERICAN; AUSTRALIA; AFRICA; &c., &c.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--J.C. Prichard, _Natural History of Man_ (London, 1843),
  _Researches into the Physical History of Mankind_ (5 vols.,
  1836-1847); T.H. Huxley, _Man's Place in Nature_ (London, 1863), and
  "Geographical Distribution of Chief Modifications of Mankind," in
  _Journ. Anthropological Institute_ for 1870; Theodore Waitz,
  _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (1859-1871); A. de Quatrefages,
  _Histoire générale des races humaines_ (Paris, 1889); E.B. Tylor,
  _Anthropology_ (1881); Lord Avebury, _Prehistoric Times_ (1865; 6th
  ed., 1900) and _Origin of Civilization_ (1870; 6th ed., 1902); F.
  Ratzel, _History of Mankind_ (Eng. trans., 1897); A.H. Keane,
  _Ethnology_ (2nd ed., 1897), and _Man: Past and Present_ (2nd ed.,
  1899); G. de Mortillet, _Le Préhistorique_ (Paris, 1882; 3rd ed.,
  1900); D.G. Brinton, _Races and Peoples_ (1890); J. Deniker, The Races
  of Man (London, 1900); Hutchinson's _Living Races of Mankind_ (1906).


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] Writing in the _Geographical Journal_, March 1894, on "Evolution
    of Indian Geography," he says: "The plants of Indian and African coal
    measures are without exception identical, and among the few animals
    which have been found in India one is indistinguishable from an
    African species, another is closely allied, and both faunas are
    characterized by the very remarkable genus group of reptiles
    comprising the Dicynodon and other allied forms (see _Manual of
    Geology of India_, 2nd ed. p. 203). These, however, are not the only
    analogies, for near the coast of South Africa there are developed a
    series of beds containing the plant fossils in the lower part and
    marine shells in the upper, known as the Uitenhage series, which
    corresponds exactly to the small patches of the Rajmahál series along
    the east coast of India. The few plant forms found in the lower beds
    of Africa are mostly identical with or closely allied to the Rajmahál
    species, while of the very few marine shells in the Indian outcrops,
    which are sufficiently well preserved for identification, at least
    one species is identical with an African form. These very close
    relationships between the plants and animals of India and Africa at
    this remote period appear inexplicable unless there were direct land
    communications between them over what is now the Indian Ocean. On the
    east coast of India in the Khasi Hills, and on the coast of South
    Africa, the marine fossils of late Jurassic and early cretaceous age
    are largely identical with, or very closely allied to each other,
    showing that they must have been inhabitants of one and the same
    great sea. In western India the fossils of the same age belong to a
    fauna which is found in the north of Madagascar, in northern and
    eastern Africa, in western Asia, and ranges into Europe--a fauna
    differing so radically from that of the eastern exposures that only a
    few specimens of world-wide range are found in both. Seeing that the
    distances between the separate outcrops containing representatives of
    the two faunas are much less than those separating the outcrops from
    the nearest ones of the same fauna, the only possible explanation of
    the facts is that there was a continuous stretch of dry land
    connecting South Africa and India and separating two distinct marine
    zoological provinces."




ETHYL, in chemistry, the name given to the alkyl radical C2H5. The
compounds containing this radical are treated under other headings; the
hydride is better known as ethane, the alcohol, C2H5OH, is the ordinary
alcohol of commerce, and the oxide (C2H5)2O is ordinary ether.




ETHYL CHLORIDE, or HYDROCHLORIC ETHER, C2H5Cl, a chemical compound
prepared by passing dry hydrochloric acid gas into absolute alcohol. It
is a colourless liquid with a sweetish burning taste and an agreeable
odour. It is extremely volatile, boiling at 12.5° C. (54.5° F.), and is
therefore a gas at ordinary room temperatures; it is stored in glass
tubes fitted with screw-capped nozzles. The vapour burns with a smoky
green-edged flame. It is largely used in dentistry and slight surgical
operations to produce local anaesthesia (q.v.), and is known by the
trade-name kelene. More volatile anaesthetics such as anestile or
anaesthyl and coryl are produced by mixing with methyl chloride; a
mixture of ethyl and methyl chlorides with ethyl bromide is known as
somnoform.




ETHYLENE, or ETHENE, C2H4, or H2C:CH2, the first representative of the
series of olefine hydrocarbons, is found in coal gas. It is usually
prepared by heating a mixture of ethyl alcohol and sulphuric acid. G.S.
Newth (_Jour. Chem. Soc._, 1901, 79, p. 915) obtains a purer product by
dropping ethyl alcohol into syrupy phosphoric acid (sp. gr. 1.75) warmed
to 200° C., subsequently raising the temperature to 220° C. It can also
be obtained by the action of sodium on ethylidene chloride (B. Tollens,
_Ann._, 1866, 137, p. 311); by the reduction of copper acetylide with
zinc dust and ammonia; by heating ethyl bromide with an alcoholic
solution of caustic potash; by passing a mixture of carbon bisulphide
and sulphuretted hydrogen over red-hot copper; and by the electrolysis
of a concentrated solution of potassium succinate,

  (CH2·CO2K)2 + 2H2O = C2H4 + 2CO2 + 2KOH + H2.

It is a colourless gas of somewhat sweetish taste; it is slightly
soluble in water, but more so in alcohol and ether. It can be liquefied
at -1.1° C., under a pressure of 42½ atmos. It solidifies at -181° C.
and melts at -169° C. (K. Olszewski); it boils at -105° C. (L.P.
Cailletet), or -102° to -103° C. (K. Olszewski). Its critical
temperature is 13° C., and its specific gravity is 0.9784 (air = 1). The
specific gravity of liquid ethylene is 0.386 (3° C.). Ethylene burns
with a bright luminous flame, and forms a very explosive mixture with
oxygen. For the combustion of ethylene see FLAME. On strong heating it
decomposes, giving, among other products, carbon, methane and acetylene
(M. Berthelot, _Ann._, 1866, 139, p. 277). Being an unsaturated
hydrocarbon, it is capable of forming addition products, e.g. it
combines with hydrogen in the presence of platinum black, to form
ethane, C2H6, with sulphur trioxide to form carbyl sulphate, C2H4(SO3)2,
with hydrobromic and hydriodic acids at 100° C. to form ethyl bromide,
C2H5Br, and ethyl iodide, C2H5I, with sulphuric acid at 160-170° C. to
form ethyl sulphuric acid, C2H5·HSO4, and with hypochlorous acid to form
glycol chlorhydrin, Cl·CH2·CH2·OH. Dilute potassium permanganate
solution oxidizes it to ethylene glycol, HO·CH2·CH2.OH, whilst fuming
nitric acid converts it into oxalic acid. Several compounds of ethylene
and metallic chlorides are known; e.g. ferric chloride in the presence
of ether at 150º C. gives C2H4·FeCl3·2H2O (J. Kachtler, _Ber._, 1869, 2,
p. 510), while platinum bichloride in concentrated hydrochloric acid
solution absorbs ethylene, forming the compound C2H4·PtCl2 (K. Birnbaum,
_Ann._, 1868, 145, p. 69).




ÉTIENNE, CHARLES GUILLAUME (1778-1845), French dramatist and
miscellaneous writer, was born near Saint Dizier, Haute Marne, on the
5th of January 1778. He held various municipal offices under the
Revolution and came in 1796 to Paris, where he produced his first opera,
_Le Rêve_, in 1799, in collaboration with Antoine Frédéric Gresnick.
Although Étienne continued to write for the Paris theatres for twenty
years from that date, he is remembered chiefly as the author of one
comedy, which excited considerable controversy. _Les Deux Gendres_ was
represented at the Théâtre Français on the 11th of August 1810, and
procured for its author a seat in the Academy. A rumour was put in
circulation that Étienne had drawn largely on a manuscript play in the
imperial library, entitled _Conaxa, ou les gendres dupés_. His rivals
were not slow to take up the charge of plagiarism, to which Étienne
replied that the story was an old one (it existed in an old French
_fabliau_) and had already been treated by Alexis Piron in _Les Fils
ingrats_. He was, however, driven later to make admissions which at
least showed a certain lack of candour. The bitterness of the attacks
made on him was no doubt in part due to his position as editor-in-chief
of the official _Journal de l'Empire_. His next play, _L'Intrigante_
(1812), hardly maintained the high level of Les Deux Gendres; the
patriotic opera _L'Oriflamme_ and his lyric masterpiece _Joconde_ date
from 1814. Étienne had been secretary to Hugues Bernard Maret, duc de
Bassano, and in this capacity had accompanied Napoleon throughout his
campaigns in Italy, Germany, Austria and Poland. During these journeys
he produced one of his best pieces, _Brueys et Palaprat_ (1807). During
the Restoration Étienne was an active member of the opposition. He was
seven times returned as deputy for the department of Meuse, and was in
full sympathy with the revolution of 1830, but the reforms actually
carried out did not fulfil his expectations, and he gradually retired
from public life. Among his other plays may be noted: _Les Deux Mères,
Le Pacha de Suresnes_, and _La Petite École des pères_, all produced in
1802, in collaboration with his friend Gaugiran de Nanteuil (1778-1830).
With Alphonse Dieudonné Martainville (1779-1830) he wrote an _Histoire
du Théâtre Français_ (4 vols., 1802) during the revolutionary period.
Étienne was a bitter opponent of the romanticists, one of whom, Alfred
de Vigny, was his successor and panegyrist in the Academy. He died on
the 13th of March 1845.

  His _Oeuvres_ (6 vols., 1846-1853) contain a notice of the author by
  L. Thiessé.




ETIQUETTE, a term for ceremonial usage, the rules of behaviour observed
in society, more particularly the formal rules of ceremony to be
observed at court functions, &c., the procedure, especially with regard
to precedence and promotions in an organized body or society.
Professions, such as the law or medicine, observe a code of etiquette,
which the members must observe as protecting the dignity of the
profession and preventing injury to its members. The word is French. The
O. Fr. _estiquette_ or _estiquet_ meant a label, or "ticket," the true
English derivative. The ultimate origin is Teutonic, from _sticken_, to
post up, stick, affix. Cotgrave explains the word in French as a billet
for the benefit or advantage of him that receives it, a form of
introduction and also a notice affixed at the gate of a court of law.
The development of meaning in French from a label to ceremonial rules is
not difficult in itself, but, as the _New English Dictionary_ points
out, the history has not been clearly established.




ETNA (Gr. [Greek: Aitnê], from [Greek: aithô], burn; Lat. _Aetna_), a
volcano on the east coast of Sicily, the summit of which is 18 m. N. by
W. of Catania. Its height was ascertained to be 10,758 ft. in 1900,
having decreased from 10,870 ft. in 1861. It covers about 460 sq. m.,
and by rail the distance round the base of the mountain is 86 m.,
though, as the railway in some places travels high, the correct
measurement is about 91 m. The height cannot have been very different
in ancient times, for the so-called Torre del Filosofo, which is only
1188 ft. below the present summit, is a building of Roman date. The
shape is that of a truncated cone, interrupted on the west by the Valle
del Bove, a huge sterile abyss, 3 m. wide, bounded on three sides by
perpendicular cliffs (2000 to 4000 ft.). Its south-west portion, which
is the deepest, was perhaps the original crater. There are also some 200
subsidiary cones, some of them over 3000 ft. high, which have risen over
lateral fissures. On the slopes of the mountain there are three distinct
zones of vegetation, distinguished by Strabo (vi. p. 273 ff.). The
lowest, up to about 3000 ft., is the zone of cultivation, where
vegetables, and above them where water is more scanty, vines and olives
flourish. Owing to its extraordinary fertility it is densely populated,
having 930 inhabitants per sq. m. below 2600 ft., and 3056 inhabitants
per sq. m. in the triangle between Catania, Nicolosi and Acireale. The
next zone is the wooded zone, and is hardly inhabited, only a few
isolated houses occurring. The lower part of it (up to about 6000 ft.)
consists chiefly of forests of evergreen pines (_Pinus nigricans_), the
upper (up to about 6800 ft.) of birch woods (_Betula alba_). A few oaks
and red beeches occur, while chestnut trees grow anywhere between 1000
and 5300 ft. In the third and highest zone the vegetation is stunted,
and there is a narrow zone of sub-Alpine shrubs, but no Alpine flora. In
the last 2000 ft. five phanerogamous species only are to be found, the
first three of which are peculiar to the mountain: _Senecio Etnensis_
(which is found quite close to the crater), _Anthemis Etnensis,
Robertsia taraxacoides, Tanacetum vulgare_ and _Astragalus siculus_. No
trace of animal life is to be found in this zone; for the greater part
of the year it is covered with snow, but by the end of summer this has
almost all melted, except for that preserved in the covered pits in
which it is stored for use for cooling liquids, &c., in Catania and
elsewhere. The ascent is best undertaken in summer or autumn. From the
village of Nicolosi, 9 m. to the N.W. of Catania, about 7 or 8 hours are
required to reach the summit. Thucydides mentions eruptions in the 8th
and 5th centuries B.C., and others are mentioned by Livy in 125, 121 and
43 B.C. Catania was overwhelmed in 1169, and many other serious
eruptions are recorded, notably in 1669, 1830, 1852, 1865, 1879, 1886,
1892, 1899 and March 1910.

According to Lyell, Etna is rather older than Vesuvius--perhaps of the
same geological age as the Norwich Crag. At Trezza, on the eastern base
of the mountain, basaltic rocks occur associated with fossiliferous
Pliocene clays. The earliest eruptions of Etna are older than the
Glacial period in Central and Northern Europe. If all the minor cones
and monticules could be stripped from the mountain, the diminution of
bulk would be extremely slight. Lyell concluded that, although no
approximation can be given of the age of Etna, "its foundations were
laid in the sea in the newer Pliocene period." From the slope of the
strata from one central point in the Val del Bue he further concluded
that there once existed a second great crater of permanent eruption. The
rocks erupted by Etna have always been very constant in composition,
viz. varieties of basaltic lava and tuff containing little or no
olivine--the rock type known as labradorite. At Acireale the lava has
assumed the prismatic or columnar form in a striking manner; at the rock
of Aci it is in parts spheroidal. The Grotte des Chèvres has been
regarded as an enormous gas-bubble in the lava. The remarkable stability
of the mountain appears to be due to the innumerable dikes which
penetrate the lava flows and tuff beds in all directions and thus bind
the whole mass together.

From the earliest times the mountain has naturally been the subject of
legends. The Greeks believed it to be either the mountain with which
Zeus had crushed the giant Typhon (so Pindar, Pyth. i. 34 seq.;
Aeschylus, _Prometheus Vinctus_, 351 seq.; Strabo xiii. p. 626), or
Enceladus (Virgil, _Georg._ i. 471; Oppian, Cyn. i. 273), or the
workshop of Hephaestus and the Cyclopes (Cic. _De divin._ ii. 19; cf.
Lucil., _Aetna_, 41 seq., Solin, 11). Several Roman writers, on the
other hand, attempted to explain the phenomena which it presented by
natural causes (e.g. Lucretius vi. 639 seq.; Lucilius, _Aetna_, 511
seq.). Ascents of the mountain were not infrequent in those days--one
was made by Hadrian.

  See Sartorius von Waltershausen, _Atlas des Ätna_ (Leipzig, 1880); E.
  Chaix, _Carta Volcanologica e topographica dell' Etna_ (showing lava
  streams up to 1892); G. de Lorenzo, _L'Etna_ (Bergamo, 1907).




ETNA, a borough of Allegheny county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in the
western part of the state, on the W. bank of the Allegheny river (about
5 m. from its junction with the Monongahela), and about 2 m. N. of the
city of Pittsburg, of which it is a suburb. Pop. (1880) 2334; (1890)
3767; (1900) 5384 (1702 foreign-born); (1910) 5830. It is served by the
Pennsylvania railway and by electric lines. Among its industrial
establishments are rolling mills, tube and pipe works, furnaces, steel
mills, a brass foundry, and manufactories of electrical railway
supplies, boxes, asbestos coverings, enamel work and ice. The city's
industrial history dates from 1820, when a small factory for the
manufacture of scythes and sickles was set up. Natural gas, piped from
Butler county, was early used here as a fuel in the iron mills. Etna,
formerly called Steuart's Town, was incorporated as a borough in 1869.




ETON, a town of Buckinghamshire, England, on the north (left) bank of
the river Thames, opposite Windsor, within which parliamentary borough
it is situated. Pop. of urban district (1901) 3301. It is famous for its
college, the largest of the ancient English public schools. The "King's
College of Our Lady of Eton beside Windsor" was founded by Henry VI. in
1440-1441, and endowed mainly from the revenues of the alien priories
suppressed by Henry V. The founder followed the model established by
William of Wykeham in his foundations of Winchester and New College,
Oxford. The original foundation at Eton consisted of a provost, 10
priests, 4 clerks, 6 choristers, a schoolmaster, 25 poor and indigent
scholars, and the same number of poor men or bedesmen. In 1443, however,
Henry considerably altered his original plans; the number of scholars
was increased to 70, and the number of bedesmen reduced to 13. A
connexion was then established, and has been maintained ever since,
though in a modified form, between Eton and Henry's foundation of King's
College, Cambridge. One of the king's chief advisers was William of
Waynflete, who had been master of Winchester College, and was appointed
provost of Eton in 1443. Among further alterations to the foundation in
this year was the establishment of _commensales_ or commoners, distinct
from the scholars; and these under the name of "oppidans" now form the
principal body of the boys. The college survived with difficulty the
unsettled period at the close of Henry's reign; while Edward IV.
curtailed its possessions, and was at first desirous of amalgamating it
with the ecclesiastical foundation of St George, Windsor Castle. In 1506
the annual revenue amounted to £652; and through benefactions and the
rise in the value of property the college has grown to be very richly
endowed. In 1870 commissioners under an act of 1868 appointed the
governing body of the college to consist of the provost of Eton, the
provost of King's College, Cambridge, five representatives nominated
respectively by the university of Oxford, the university of Cambridge,
the Royal Society, the lord chief justice and the masters, and four
representatives chosen by the rest of the governing body. By this body
the foundation was in 1872 made to consist of a provost and ten fellows
(not priests, but merely the members of the governing body other than
the provost), a headmaster of the school, and a lower master, at least
seventy scholars (known as "collegers"), and not more than two chaplains
or conducts. Originally it was necessary that the scholars should be
born in England, of lawfully married parents, and be between eight and
sixteen years of age; but according to the statutes of 1872 the
scholarships are open to all boys who are British subjects, and (with
certain limitations as to the exact date of birth) between twelve and
fifteen years of age. A number of foundation scholarships for King's
College, Cambridge, are open for competition amongst the boys; and there
are besides several other valuable scholarships and exhibitions, most of
which are tenable only at Cambridge, some at Oxford, and some at either
university. The teaching embraces the customary range of classical and
modern subjects; but until the first half of the 19th century the
normal course of instruction remained almost wholly classical; and
although there were masters for other subjects, they were unconnected
with the general business of the school, and were attended at extra
hours.

The school buildings were founded in 1441 and occupied in part by 1443,
but the whole original structure was not completed till fifty years
later. The older buildings consist of two quadrangles, built partly of
freestone but chiefly of brick. The outer quadrangle, or school-yard, is
enclosed by the chapel, upper and lower schools, the original scholars'
dormitory ("long chamber"), now transformed, and masters' chambers. It
has in its centre a bronze statue of the royal founder. The buildings
enclosing the inner or lesser quadrangle contain the residence of the
fellows, the library, hall and various offices. The chapel, on the south
side of the school-yard, represents only the choir of the church which
the founder originally intended to build; but as this was not completed
Waynflete added an ante-chapel. The chapel was built upon a raised
platform of stone, as was the hall, in order to lift it above the
flood-level of the Thames. It contains some interesting monuments of
provosts of the college and others, and at the west end of the
ante-chapel is a fine marble statue of the founder in his royal robes,
by John Bacon. A chantry contains the tomb of Roger Lupton (provost
1503-1535), whose most notable monument is the fine tower between the
school-yard and the cloisters to the east; though other parts of his
building also remain. The space enclosed by two buttresses on the north
side of the chapel, at the point where steps ascend to the north door,
is the model of the peculiar form of court for the game of fives which
takes name from Eton, with its "buttress" (represented by the projecting
balustrade), the ledges round the walls, and the step dividing the floor
into two levels. From the foundation of the college the chapel was used
as the parish church until 1854, and not until 1875, after the
alteration of the ancient constitution had secularized the foundation,
was the parish of Eton created into a separate vicarage. The chapel does
not accommodate the whole school; and a new chapel, from the designs of
Sir Arthur Blomfield, is used by the lower school. The library contains
many manuscripts (notably an Oriental and Egyptian collection) and rare
books; and there is also a library for the use of the boys. The college
in modern times has far outgrown its ancient buildings, and new
buildings, besides the lower chapel, include the new schools, with an
observatory, a chemical laboratory, science schools and boarding-houses.
In 1908 King Edward VII. opened a fine range of buildings erected in
honour of the Old Etonians who served in the South African War, and in
memory of those who fell there. The architect was Mr L.K. Ball, an old
Etonian. The buildings include a school hall, a domed octagonal library,
and a classical museum.

The principal annual celebration is held on the 4th of June, the
birthday of King George III., who had a great kindness for the school.
This is the speech-day; and after the ceremonies in the school a
procession of boats takes place on the Thames. In the sport of rowing
Eton occupies a unique position among the public schools, and a large
proportion of the oarsmen in the annual Oxford and Cambridge boat-race
are _alumni_ of the school. Another annual celebration is the occasion
of the contest between collegers and oppidans at a peculiar form of
football known as the wall game, from the fact that it is played against
a wall bordering the college playing-field. This game takes place on St
Andrew's Day, the 30th of November. The field game of football commonly
played at Eton has also peculiar rules. The annual cricket match between
Eton and Harrow schools, at Lord's ground, London, is always attended by
a large and fashionable gathering. A singular custom termed the
_Montem_, of unknown origin, but first mentioned in 1561, was observed
here triennially on Whit-Tuesday. The last celebration took place in
1844, the ceremony being abolished just before it fell due in 1847. It
consisted of a procession of the boys in a kind of military order, with
flags and music, headed by their "captain," to a small mound called Salt
Hill, near the Bath road, where they levied contributions, or "salt,"
from the passers-by and spectators. The sum collected sometimes exceeded
£1000--the surplus, after deducting certain expenses, becoming the
property of the captain of the school. The average number of pupils at
Eton exceeds 1000.

  See E.S. Creasy, _Memoirs of Eminent Etonians, with Notices of the
  Early History of the College_ (1850); _Sketches of Eton_ (1873); Sir
  H.C. Maxwell Lyte, _History of Eton College from 1440 to 1875_ (1875);
  J. Heneage Jesse, _Memoirs of Celebrated Etonians_ (1875); _The Eton
  Portrait Gallery_, by a Barrister of the Inner Temple (1875); A.C.
  Benson, _Fasti Etonienses_ (1899); L. Cust, _History of Eton College_
  (1899).




ÉTRETAT, a watering-place of France, in the department of
Seine-Inférieure, on the coast of the English Channel, 16½ m. N. by E.
of Havre by road. Pop. (1906) 1982. It is situated between fine cliffs
in which, here and there, the sea has worn archways, pinnacles and other
curious forms. The small stream traversing the valley, at the extremity
of which Étretat lies, flows underground for some distance but rises to
the surface on the beach. A Roman road and aqueduct and other Roman and
Gallic remains have been discovered. The church of Notre-Dame, a
Romanesque building, with a nave of the 11th century and a central tower
and choir of the 13th century, is a fine example of the Norman
architecture of those periods. Fishing is carried on, though there is no
port and the fishermen haul their boats up the beach; the old hulks
(_caloges_) serve as sheds and even as dwellings. Étretat sprang into
popularity during the latter half of the 19th century, largely owing to
the frequent references to it in the novels of Alphonse Karr.




ETRURIA, an ancient district of Italy, the extent of which varied
considerably, and, especially in the earliest periods, is very difficult
to define (see section Language). The name is the Latin equivalent of
the Greek [Greek: Turrênia] or [Greek: Tursênia], which is used by Latin
writers also in the forms _Tyrrhenia, Tyrrhenii_; the Romans also spoke
of Tusci, whence the modern Tuscany (q.v.). In early times the district
appears to have included the whole of N. Italy from the Tiber to the
Alps, but by the end of the 5th century B.C. it was considerably
diminished, and about the year 100 B.C. its boundaries were the Arnus
(Arno), the Apennines and the Tiber. In the division of Italy by
Augustus it formed the seventh _regio_ and extended as far north as the
river Macra, which separated it from Liguria.

_History_.--The authentic history of Etruria is very meagre, and
consists mainly in the story of its relations with Carthage, Greece and
Rome. At some period unknown, prior to the 6th century, the Etrurians
became a conquering people and extended their power not only northwards
over, probably, Mantua, Felsina, Melpum and perhaps Hadria and Ravenna
(Etruria Circumpadana), but also southwards into Latium and Campania.
The chronology of this expansion is entirely unknown, nor can we recover
with certainty the names of the cities which constituted the two leagues
of twelve founded in the conquered districts on the analogy of the
original league in Etruria proper (below). In the early history of Rome
the Etruscans play a prominent part. According to the semi-historical
tradition they were the third of the constituent elements which went to
form the city of Rome. The tradition has been the subject of much
controversy, and is still an unsolved problem. It is practically
certain, however, that there is no foundation for the ancient theory
(cf. Prop. iv. [v.] 1. 31) that the third Roman tribe, known as Luceres,
represented an Etruscan element of the population, and it is held by
many authorities that the tradition of the Tarquin kings of Rome
represents, not an immigrant wave, but the temporary domination of
Etruscan lords, who extended their conquests some time before 600 B.C.
over Latium and Campania. This theory is corroborated by the fact that
during the reigns of the Tarquin kings Rome appears as the mistress of a
district including part of Etruria, several cities in Latium, and the
whole of Campania, whereas our earliest picture of republican Rome is
that of a small state in the midst of enemies. For this problem see
further under ROME: _History_, section "The Monarchy."

After the expulsion of the Tarquins the chief events in Etruscan history
are the vain attempt to re-establish themselves in Rome under Lars
Porsena of Clusium, the defeat of Octavius Mamilius, son-in-law of
Tarquinius Superbus, at Lake Regillus, and the treaty with Carthage.
This last event shows that the Etruscan power was formidable, and that
by means of their fleet the Etruscans held under their exclusive control
the commerce of the Tyrrhenian Sea. By this treaty Corsica was assigned
to the Etruscans while Carthage obtained Sardinia. Soon after this,
decay set in. In 474 the Etruscan fleet was destroyed by Hiero I. (q.v.)
of Syracuse; Etruria Circumpadana was occupied by the Gauls, the
Campanian cities by the Samnites, who took Capua (see CAMPANIA) in 423,
and in 396, after a ten years' siege, Veii fell to the Romans. The
battle of the Vadimonian Lake (309) finally extinguished Etruscan
independence, though for nearly two centuries still the prosperity of
the Etruscan cities far exceeded that of Rome itself. Henceforward
Etruria is finally merged in the Roman state.


ETRUSCAN ANTIQUITIES

The large recent discoveries of Etruscan objects have not materially
altered the conclusions arrived at a generation ago. It is not so much
our appreciation of the broad lines of the manners and arts of the
Etruscans that has altered as our understanding of the geographic and
social causes which made them what they were. One great difficulty in
the study of the remains is that a very large portion of them have been
found by unofficial excavators who have been naturally unwilling to tell
whence they came, and that certain other excavations, such as those
carried out by Comm. Barnabei for the Villa Giulia museum, have been
carried out under conditions which help but little towards increasing
our knowledge.[1] The increase has, however, been steady, even if not
all one could wish.

_Ethnology_.--The origin of the Etruscans will most likely never be
absolutely fixed,[2] but their own tradition (Tacitus, _Ann._ iv. 55)
that they came out of Lydia seems not impossible. Herodotus (i. 94) and
Strabo (v. 220) tell of Lydians landing at the mouth of the Po and
crossing the Apennines into Etruria. Thus it seems certain that though
the earliest immigrants, known to the later Etruscans as the _Rasena_,
may have come down from the north, still they were joined by a migration
from the east before they had developed a civilization of their own, and
it is this double race that became the Etruscans as we know them in
tradition and by their works. To give a date to the migration of the
Rasena from the north, for which the only evidence is the fact that the
Etruscan language is found in various parts of north Italy,[3] is
impossible, but we can perhaps give an approximate one to the coming of
the Lydians or Tyrrhenians (Thuc. iv. 109; Herod. i. 57). We know that
there was a great wave of migration from Greece to Italy about 1000
B.C., and as the earliest imported Greek objects found in the tombs
cannot be dated many generations later than this, this year may be
considered as giving us roughly the time when the real Etruscan
civilization began.

It has been, and still is, a common mistake to speak of the Etruscans as
though they were closely confined to that part of Italy called Etruria
on the maps, but it is quite certain that in the early stages of their
development they were differentiated from the Umbrians on the north-east
and the Latins on the south in ways due rather to the locality than to
race or essential character.[4] To primitive peoples open seas or
deserts are a greater hindrance to intercourse than mountains or rivers,
and even these did not cut off Etruria from the neighbouring regions of
Italy. The Apennines that separated her from Umbria were not difficult
to cross, and the Tiber which formed the boundary between her and
Latium has been a far greater element of separation in the minds of
modern authors than it ever was in reality. Narrow, not particularly
swift, often shallow, such a stream can never have caused more than a
moment's delay to the hardy Etruscans. When Rome was founded, the river
of course could be used like a moat round a castle as a means of
defence, but that is very different from its being a permanent bar to
the spread of a given culture. The fact that the alphabets used in other
parts of Italy besides Etruria are derived from the Etruscan or from
similar Grecian sources, that Rome was ruled by Etruscan kings, that the
temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline was decorated by Etruscan artists
(Livy x. 23; Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 157), that the decorations of the
temple found by Signor Mazzoleni near Conca (_Notizie degli scavi_,
1896) are of the same kind as others found in Etruria, show that the
influences which grew to their clearest development in the region west
of the Tiber had a marked effect over a broader region than is usually
admitted. This too was the belief of the Greek historians, many of whom
considered Rome as a Tyrrhenian city.[5]

_Cities and Organization_.--The chief cities of Etruria proper were
Veii, Tarquinii, Falerii, Caere, Volci, Volsinii, Clusium, Arretium,
Cortona, Perusia, Volaterrae (Volterra), Rusellae, Populonium and
Faesulae. That the country was thickly settled is made plain by the
ruins that have been found. It was governed by kings who were elected
for life, but whose power depended largely on the leaders (_lucumones_)
of the separate states or regions and on the aristocracy (Censorinus,
_De die natali_, iv. 13). Later the office of king was abolished and
replaced by annual magistrates (Livy v. 1). Below the aristocracy came
the free people, who were divided into _curiae_ (Serv. _ad Aen._ x.
202), and then the slaves. There can be little doubt that the early
organization of the people at Rome was typical of Etruria (Niebuhr,
_Röm._ Gesch. 2nd ed. i. 389).

A league of twelve cities is mentioned by the ancients (Livy iv. 23),
whose delegates met at the temple of Voltumna, but we are not told which
cities formed the league, and there can be little doubt that the list
changed from time to time. A glance at the map makes clear some of the
general relations of these cities to one another and to the outer world.
They are well spread all over the country, and by no means only along
the coast. None of the important ones is among the mountains. This means
that the earliest inhabitants of the country were not roving traders
like the Mycenaean Greeks, and that the cities drew their wealth and
strength from agricultural pursuits, for which the country was well
suited, as the three rivers, Arnus, Umbro and Tiber, with their feeders
(not to mention several lesser streams), channel it in all directions.
We get a hint as to the government of the cities from the fact that many
of the Roman forms and apanages of office were derived from the
Etruscans (Dion. Hal. iii. 61); for instance, the diadem worn by those
honoured with a triumph, the ivory sceptre and the embroidered toga
(Tertull. _De Cor._ 13), and so too the golden bulla and the praetexta
(Festus, s.v. "Sardi"). Such things give us an idea as to the
aristocratic basis of the government. Of the actual laws we know
something also. Cicero (_Div._ ii. 23) tells the story of the miraculous
uncovering by a ploughboy of a child who had the wisdom of a sage, and
how the child's words were written down by the amazed folk, and became
their archives and the source of their law. Coming down to historic
times we find that their code, known as the libri _disciplinae
Etruscae_, consisted of various parts (Festus, s.v. "Ritualis"). There
were the _libri haruspicini_ (Cic. _Div._ i. 33, 72), which dealt with
the interpretation of the will of the gods by means of sacrifice; the
_libri fulgurales_, which explained the messages of the gods in the
thunder and lightning; and finally the _libri rituales_, which held the
rules for the conduct of daily life--how to found cities, where to place
the gates, how to take the census, and the general ordering of the
people both in peace and war.

_Natural Resources and Commerce_.--Such was the country and such the
laws. The people were a warrior stock with little commercial skill. Much
of their wealth was due to trade, but they were not the restless,
conquering blood that goes in search of new markets. They waited for the
buyers to come to them. That their wealth and consequent power were
gathered contemporaneously with that of Greece is shown by various
facts. One of these is that Dionysius of Phocaea settled in Sicily after
the Ionian revolt (in which his native city took part) had been quelled
by Darius, and thence harried the Etruscans (Herod. vi. 17). Their power
is also shown by the fact that they made an alliance with the
Carthaginians, with the result that they obtained control of Corsica
(Herod. i. 166), and this union continued for many generations.[6] That
this treaty was no exceptional one is shown by Aristotle (_Pol._ iii.
96, _Op._ ii. 261), who says that there were numerous treatises,
concerning their alliances and mutual rights, between the two peoples.
That the Greeks held the Etruscans in considerable dread is suggested by
the fact that Hesiod (_Theog._ 1011 foll.) names one of their leaders
Agrios, "the Wild Man," and by the fear they had of the straits of
Messina, where they imagined Scylla and Charybdis, which, unless the
whirlpools were of very different character then than now, were as
likely to be the pirate bands of Carthaginians and Etruscans who guarded
the channel. And this explanation is strengthened by Euripides (_Med._
1342, 1359), whose Medea compares herself to "Scylla, who dwells on the
Tyrrhenian shore." The wealth that was the source of this power of the
Etruscans must in the main have been drawn from agriculture and
forestry. The rich land with its many streams could scarcely be
surpassed for the raising of crops and cattle, and the hills were
heavily timbered. That it was such material as this, which leaves no
trace with the passing of time, that they sold cannot be doubted, for
there is plenty of evidence that their country was visited by foreign
traders of many lands, and that they bought largely of them, especially
of metals. Metals also suggest that another source of their wealth was
that of the middleman. Their towns were the centres of exchange, where
the north and west met the south and east. They had no mines of gold or
tin, but the carriers of tin, iron or amber[7] from the north met in the
markets of Etruria the Phoenician and Greek merchants bringing gold and
ivory and the other luxuries of the East. The quantities of gold, silver
and bronze found in Etruscan tombs prove this clearly. Of these metals
the only one found in unworked form, in what are practically pigs, is
bronze. This in the form of _aes rude_ has frequently been found in
considerable quantities, and the larger and better formed bits of metals
known as _aes signatum_ are not rare. Both forms are usually spoken of
as the earliest forms of money, but as the _aes rude_ generally bears no
marks of valuation or of any mint, and as the _aes signatum_ is far too
large and heavy for ordinary circulation, it is probable that these
shapes of metal are not to be considered strictly or alone as coins, but
as forms given to the alloy of tin and copper made and sold by the
Etruscans to the foreigners for purposes of manufacture. This of course
does not exclude their use as money. Where the copper for this bronze
came from is not certain, but probably a great part was from the mines
at Volaterrae. Still another proof that what the Etruscans sold was the
product of their fields or crude metals imported from the north, is the
fact that though in the museum at Carthage and elsewhere there are a few
vases and other objects which probably come from Etruria, still such
objects are extremely uncommon. On the other hand, articles obviously
imported from the East are by no means uncommon in Etruria. Such are the
ostrich shells from Volci,[8] the Phoenician cups from Palestrina,[9]
the Egyptian glazed vases and scarabs found on more than one site.[10]
All this goes to show that the Etruscans lacked in their earlier days
skilful workers in the arts and crafts.

_Habits and Customs_.--The lack of literary remains of the Etruscans
does not cramp our knowledge of their habits as much as might be
supposed, owing to the numerous paintings that are left. These paintings
are on the walls of the tombs at Veii, Corneto, Chiusi (Clusium), and
elsewhere,[11] and give a varied picture of the dress, utensils and
habits of the people. The evidence of many ancient authors cannot be
questioned that as a race the Etruscans in historic times were much
given to luxurious living. So much so in fact that Virgil (_Georg_. ii.
193) speaks of the _pinguis Tyrrhenus_ (a trumpeter at the altar) and
Catullus (xxxix. 11) of the _obesus Etruscus_. Diodorus (v. 40) gives a
succinct account in which he says that "their country was so fertile
they derived therefrom not only sufficient for their needs but enough to
supply them with luxuries. Twice a day they partook of elaborate repasts
at which the tables were decked with embroidered cloths and vessels of
gold and silver. The servants were numerous and noticeable for the
richness of their attire. The houses, too, were large and commodious. In
fact, giving themselves up to sensuous enjoyments they had naturally
lost the glorious reputation their ancestors had won in war." This last
remark shows that Diodorus recognized the important difference between
the early Etruscans who built up the country and the later ones who
merely enjoyed it. Naturally courtesans flourished in such a community.
Timaeus and Theopompus tell how the women lived and ate and even
exercised with the men (Athen. xii. 14; cf. iv. 38), habits which of
course gave the Roman satirists many openings for attack (Plaut. _Cist._
ii. 3. 563; cf. Herod, i. 98; Strabo xi. 14). In dress they differed but
little from the Romans, both wearing the toga and the tunic. Hats too,
often of pointed form, were common (Serv. _ad Aen._ ii. 683), as the
paintings show, but it was their shoes for which they were particularly
famous. One author (Lydus, _de Magistr._ i. 17. 36) suggests that
Romulus borrowed from Etruria the type of shoe he gave the senators, and
this may well be true, though the form mentioned, the _kampagus_, is of
late origin. At any rate [Greek: sandalia Turrênika] are frequently
mentioned. From the pictures and remains we know that they had wooden
soles strengthened with bronze, and that the uppers were of leather and
bound with thongs.

Their occupations of trade and agriculture have been already mentioned.
For their leisure hours they had athletic games including gladiatorial
shows (Athen. iv. 153; cf. Livy ix. 40. 7; Strabo v. 250), hunting,
music and dancing. All these are shown in the tomb pictures, and all,
with the exception of the hunting, developed first as a part of
religious service, and their importance is shown by the strictness of
the rules that governed them (Cicero, _De harusp. resp._ ii. 23). Did a
dancer lose step, or an attendant lift his hand from the chariot, the
games lost their value as a religious service. An idea of the splendour
of the triumphs that accompanied victorious generals and of the parades
at the games is given by Appian (_De reb. Punic._ viii. 66) and
Dionysius (vii. 92). The music that was an accompaniment of all their
occupations, even of hunting (Aelian, _De natur. anim._ xii. 46), was
mainly produced by the single or double flute, the mastery of which by
the Etruscans was known to all the world. They also had small harps and
trumpets.

For the regularization of all these duties and pleasures there was a
calendar and time-division for the day. It is noteworthy that the
beginning of the day was for them the moment when the sun was at the
zenith (Serv. _ad Aen._ v. 738). In this they differed from the Greeks,
who began their day with the sunset, and the Romans, who reckoned theirs
from midnight. The weeks were of eight days, the first being market day
and the day when the people could appeal to the king, and the months
were lunar. The years were kept numbered by the annual driving of a
nail into the walls of the temple of Nortia at Volsinii (Livy vii. 3.
7), a custom later adopted by the Romans, who used the Capitoline temple
for the same purpose. In Rome this rite was performed on the Ides of
September, and it is likely that it took place in Etruria on the same
date, the natural end of the year among an agricultural folk. A still
longer measure of time was the saeculum, which was supposed to be the
length of the longest life of all those born in the year in which the
preceding oldest inhabitant died (Censorinus, _De die natali_, 17. 5;
cf. Zosimus ii. 1). According to later writers[12] the Etruscan race was
to last ten _saecula_, and the emperor Augustus in his memoirs (Serv.
_ad. Bucol._ ix. 47) says that the comet of the year 44 B.C. was said by
the priests to betoken the beginning of the tenth _saeculum_. The
earliest _saecula_ had been, according to Varro, 100 years long. The
later ones varied in length from 105 to 123 years. The round number 100
is obviously an _ex post facto_ approximation, and the accuracy of the
others is probably more apparent than real, but if we reckon back some
900 years from the date given by Augustus we arrive at just about the
time when the archaeological evidence leads us to believe that the
Etruscans in Italy were beginning to recognize their individuality.

_Religion_.--To retrace the religious development of the Etruscans from
its mystic beginnings is beyond our power, and it is unlikely that any
future discoveries will help us much. We are, however, able to draw a
clear, if not a detailed, picture of the worship paid to the various
divinities, partly from the direct information we have concerning them
and partly from the analogies which may safely be drawn between them and
the Romans.

The frequency of sacrifice among them and their belief in the short
duration of the race[13] show clearly their belief in a good and a bad
principle, and the latter seems to have been predominant in their minds.
Storms, earthquakes, the birth of deformities, all gave evidence of evil
powers, which could be appeased sometimes only by human sacrifice. We
miss here the Greek joy in human life and the beauties of earth. The
gods (_aesar_) were divided into two main groups, the _Dii Consentes_
and a vaguer set of powers, the _Dii Involuti_ (Seneca, _Quaest. Nat._
ii. 41), to whom even Jupiter bowed. They all dwelt in various parts of
the heavens (Martianus Capella, _De nupt. Phil._ i. 41 ff.). Of the _Dii
Consentes_ the most important group consisted of Jupiter (_Tinia_), Juno
(_Uni_) and Minerva (_Menrva_). In some towns, such as Veii and Falerii,
Juno was the chief deity, and at Perusia she was worshipped like the
Greek Aphrodite in conjunction with Vulcan (the Greek _Hephaestus_).
This shows that though in exterior form the Etruscan gods were
influenced by the Greeks, still their character and powers betoken
different beliefs. An interesting point to note about Minerva (_Menrva_)
is that she was the goddess of the music of flutes and horns. The myth
of Athena and Marsyas probably originated in Asia Minor, and a Pelasgian
Tyrrhenian founded in Argos the temple of Athena Salpinx (Paus. ii. 21.
3). The evident connexion between Asia Minor and Etruria in these facts
cannot be overlooked. Besides these deities there were Venus (_Turan_),
Bacchus (_Fufluns_), Mercury (_Turms_), Vulcan (_Sethlans_). Of these,
Sethlans is in a way the most important, for he shows a connexion in
prehistoric times between Etruria and the East.[14] Other deities of
Greek origin there were--Ares, Apollo, Heracles, the Dioscuri; in fact,
as the centuries passed, the Greek divinities were adopted almost
without exception. Besides these there were also many gods of Latin or
Sabine origin, of whom little is known but their names; these may often
be local appellations for the same god. Among these were Voltumna at
Volsinii and Vertumnus at Rome, Janus, Nortia, goddess of Fortuna,
Feronia, whose temple was at a town of the same name at the foot of
Soracte,[15] Mantus, Pales, Vejovis, Eileithyia and Ceres. Such were
the leading gods; in addition there was the world of spirits whom we
know in Rome as the Manes, Lares and Penates. The latter were of four
classes, pertaining to Jove, Neptune, the gods of the lower world, and
to men.[16] The Lares too were of various sorts (_familiares,
compitales, viales_), and with them the souls of the dead, after the
performance of due expiatory rites, took their place as _dii animales_
(Serv. _ad Aen._ iii. 168 and 302). The Manes are the vaguest group of
all and were confined almost wholly to the lower world (Festus, s.v.
"Mundus"; Apuleius, _De deo Socratis_). Over all these ruled Mantus and
Mania, the counterparts of Pluto and Persephone in Greece. As a result
of this complete hierarchy of divine powers the priesthood of Etruria
was large, powerful, and of such fame that Etruscan _haruspices_ were
sent for from distant places to interpret the sacrifices and the oracles
(Livy v. i. 6, xxvii. 37. 6).

_Art_.--The evidence drawn from tradition and custom which we have so
far considered in relation to the origin and beliefs of the Etruscans
has taken us into the prehistoric times much earlier than those when the
handicrafts developed into true fine arts. The contents of the earliest
graves[17] show but few traces of any feeling for art either in
architecture or in the lesser forms of household and personal
decoration. Gradually, however, as one comes down towards the more fixed
historic periods, certain objects, obviously imported from the eastern
Mediterranean, occur, and these are the first signs of an interest in
the beauty or curiosity of things, an interest that local workmen could
not yet satisfy, but which stirred them to endeavour. It was probably
during the 9th century that this began, not long after the period when
foreign trade began to flourish.

The history of Etruscan art has usually been wrongly estimated owing to
the widespread delusion that objects found in Etruria were in the true
sense products of native artists and indicative of native-grown culture.
It is only recently, and not even yet completely, that the term
"Etruscan" has been given up as the name for the terra-cotta vases
(which were found in the 19th century by the earlier archaeologists of
the modern scientific school in great quantities in the Etruscan tombs);
these are now known to have been made by Greek potters. There are few
books on the subject of Etruscan art. The best known is Jules Martha's
_L'Art étrusque_ (2nd ed., 1889), a book which, though full of accurate
data, shows absolute lack of discrimination between those works that are
of Etruscan fabric and those that were brought from other lands,
particularly Greece and the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia and Sicily.
These latter are too generally forgotten in the study both of Greek and
of Etruscan art, and all works which show the Greek spirit are vaguely
supposed to have been produced on the Greek mainland. As much of the
following must be to some extent controversial in character, a concrete
illustration may serve to prevent misconception as to this important
distinction. The beautiful throne in the Ludovisi collection
representing the birth of Aphrodite is commonly spoken of as though made
by some sculptor in Greece. It seems at least as likely that it comes
from Sicily. Not only is the character of the modelling similar to what
we find on Sicilian sculptures and coins, and not quite so sharp as on
most works from Greece, but there is a lyrical feeling for nature in the
pose of the figures and in the pebbled soil on which the main group
stands, which seems to answer to the Sicilian feeling as we know it in
poetry rather than to the Greek.


  Architecture.

The houses of the earliest times were, to judge by the burial urns known
from their shape as _hut-urns_, small single-room constructions of
rectangular plan similar to certain types of the _capanne_ used by the
shepherds to-day. Probably the walls were wattled and the roofs were
certainly thatched, for the urns show plainly the long beams fastened
together at the top and hanging from the ridge down each side. Tombs cut
in the rock offer other and later models of house construction, but
give no suggestion that the Etruscans had any artistic sense in
architecture. Such tombs are mostly later than the 5th century B.C., and
show the most simple form of wood construction. Posts or columns hold up
the walls and the sloping roofs, the latter made of beams with boards
laid lengthwise, covered by others from ridge to eave, the intervening
space forming a coffer, sometimes decorated. Though the walls of such
tombs are often covered with paintings, the relation of the various
parts (and, let it be remembered, these tombs represent the houses of
the living) shows but the coarsest sense of proportion. The elements of
the decoration, such as capitals, mouldings, rosettes, patterns, are
borrowed from Greece, Egypt or elsewhere, and are used redundantly and
with no refinement.[18]

The temples did not differ from those in Greece in any essential
principal of construction except that they were generally square, from
the desire to make them answer to the _templum_ or quadripartite
division of the heavens elaborated by the priests. In Roman times,
"Etruscan style" was the term used for colonnades with wide
intercolumniations, and this shows how the early builders used wood with
its possibility of long architrave beams rather than stone as in Greece.
The interior arrangements of the temple also varied from the Grecian
models, for owing to the fact that the gods of Etruria were often
worshipped in groups of three the cella was divided into three chambers.
The decoration--metopes, friezes, acroteria, &c.--was of terra-cotta
fastened by nails to the wooden walls.

Though we know that the Etruscans were famous for their games,[19] still
there are no remains of _circi_, and so too, though the _satyristae_
were well known,[20] no theatres are left. They were obviously a race of
no literary taste or culture. The theatre at Fiesole which is often
referred to as Etruscan unquestionably dates from Roman times.

Underground tombs have already been mentioned in their relation to
house-architecture, but there are the _tumuli_ such as that called _la
Cucumella_ at Volci, that of the Curiatii at Albano, or that of Porsena
at Clusium, which Pliny describes as one of the wonders of Italy (_H.N._
xxxvi. 19). These great walled-in mounds with their complex of interior
chambers are interesting as reminiscent of tombs in Lydia, but
architecturally they are barbaric and show no developed skill.

There remains one monument which has always been supposed to show a real
advance made by the Etruscans in the art of architecture--the _cloaca
maxima_ in Rome. This round-arched drain was supposed to have been built
by Etruscans, and it was only in 1903 that Commendatore Boni in
excavating the Forum proved that the drain was originally uncovered, and
that the arch was built at the end of the Republic. Thus the honour, not
of discovering the arch, for it was known to the East, but of
popularizing its use, does not belong to the Etruscans, though they did
use it at a comparatively late time for city gates, as at Volterra.[21]
The false arch and dome of the Mycenaeans seems to have been familiar to
them, though there are but few cases of its use on a large scale. The
best-known instances are the Tullianum or Mamertine prison in Rome, the
Regulini-Galassi tomb at Cervetri,[22] one at Sesto Fiorentino near
Florence,[23] at Cortona,[24] at Chiusi, and also those in Latium.[25]

Although there was, therefore, but little development in the greater
arts of literature and architecture among the Etruscans, it is evident
enough that there was much desire to possess the products of the lesser
arts, such as sculpture, jewelry and household ornaments. But here too
the study has been made difficult by the failure to distinguish between
native and imported products. Before studying the objects themselves it
is well to recall the legendary character of Etruscan chronology as
reckoned in _saecula_. Helbig[26] showed that we cannot consider any of
the traditional dates as being accurate until about 644 B.C., the
beginning, that is, of the fifth _saeculum_. This is probably about one
hundred years after the introduction of the Chalcidian (Ionic) alphabet
into the country. One of the earliest examples of the use of it is on a
vase found in the Regulini-Galassi tomb. In considering the trade of the
country it has been pointed out that its chief political connexions were
with Carthage, but the artistic sense of Carthaginians or other
Phoenicians was not more developed than that of the Etruscans. They were
traders, and doubtless brought the Etruscans some of the Egyptian and
Eastern objects which have been found in their tombs, articles that date
from the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. But beside the Phoenicians the
Ionian Greeks from the 9th century had been trading and colonizing in
Sicily and Italy. Herodotus (i. 163) tells how the Phocaeans were the
first of the Greeks to take long voyages, and that they discovered the
Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas and Iberia. Thucydides (vi. 3. 1) says that
it was Chalcidians from Euboea who first settled in Sicily. Pliny
(_Hist. Nat._ xxxv. 12. 43) writes in the same sense, for he tells of
Demaratus who came from Corinth with the artists Eucheir, Diopus,
Eugrammus, about 650 B.C., and first started sculpture in Italy. These
traditions of the coming of Ionian Greeks to Italy are completely borne
out by the archaeological remains found in Ionian lands and in Etruria,
and it is agreed that a great part of what has hitherto been considered
Etruscan is no more Etruscan than the Moorish plates of the 15th century
found in Italy are Florentine. The best works in most of the smaller
arts are almost without exception Greek, the earlier Ionian, the later
Attic; the remainder are made with the distinct intention of imitating
Greek models, and so should be considered as Greek, inasmuch as they do
not show a natural, original expression of feeling on the part of the
Etruscan workman. The Etruscans were dull artists in all lines. They
were skilful copyists, nothing more, as is absolutely proved by the
simple fact that we know of no Etruscan artist by name. If one takes the
articles which are of obviously local manufacture, such as the burial
urns[27] or the ordinary bronze mirrors, or the pottery, it would be
hard to find a similar quantity of work by any other race so lacking in
originality of conception or high excellence of technique.

In the study of the monuments a division must be made distinguishing
between the obviously Greek works, the works done with a desire to copy
Greek models and the work of native artists. To separate the objects in
the way suggested required a very considerable familiarity with Greek
art, and though in many cases the result may be doubtful, still so much
must be taken from the Etruscans that they are shown to have little more
artistic feeling than the Romans. In the earlier centuries a strong
eastern influence appears in the copying of sphinxes and similar eastern
motives, but this soon gave way to the stronger Greek influence, as was
natural, for the intercourse with the Phoenicians was spasmodic whereas
that with the Greeks was constant. But even with the Greeks to kindle
their imaginations, the Etruscans produced no school of art; no steady
progression is traceable. In various towns there were various fashions
of pottery or jewelry, but good, bad and indifferent constantly occur
together in a way possible only among a people who possessed no natural
artistic capacities and had no widespread standards of cultivated taste.
The Ionians have been mentioned as having strongly affected the arts in
Etruria, and, though in the later centuries Athens undoubtedly exported
heavy consignments to Italy, the taste of the Etruscans seems generally
to have preferred the rather heavy loose style of the Ionians, even when
direct contact with them was lost and its place taken by direct
relations with Athens and her colonies.


  Pottery.

Pottery[28] practised enormously by the Etruscans shows as clearly as
possible their essential strength and weakness as artists. Even the
black ware called _bucchero_ is now known to have been manufactured in
other lands and not to be an exclusively Etruscan style. In the earlier
tombs this ware is present in greater numbers than any other, and the
vases exhibit considerable dexterity of manufacture so far as form goes.
But it is evident from comparisons with early Ionian vases that the
better proportioned of the shapes are direct copies of the Ionian. The
decoration of the _bucchero_ is either engraved, in which case it is
almost always extremely rude, or formed by figures modelled or pressed
by a mould on to the body of the vase. In these two last cases the
figures are often suggestive of the farther East (Egyptian and
Mesopotamia), but still more frequently they are taken from Greek
originals, and the natural tendency of the Etruscan artist to be a
copyist is very marked. Whence the moulds for these vases came is not
known, but analogy with other classes of work makes it practically
certain that some were imported and some made by the imitating workmen.
There are other classes of vases which at first sight look as though
they were imported from Greece, but by the nature of their clay are
recognized to be Etruscan imitations of Greek originals. The imitation
is often very skilful, for the Etruscan artist rivalled his Grecian
master in deftness of hand, if not in imagination. Such, for instance,
are the large amphoras decorated with bands of animals in the Corinthian
style. Besides these native Vases the tombs have yielded great
quantities of others which used to be called Etruscan, but are now known
to have been imported from Greece. Until the 6th century B.C. these
vases are mostly Ionian, but at that time the trade of the Phocaeans was
waning before that of Athens, and henceforward the Athenian ware is the
commonest. Intercourse with Athens, however, came to an end about 480,
when the Sicilian Greeks mastered the trade of the western
Mediterranean, so that in the Etruscan tombs later than this date we
find fewer and fewer imported vases, and more and more native
imitations. It is generally taken for granted that these Attic vases
were brought to Etruria by Greek traders, but considering how little the
Greek historians, even Herodotus, knew of that country, this is
unlikely. Then, too, the chief products Etruria had to give Greece were
metals, so it is more likely that it was the Etruscan traders who,
having carried metal to Greece (where Etruscan bronze was famous[29]),
brought back the vases.


  Scarabs.

Though most collections make no distinction between Greek and Etruscan
scarabs the differences, though slight, are quite certain, and consist
in the greater elaboration of the borders, edges and backs of the
Etruscan examples. The commonest material for these gems is red
carnelian, and agate frequently occurs. The beetle shape is undoubtedly
due to the Phoenicians, who familiarized the Etruscans with the Egyptian
scarab and with its signification as an amulet; while in technique they
are more Greek, in use they are more Egyptian, for they were used not
only as seals but as ornaments--as in the decoration of necklaces.[30]
What we learn from them merely serves to strengthen what we learn from
the pottery--that the Etruscans depended on the Greek world for their
artistic conceptions. Though many Phoenician gems (in fact, scarcely any
other kind) have been found in Sardinia, these are comparatively rare in
Etruria, where the earliest gems occur about 650 B.C. Some of these
earliest show the Ionian influence, which is also shown in certain gold
rings, but most of them represent the Attic style as seen on the
black-figured vases of Athens. To understand them one has but to know
Attic sculpture, the complete history of which is repeated in these
small and beautifully worked stones. At first one finds the single
figures, awkward in form and modelling, but full of life in
composition--one finds the same mistakes in anatomy (i.e. the muscles of
the stomach); and then come the figures beautifully worked and
accurately observed, but with the slight hardness and rigidity that
belongs to all pre-Raphaelite work; and finally one sees the figures
carved with the easy assurance of the master, sometimes single,
sometimes in groups, but always Attic in their unrivalled representation
of the beauties of the human figure, and in the innumerable lovely
scenes taken from everyday life. Not infrequently inscriptions are cut
in the gem, but these are not as on Greek gems the name of the carver or
the owner, but the name of the Greek hero represented. In regard to
technique one point is specially noteworthy. Many of the gems are carved
with the round drill, and the disks made by this are not modelled into
any real semblance of a figure. This is not a sign of the antiquity of
the gem, for there are examples in which together with this method will
be seen a figure finished with the greatest care; it is thus evident
that the gem-cutter left the marks of his round drill because of their
decorative value. This they undoubtedly possess, and it is one of the
few cases in which the Etruscans showed any art sense.


  Bronze.

Bronze was used extensively. Weapons of course were fashioned of it, but
these are simple in shape and decoration; no such examples as those from
Mycenae occur. Objects of large size, as the bronze doors of Veii,[31]
the chariots of Perugia in the New York museum, or large tripods or
shields, show that the artisans had large quantities of the material at
their disposal. As with the vases or gems, so in these metal objects the
distinction must be drawn between pure Etruscan work and the work that
was done by Greek workmen or by artisans copying the Greek style. As
Etruscan art has been wrongly estimated through forgetfulness of the
Greek influence, so Greek bronzes have possibly received credit that
does not belong to them. Etruscan candelabra and vases were famous among
the Greeks (Ath. i. 28. 6; xv. 700 c). The chariots above mentioned and
the tripods in the Harvard museum are plainly Greek; the round shields
with ornament in bands are native. Antefixes of tombs were of bronze,
and in some cases the eyes of the figures were inlaid with glass paste.
The best-known articles of bronze are the mirrors,[32] which are very
dependent on Greece for their models, though the poor style in which the
scenes that decorate them are in most cases carved shows that these
articles of common use were produced, as was natural, mainly by ordinary
workmen. In rare cases the figures are not engraved but are given in low
relief. These mirrors seem to have been mainly intended for women, and
the scenes on them in large numbers of cases are of such a character as
to bear out this idea; for instead of scenes of battle such as occur on
the gems, scenes with satyrs and maenads are commoner, or the story of
Helen or the labours of Hercules. So far as development goes they pass
through the same stages as the gems, though owing to their larger
surface they are more generally decorated with groups of figures.[33]
Another well-known class of work is the _cistae_ or cylindrical bronze
boxes found mostly at Praeneste, where they seem to have been especially
popular. The engraved figures on them are of the same character as those
on the mirrors, and it is noteworthy that these figures are often better
in style than the figures modelled in the round that serve as handles,
or than the legs which also are modelled. This, taken together with the
fact that the same figures are repeated in several cases on more than
one gem or mirror, makes it probable that the workmen, like the later
potters of Arezzo, had a stock of models brought from Greece, which they
repeated and combined to suit their fancy.


  Gold and silver.

The paintings and contents of the tombs have made it plain that the
wealth of the Etruscans was very considerable, and that they spent much
on jewelry, gold and silver.[34] Their extravagance in this regard was
well known,[35] and the rings, the necklaces, the diadems, the bracelets
and the earrings show that there was a large class of well-to-do people.
The eastern and Greek influences are clearly marked in the figures used
in decoration, and in certain shapes of rings, but in one technical
matter the Etruscans seem to have made a discovery: it was in the use of
granulated ornament, that is, ornament made by soldering on to the gold
object infinitely small globules of the same metal laid in various
designs and patterns, each globule soldered by itself. Though this style
of ornament occurs in Egypt, Cyprus, Rhodes and Magna Graecia, nowhere
is it accomplished with such extraordinary minuteness as in Etruria.
That they should do this was natural. The difficulty of it seems to have
pleased them, for it is commoner than the earlier filigree work made of
wire soldered on to the gold base. Reference has been made to the
scarabs set as ornament in the gold necklaces, and similarly we find
amber used and, in the later work, precious stones and pearls.


  Sculpture.

As in Greece the Etruscans first carved their figures out of wood,[36]
but what these figures were like we can only imagine. The earliest known
figures in the round are even less successful than the contemporary
Greek work. An early attempt at a female bust[37] is made not by casting
but by riveting plates of bronze together. A half life size bust in the
Tyszkiewicz collection[38] made probably about 600 B.C. is cast solid.
Later they learned the art of hollow-casting, but their attempts to
reproduce figures in the round are generally lacking in skill. One
reason for this was the lack of good marble, the quarries at Carrara not
having been used till Roman times. Terra-cotta was the material most
commonly used, and their skill in modelling and colouring this was
great. The earlier statues of large size have perished; but there are
three famous sarcophagi which show the work of Ionian Etruscan
artists;[39] one is in the British Museum, one in the Louvre and one in
the Villa di Papa Giulio at Rome. The elaborate detail and careful work,
the types of the figures and the style of their dress all point to the
same Ionic origin as that of the bronze chariots already mentioned. The
type of sarcophagus illustrated by these examples became very common,
and in the figures that decorate the covers can be traced the various
influences that affected the whole of Etruscan art. In an example from
Volci[40] the later Attic influence is strongly marked. Such work shows
little power of origination, but much of the interest taken by careful
workmen by copying carefully, and the tendency that such workmen almost
invariably display of overloading the subject with too much ornament and
detail. The small ash-urns, either of stone or terra-cotta, are in
certain ways more interesting than the more elaborate sarcophagi, for on
these urns the heads of the figures reclining on one elbow which form
the usual decoration of the covers are often obvious attempts at
portraiture. Single busts[41] show this same desire for accurate
likeness of the person represented, and in this one line of art the
Etruscans showed a new feeling, one that found its finest expression in
the hands of the later Roman portraitists. The main difference between
such portraits and the Greek ones is that the Greek artist thought of
his subject as illustrating character that showed itself in ways of
repose and thought--the essential, lasting individuality. The Etruscan
and Roman portraitist thought, on the other hand, of his subject as
illustrating character in ways of action; hence pure Etruscan and Roman
portraits are much more tense in line, and the expression of the eye is
not dreamy but distinctly focussed. They are different, but, as art, one
is as fine as the other. The scenes on the sides of these urns are, as
in the case of the gems and mirrors, very frequently taken from Greek
story, and often are scenes of battle.[42] Work in relief for the
friezes and the other decorations of temples was very common, and shows
remarkable skill in the mere processes of modelling and baking the slabs
of terra-cotta that were fastened by nails to the beams. So far as the
figures themselves are concerned, they seem to have but little meaning
in connexion with the building they decorate. Satyrs and maenads,
chariot-races and such scenes taken over from Greek models are perhaps
the commonest. In none of the obviously native work is there any more
instinctive feeling for the greater qualities of sculpture than in the
gems. Little is original, almost everything dependent on earlier
masters. There is no absorption of the artist by his work which produces
great work, great because the beholder thinks rather of the work
produced than of the artist who produces it. For this reason such
figures as the bronze chimaera or the bronze Athena in the Florence
museum are presumably not Etruscan but Greek.


  Painting.

There is no evidence that the Etruscans had easel-paintings like the
Greeks, but their skill in painting is well illustrated by the pictures
with which they frequently covered the inner walls of their tombs. The
wall was prepared with a coating of fine white stucco on which the
figures were painted with a large variety of tints. The best of them
have been found at Tarquinii, Chiusi, Volci, Caere, Veii.[43] The
paintings exhibit the usual Greek influences. They show a certain
ponderous realism, but as works of art they are of little value. As
pictures of the life and customs of the people they are of great
importance.


  Coins.

As works of art their coins[44] are the worst efforts of the Etruscans.
Gold, silver and bronze were used, but no examples can be dated earlier
than the beginning of the 5th century B.C. The coins are struck
according to four different standards of weight, due perhaps to
different trade-connexions. The bronze coinage shows a distinct scale of
reduction in weight due to the increasing use of the precious metals.
Many examples show a design only on one side. The designs of the
majority of the types are taken from Greek models, but strangely enough
the die-cutters show no such skill as that of the makers of gems.

_Arms and Armour_.--In the early periods the chief weapons (besides bows
and arrows which bore flint or bronze heads) were few and simple, and
were of bronze. Iron ones have been found, and their rarity is doubtless
partly due to their having rusted away. Spears of very various weights
were common and also swords and daggers. These latter had straight
two-edged blades with the handle either of the same piece or of some
other material fastened on with rivets. The blades of the daggers are
generally engraved with lines and zigzags. Shields were of circular and
oval shape. These two were of bronze, the round ones decorated in
Homeric fashion with concentric circles of ornament, the motives being
geometric patterns or an animal repeated endlessly. Breastplates with
overlapping shoulder-straps and belts, broader in front than behind,
with decoration of the same kind as the bucchero vases, are not
uncommon. Greaves and helmets completed their equipment. The former seem
to have been less ornate than those the Greeks wore; the latter were of
various shapes, the commonest being round caps with a knob on the top,
or a deeper shape with a crest from front to back. Some are shown with
side-pieces raised like wings, but these are perhaps merely cheek-pieces
raised on hinges. In later times they had trumpets and axes, and their
arms became practically the same as the Roman, as one sees from the
representations in the tombs.     (R. N.)


LANGUAGE

1. By "Etruscan" is meant the language spoken by the people called
Etrusci (more commonly Tusci) by the Romans, Turskum numen (i.e. _Tuscum
nomen_) by their neighbours the Umbrians of Iguvium (q.v.), and [Greek:
Tursênoi] (later, e.g. in Strabo's time, [Greek: Turrênoi]) by the
Greeks. Their own name for themselves was _Rasénna_ (or _Raséna_),
according to Dionysius Halic. (i. 30), but it seems now to be fairly
probable that this was no more than the name of a leading house
(represented later on in Pisa and elsewhere) dominant at some fairly
early date in some one locality (see below). Niebuhr attempted on
slender grounds (_Rom. Hist._, ed. 3 [Eng. trans.], i. p. 41) to
distinguish between the [Greek: Turrênoi] and the Tusci in order to
accept the strongly supported tradition of a Lydian origin for the
"Tyrrhenes" (see below), while rejecting it for the "Tuscans," but no
one has since attempted to maintain the distinction (Dittenberger,
_Hermes_, 1906, p. 85, footnote, regards the form [Greek: -ênoi] as a
"Graecized form of a local name" equivalent to _Tusci_), and we now know
enough of the morphology of Etruscan names to recognize _Tur-s-co-_ and
_Tur-s-eno-_ as closely parallel Etrusco-Latin stems, cf. _Venu-c-ius:
Venu-senus_ both from Etr. _venu_ (Schulze, _Lat. Eigennamen_, p. 405)
and _Ras-ena: Ras-c-anius_ (ibid. p. 92); or _Voluscus, Volscus:
Volusenus_ (where the formative suffixes in each word are Etrusco-Latin
whether the root be the same or not). But the analysis of the names
cannot be entirely satisfactory until the first syllable of Etrusci--in
Greek writers sometimes [Greek: Etrouskoi], e.g. in _Strabo_--ed.
Meineke--has been explained.

2. The extent of territory over which this language was spoken varied
considerably at different epochs, but we have only a few fixed points of
chronology. From two separate sources, both traditional and probably
sound (Dion. Hal. i. 26, and Plutarch, _Sulla_, 7; cf. Varro, quoted by
Censorinus c. 17. 6), we should ascribe the first appearance of the
Etruscans in Italy to the 12th century B.C. The intimate connexion in
form between the names _Roma, Romulus_ and the Etruscan gentes rumate,
rumulna (_Romatia, Romilia_, &c.), and the fact that many of the early
names in Rome (e.g. _Ratumenna, Capena, Tities, Luceres, Ramnes_) are
characteristically Etruscan, justifies the conclusion that the
foundation of the city, in the sense at least of its earliest
fortification, was due to Etruscans (Schulze, p. 580). The most likely
interpretation of Cato's date for the Etruscan "foundation" of Capua is
598 B.C. (Conway, Italic Dialects, pp. 99 and 83). In 524 B.C. (Dion.
Hal. vii. 2) the Etruscans were defeated by Aristodemus of Cumae, and in
474 by Hiero of Syracuse in a great naval battle off Cumae. Between 445
and 425 (_It. Dial._ l.c.) they were driven out of Capua by the
Samnites, but they lingered in parts of Campania (as far south as
Salernum) till at least the next century, as inscriptions show (ib. pp.
94 ff., 53), as at Praeneste and Tusculum (ib. p. 310 ff.) till the 3rd
century or later. In Etruria itself the oldest inscriptions (on the
stelae of Faesulae and Volaterrae) can hardly be later than the 6th
century B.C. (C. Pauli, _Altital. Forsch._ ii. part 2, 24 ff.); the
Romans had become dominant early in the 3rd century (C.I.L. xi. 1
_passim_), but the bulk of the Etruscan inscriptions show later forms
than those found in the old town of Volsinii destroyed by the Romans in
280 B.C. (C. Pauli, ib. i. 127). In the north of Italy we find Etruscan
written in two alphabets (of Sondrio and Bozen) between 300 and 150 B.C.
(id. ib. pp. 63 and 126). The evidence of an Etruscan linen book wrapped
round a mummy (see below) seems to suggest that there was some Etruscan
colony at Alexandria in the period of the Ptolemies. At least one
Etruscan suffix has passed into the Romance languages, _-i[t]a_ or
_-ita_ in Etr. _lautni[t]a_ (from _lautni_ "familiaris," or "libertus"),
and Etr.-Lat. _Iulitta_, which became Ital. _-etta_, Fr.-Eng. _-ette_.

3. Finally must be mentioned the remarkable pre-Hellenic epitaph
discovered on the island of Lemnos in 1885 (Pauli, _Altital. Forsch._
ii. 1 and 2), the language of which offers remarkable resemblances to
Etruscan, especially in the phrase _sial[ch]veiz aviz_ (? = "fifty years
old"); cf. Etr. _ceal[ch]us avils_ (? "twenty years old"); and the pair
of endings _-ezi, -ale_ in consecutive words; cf. Etr. _lar[t]iale
hul[ch]niesi_; the style of the sculptural figure has also parallels in
the oldest type of Etruscan monuments. The alphabet of this inscription
is identical (Kirchhoff, _Stud. Griech. Alphab._, 4th ed., p. 54) with
that of the older group of Phrygian inscriptions, which mention King
Midas and are therefore older than 620 B.C. With this should be combined
the fact that a marked peculiarity of the South-Etruscan alphabet ([up
arrow] = f, but earlier = the Greek _digamma_) has demonstrably arisen
out of [glyph] = q on Phrygian soil, see _Class. Rev._ xii., 1898, p.
462. Despite the reasonable but not unanswerable difficulty of
Kretschmer (_Einleitung in d. Geschichte d. griech. Sprache_, 1896, p.
240), the weight of the evidence appears to be distinctly in favour of
the Etruscan character of the language, and Pauli's view is now
generally accepted by students of Etruscan; hence the inclusion of the
inscription in the _Corpus Inscc. Etruscarum_.

4. The first attempt to interpret Etruscan inscriptions was made by
Phil. Buonarroti (_Explic. et conject. ad monum._ &c., Florence, 1726),
who, as was almost inevitable at that epoch, tried to explain the
language as a dialect of Latin. But no real study was possible before
the determination of the alphabet by Lepsius (_Inscc. Umbr. et Oscae_,
Leipzig, 1841), and his discovery that five of the Tables of Iguvium
(q.v.), though written in Etruscan alphabet, contained a language akin
to Latin but totally different from Etruscan, though some of the
non-Italic peculiarities of Etruscan had been already pointed out by
Ottfried Müller (_Die Etrusker_, Breslau, 1828). The earliest
inscriptions, e.g. the terra-cotta stele of Capua of the 5th century
B.C., are written in "serpentine boustrophedon," but in its common form
of the 3rd century B.C. the alphabet is retrograde, and has the
following nineteen letters:--

  [19 glyphs here are aligned with the letters below]
  a, c, e, v, z, h, [theta], i, l, m, n, p, s', r, s, t, u, [chi], f

On older monuments [glyph] = k occurs as an archaic form of c; [glyph] =
q; [glyph], a sibilant of some kind; and [glyph] = [glyph], this last
mostly in foreign words. In the earlier monuments the cross-bars of e
and v and h have a more decidedly oblique inclination, and s is often
angular ([glyph]). The mediae b, g, d, though they often occur in words
handed down by writers as Etruscan, are never found in the Etruscan
inscriptions, though the presence of the mediae in the Umbrian and Oscan
alphabets and in the abecedaria shows that they existed in the earliest
form of the Etruscan alphabet, O is very rare. The form [glyph] (earlier
[two glyphs] ) = f in south Etruscan and Faliscan inscriptions should
also be mentioned. Its combination with [glyph] h shows that it had once
served to denote the sound of digamma just as Latin F. The varieties of
the alphabet in use between the Apennines and the Alps were first
examined by Mommsen (_Inschriften nord-etruskischen Alphabets_, 1853),
and have since been discussed by Pauli (_Altitalische Forschungen_,
1885-1894, esp. vol. iii., _Die Veneter_, p. 218, where other references
will be found, see also VENETI).

5. The determination of the alphabet was followed by a large number of
different attempts to explain the Etruscan forms from words in some
other language to which it was supposed that Etruscan might be akin;
Scandinavian and Basque and Semitic have been tried among the rest.
These attempts, however ingenious, have all proved fruitless; even the
latest and least fanciful (_Remarques sur le parenté de la langue
étrusque_, Copenhagen, 1899; _Bulletin de l'Académie Royale des Sciences
et des Lettres de Danemark_, 1899, p. 373), in which features of some
living dialects of the Caucasus are cautiously compared by Prof. V.
Thomsen (as independently by Pauli, see § 12), is at the best premature,
and as to the numerals probably misleading. Worst of all was the effort
of W. Corssen (_Die Sprache der Etrusker_, 1875), in whom learning and
enthusiasm were combined with loose methods of both epigraphy and
grammar, to revive the view of Buonarroti. The only solid achievement in
the period of Corssen's influence (1860-1880) was the description of the
works of art (tombs, vases, mirrors and the like) from the different
centres of Etruscan population; Dennis's _Cities and Cemeteries of
Etruria_ (1st ed., 1848; 2nd, 1878) contributes something even to the
study of the language, because many of the figures in the scenes
sculptured or engraved bear names in Etruscan form (e.g. _usils_, "sun";
or "of the sun," on the _templum_ of Placentia; _fufluns_;, "Bacchus";
_tu[ch]ul[ch]a_, a demon or fury; see Dennis, _Cities_, 2nd ed.,
frontispiece, and p. 354).

6. The reaction against Corssen's method was led first by W. Deecke,
_Corssen und die Sprache der Etrusker_ (1876), _Etruskische Forschungen_
(1875-1880), and continued by Carl Pauli at first jointly with Deecke
and afterwards singly with greater power (_Etruskische Studien_, 1873),
_Etr. Forschungen u. Studien_ (Göttingen-Stuttgart, 1881-1884),
_Altitalische Studien_ (Hanover, 1883-1887); _Altitalische Forschungen_
(Leipzig, 1885-1894). Of the work achieved during the last generation by
him and the few but distinguished scholars associated with him
(Danielsson, Schaefer, Skutsch and Torp) it may perhaps be said that,
though the positive knowledge yet reaped is scanty, so much has been
done in other ways that the prospect is full of promise. In the first
place, the only sound method of dealing with an unknown language, that
of interpreting the records of the language by their own internal
evidence in the first instance (not by the use of imaginary parallels in
better known languages whose kinship with the problematic language is
merely assumed), has been finally established and is now followed even
by scholars like Elia Lattes, who still retain some affection for the
older point of view. By this means enough certainty has been obtained on
many characteristic features of the language to bring about a general
recognition of the fact that Etruscan, if we put aside its borrowings
from the neighbouring dialects of Italy, is in no sense an Indo-European
language. In the second place, the great undertaking of the _Corpus
Inscriptionum Etruscarum_, founded by Carl Pauli, with the support of
the Berlin Academy, conducted by him from 1893 till his death in 1901,
and continued by Danielsson, Herbig and Torp, for the first time
provided a sound basis for the study in a text of the inscriptions,
edited with care and arranged according to their provenance. The first
volume contains over four thousand inscriptions from the northern half
of Etruria. Thirdly, the discoveries of recent years have richly
increased the available material, especially by two documents each of
some length. (1) The 5th-century stele of terra-cotta from S. Maria di
Capua already cited, published by Buecheler in _Rhein. Museum_, (lv.,
1900, p. 1) and now in the Royal Museum at Berlin, is the longest
Etruscan inscription yet found. Its best preserved part contains some
two hundred words of continuous text, and is divided into paragraphs, of
which the third may be cited in the reading approved by Danielsson and
Torp, and with the division of words adopted by Torp (in his
_Bemerkungen zur etrusk. Inschr. von S. Maria di Capua_, Christiania,
1905), to which the student may be referred. "isvei tule ilucve, an pris
laruns ilucu[t]u[ch], nun: ti[t]uaial [ch]ues [ch]a[t]c(e) anulis mulu
rizile, ziz riin puiian acasri, ti-m an tule, le[t]am sul; ilucu-per
pris an ti, ar vus; ta aius, nun[t]eri." (2) The linen wrappings of an
Egyptian mummy (of the Ptolemaic period) preserved in the Agram museum
were observed to show on their inner surface some writing, which proved
to be Etruscan and to contain more than a thousand words of largely
continuous text (Krall, "Die etruskischen Mumienbinden des Agramer.
Museums," _Denkschr. d. k. Akad. d. Wissenschaften_, 41, Vienna, 1892).
The writing has probably nothing to do with the mummy as it is on the
inner surface of the bands, and these are torn fragments of the original
book. The alphabet is of about the 3rd century B.C.

  7. From the recurrence of a number of particular formulae with
  frequent numerals at intervals, the book seems to be a liturgical
  document. Torp has pointed out that the two documents have some forty
  words in common, and, with Lattes ("Primi Apprenti sulla grande
  iscriz. Etrusca," &c., in _Rendic. d. Reale Inst. Lomb._, serie ii.
  vol. xxxviii., 1900, p. 345 ff.), has shown that both contain lists of
  offerings made to certain gods (among them Suri, Le[t]am, and Calu);
  and Skutsch (_Rhein. Mus._ 56, 1901, p. 639) has added a plausible
  conjecture as to the occasions of the offerings, based on the phrase
  "fler[ch]va ne[t]unsl" "Neptuni statua" (or "statuae pars"); Torp has
  made it very probable that the words _vacl_ (or _vacil_) and _nun_,
  which recur at regular intervals in both, mean "address," "recite,"
  "pray," or the like, preceding or following spoken parts of the
  ritual.

  8. Along with the growth of the material, some positive increase in
  knowledge of the language has been attained. Independently of the work
  done upon particular inscriptions, such as that which has just been
  described, a considerable addition has come from the elaborate study
  of Latin proper names already mentioned by Prof. W. Schulze of Berlin
  (_Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen_, Berlin, 1904), which has
  incidentally embodied and somewhat extended the points of Etruscan
  nomenclature previously observed. The chief results for our purpose
  may be briefly stated. It will be convenient to use the following
  terms:--

  (1) _praenomen_ = personal name of the individual.

    e.g. _Vel_ or _Lar_ of a man, _Lar[t]i_ or _[t]ana_ of a woman.

  (2) _nomen_ = family name.

    e.g. _Tite_ or _Vipi_ or _Tetna_, of men.
         _Titi_ or _Vipinei_ or _Tetinei_, of women.

  (3) _cognomen_ = additional family name.

    e.g. _Faru_ or _Petru_ of men, _Farui, Vetui_ of women.

  (4) _agnomen_ = special cognomen derived from the cognomen of the
  father.

    e.g. _Hanusa_ (in Latin spelling _Hannossa_) or _Pultusa_ (also
    _Pultus_) of a man; _Hanunia_ of a woman.

  All these are commonly in the "nominative" (as the examples just
  quoted from Schulze, pp. 316-327) in sepulchral inscriptions.

  Besides these, we have certain other descriptions used in forms which
  may be called a "genitive-dative" case, or a "derivative possessive"
  Adjective. These may be entitled:--

  (5) _paternum_ (a) = praenomen of father, used generally after the
  _nomen_ of son or daughter.

    e.g. _arn[t]al_ "of _Arn[t]_." more commonly simply _ar_, so _ls_
    for _Laris-al_, to which _clan_ "son," often abbreviated _c_, and
    _se[ch]_ or _sec_ (abbrev. _s_) "daughter," are sometimes added.

  _paternum (b) = nomen_ of father, used only after the _praenomen_ of a
  daughter (e.g. _[t]ana vel[t]urnas_, "Thana daughter of Velthurna"),
  to which _se[ch]_ "daughter," often abbreviated _s_, is sometimes
  added.

  (6) _maternum_ (a) = nomen of mother.

    e.g. _pumpunial_, "of Pumpuni" (in Lat. form _Pomponia_); _alfnal_
    "of Alfnei" (Lat. _Alfia_); _hetarias_, "of Hetaria."

  _maternum_ (b) = cognomen of mother.

    e.g. _vetnal_, "of Vetui," or "of Vetonia," _hesual_, "of Hesui."

  _maternum_ (c) = agnomen of mother.

    e.g. _cumerunias_, "of Cumerunia," i.e. "of a daughter of the
    _cumeru_-family."

  (7) _maritale_--(i.) _nomen_, or (ii.) _cognomen_, or (iii.) _agnomen_
  of husband, used directly after the _nomen_ of the wife, the word
  _puia_, "wife," being often added.

    e.g. (i.) _lar[t]i cencui larcnasa_, "Larthia Cenconia, wife of a
    Largena"; (ii.) _lar[t]ia pulfnei spaspusa_, "Larthia Pulfennia,
    wife of a Spaspo"; this form being the same as that used for the
    _agnomen_ of a man (see above)--(iii.) _hastia cainei leusla_,
    "Hastia Caia, wife of a son of a Leo"; and with a longer and
    possibly not synonymous form of suffix, _[t]ania titi latinial sec
    hanuslisa_, "Thania Titia, daughter of Latinia, wife of a
    Hanusa"--these secondary derivatives in _-sla_, &c., being an
    example of what is called _genetivus genetivi_, a characteristic
    Etruscan formation, not confined to this feminine use.

  These examples will probably enable the reader to interpret the great
  mass of the names on Etruscan tombs. It should be added (1) that no
  clear distinction can be drawn between the use of the _cognomina_ and
  the _nomina_, though it is probable that in origin the _cognomen_ came
  from some family connected with the gens by marriage; and (2) that the
  _praenomen_ generally comes first, but sometimes second (especially
  when both _nomen_ and _praenomen_ are added in the genitive to the
  name of a son or daughter).

  9. The examples given illustrate also the few principles of inflexion
  and word-formation that are reasonably certain, for example, the
  various "genitival" endings. Those in _-s_ and _-l_ are also found in
  dedications where in Latin a dative would be used:--e.g. (_mi_)
  _[t]upl[t]as alpan turce_ "(hoc) deae Thupelthae donum dedit," where
  _turce_ shows the only verbal inflection yet certainly known; cf.
  _amce_, "was," _arce_, "made," _zilacnuce_, "held the office of a
  _Zila[ch]_," _lupuce_, "passed away." More important are the formative
  principles which the proper names display. Endings _-a, -u, -e_ and
  _-na_ are common in the "Nominative"--and in Etruscan there appears to
  be no distinction between this case and the Accusative--of men's
  names; the endings _-i, -ei, -nei, -nia_ and _-unia_ are among the
  commonest for women's names. But no trace of gender has yet been
  observed in common nouns or adjectives. Nor is it always easy to
  distinguish a "Case" from a noun-stem. The women's names corresponding
  to the men's names in _-u_ are sometimes _-ui_, sometimes _-nei_,
  sometimes longer forms (_ves-acnei_, beside _ves-u, hanunia_ from
  _hanu_). And the so-called Genitives can themselves be inflected, as
  we have seen. The form _ne[t]unsl_ "of Neptune," may even have
  swallowed up the nominatival _-s_ of the Italic _Neptunus_.

  10. In view of the protracted discussion as to the numerals and the
  dice on which the first six are written, it should be added that only
  the following points are certain: (1) that _ma[ch]_ = one; (2) that
  the next five numbers are somehow represented by _ci, [t]u, hu[t], sa_
  and _zal_; (3) and the next three somehow by _cezp-, sem[ph]-_ and
  _muv_; (4) that the suffix _-al[ch]-_ denotes the tens, or some of
  them, e.g. _ceal[ch]-_ beside _ci_ (? 50 and 5); (5) that the suffix
  _-z_ or _-s_ is multiplicative (_es(a)ls_ from _zal_). It is almost
  certain that _zal_ must mean either 2 or 6, and of these a stronger
  case can, perhaps, be made for the latter meaning. _Zathrum_ appears
  to be the corresponding ten (? 60). Skutsch's article in _Indogerm.
  Forschungen_, v. p. 256, remains the best account.

  In close connexion with the numerals on sepulchral inscriptions appear
  the words _ril_, "old, aged," _avils_, "annorum," or "aetatis," and
  _tivr_, "month" (from _tiv_, "moon").

  11. Schulze has shown (e.g., p. 410) that a large number of familiar
  endings (e.g. those which when Latinized become _-acius, -alius,
  -annius, -arius, -asius, -atius, -avus, -avius, -ax_, and a similar
  series with _-o-, -ocius_, &c.), and further those with the elements,
  _-lno-_, _-lino-, -enna, -eno-, -tern-, -turn-, -tric-_, &c., exhibit
  different methods by which _nomina_ were built up from _praenomina_ in
  Etruscan. Finally it is of considerable historical importance to
  observe that a great mass of the _praenomina_ used for this purpose
  are clearly of Italic origin, e.g. _Helva, Barba, Vespa, Nero, Pedo_,
  from all of which (and many more) there are derivatives which at one
  stage or other were certainly or probably Etruscan. It is this
  incorporation of Italic elements into the Etruscan
  nomenclature--itself a familiar and inevitable feature of the
  pirate-type of conquest and settlement, under which many women who
  bear and nurse and first name the children belong to the conquered
  race--that has entrapped so many scholars into the delusion that the
  language itself was Indo-European.

12. So far the language has been discussed without any reference to
ethnology. But the facts stated above in regard to the extension of the
language in space and time are clearly adverse to the hypothesis that it
came into Italy from the north, and fully bear out Livy's account (v.
33. 11) that the Etruscans of the Alpine valleys had been driven into
that isolation by the invasion of the Gauls (beginning about 400 B.C.).
And the accumulating evidence of a connexion with Asia Minor (see e.g.
above § 3) justifies confidence in the unbroken testimony of every Roman
writer, which cannot but represent the traditions of the Etruscans
themselves, and the evidence of similar traditions from the Asiatic side
given by Herodotus (i. 97) to the effect that they came to Italy by sea
from Lydia. Against this there has never been anything to set but the
silence of "the Lydian historian Xanthus" (Dion. Hal. i. 28; cf. 30) who
may have had many excellent reasons for it other than a disbelief of the
tradition, and of whom in any case we know nothing save the vague
commendation of Dionysius. And it is not merely the miscellanies of
Athenaeus (e.g. xii. 519) but the unimpeachable testimony of the Umbrian
Plautus (_Cistellaria_, 2. 3. 19), singularly neglected since Dennis's
day, that convicts the Etruscans of an institution practised by the
Lydians and other non-Indo-European peoples of Asia Minor, but totally
repugnant to all the peoples among whom the Etruscans moved in their
western settlement. The reader may be referred to Dennis's introductory
chapter for a very serviceable collection of the other ancient testimony
as to their origin. In the present state of our knowledge of the
language it is best to disregard its apparent or alleged resemblances to
various features of various Caucasian dialects pointed out by Thomsen
(see above) and Pauli (_Altit. Forsch._ ii. 2, p. 147 ff.), and to
acquiesce in Kretschmer's (_op. cit._ p. 408) _non liquet_ as to the
particular people of Asia Minor from whom the Etruscans sprang. But
meanwhile it is clear that such evidence as has been obtained by
epigraphic and linguistic research is not in any sense hostile but
distinctly favourable to the tradition of their origin which they
themselves must have maintained.

  AUTHORITIES.--Beside those mentioned in the text, see Professor F.
  Skutsch's article "Etruskisch," in the new current (1908) edition of
  Pauly-Wissowa's _Encyclopaedia_; A. Torp's _Etruskische Beiträge_, and
  other shorter writings; E. Lattes's _Correzioni, giunte, postille al
  C. I. Etrusc._ (Florence, 1904), and his most valuable _Iscriz.
  paleolatine di provenienza Etrusca_ (1895); Schaefer's articles in
  Pauli's _Altitalische Studien_ (see above), and, with caution,
  Deecke's revision of Müller's _Etrusker_ (Stuttgart, 1877). Some
  account of the relations of Etruscans with different Italic
  communities will be found in the relevant chapters of R.S. Conway's
  edition of the remains of _The Italic Dialects_ (1897). Newly
  discovered Etruscan inscriptions are regularly published in the
  _Notizie degli scavi di antichità_, the official Italian journal of
  excavations (published by the _Reale Accad. dei Lincei_, but
  procurable separately). Fabretti's _Corpus Inscc. Italicarum_ with its
  supplements was formerly useful, but in any doubtful reading its
  authority is worth little, and its commentary and glossary represent
  the epoch of Corssen. The regular contributions of Prof. Skutsch
  (under the general heading "Lateinische Sprache") to Vollmer's
  _Jahresbericht f. d. Fortschritte der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft_;
  and of Prof. Herbig to Bursian's _Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte
  der classischen Altertumswissenschaft_ will both be of service. The
  present writer is indebted to both Professor Skutsch and Professor
  Torp for valuable guidance and instruction.     (R. S. C.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] For Barnabei's excavations see Fausto Benedetti, _Gli Scavi di
    Narce ed il Museo di Villa Giulia_ (1900).

  [2] For a further discussion see _ad fin._, section _Language_.

  [3] See Pauli, _Altitalische Forschungen_, vol. i.; also sect.
    _Language_ (below).

  [4] Cf. the contents of the graves found by Boni in the Roman Forum
    (_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1902, 1903, 1905) with the objects
    represented in the plates of Montelius, _La Civilisation primitive en
    Italie_, pt. i. For the cemeteries at Novilara cf. Brizio, _Monumenti
    antichi_, vol. v.

  [5] [Greek: tên te Rhômên autên tôn suggrapheôn Tyrrênida polin einai
    hupelabon], Dion. Hal. i. 29; but see sect. _Language_ for meaning of
    [Greek: Tyrrênia].

  [6] For the wars of the Greeks against the Carthaginians and the
    Etruscans see Busolt, _Griechische Geschichte_, ii. 218 ff.

  [7] Pliny (_H.N._ xxxvii. 11). He says that amber was brought by the
    Germans down the valley of the Po. Thence the trade-route crossed the
    Apennines to Pisa (Scylax in _Geographi minores_, ed. Didot, i. p.
    25). In the consideration of problems suggested by amber it is too
    often forgotten that a very beautiful dark amber is found in Sicily.

  [8] Montelius, _Civilization primitive en Italie_, ii. pl. 265; cf.
   Petrie. _Naukratis_, i. pl. 20, fig. 15, and Perrot-Chipiez,
   _Histoire de l'art_, iii.

  [9] _Monumenti dell' Inst. Arch. Rom._ x. pl. 31; _Museo Etrusco
    Vaticano_, i. pl. 63-69; cf. _Annali dell' Inst. Arch._, 1896, p. 199
    ff.

  [10] Vase with hieroglyphs found at Santa Marinella, _Bollettino
    dell' Inst. Arch._, 1841, p. 111; _Mon. antichi_, viii. p. 88.

  [11] G. Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_.

  [12] Varro _ap._ Serv. _ad Aen._ viii. 526; see Helbig, _Bull. dell'
    Inst. Arch._ (1876), 227.

  [13] Censorinus, _De Die Nat._ 17.

  [14] See Preller, _Röm. Myth._ s.v. "Volcanus." Opposed to this see
    Wissowa, _Religion u. Kultus der Römer_, who seems to misinterpret
    the evidence.

  [15] Strabo v. 2. 39; cf. Livy i. 30; Dion. Hal. iii. 32.

  [16] Nigidius Figulus _ap._ Arnob. _adv._ Nat. iii. 40; cf. _Nig.
    Fig. reliquiae_, ed. Ant. Swoboda (1888), p. 83.

  [17] Montelius, _Civ. Prim. en Italie_.

  [18] For an illustration of the Corneto tomb see ARCHITECTURE, vol.
    ii. p. 559.

  [19] Appian viii. 66; Tertullian, _De spect._ 5; Plutarch, _Qu. Rom._
    107.

  [20] Dion. Hal. vii. 72.

  [21] Montelius, _Civ. Prim._ ii. pl. 172.

  [22] Ib. pl. 333; cf. 343.

  [23] Ib. pl. 166.

  [24] Ib. pl. 173.

  [25] _Monum. Ant_. xv. p. 151; _Bull. d. Com. Arch. di Roma_, 1898,
    p. 111.

  [26] _Annali dell' Inst. Arch._, 1876, 230.

  [27] Gerhard, _Etruskische Spiegel_; Körte, _Rilievi delle urne
    Etrusche_.

  [28] See Pottier, _Catalogue des vases antiques, II. L'École
    Ionienne_, Boehlau, _Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen_; Karo,
    _De arte vascularia antiquissima_; Endt, _Ionische Vasenmalerei_. See
    further CERAMICS, § Etruscan.

  [29] Athen. i. 28.

  [30] Martha, _L'Art étrusque_, pl. I, 4; _Bull. dell' Inst._ (1837)
    p. 46.

  [31] Plutarch, _Camillus_, 12.

  [32] Gerhard, _Etr. Spiegel_ (continued by Klugmann and Körte).

  [33] Mirrors of Greek style, Gerhard, 111, 112, 116, 240, 305, 352;
    Klugmann-Körte, 107, 131, 160.

  [34] See plates in Martha and in _Monumenti dell' Inst._, also _Mon.
    Ant._ iv. and Milani's _Studie materiali_.

  [35] Juvenal v. 164; Ovid, _Am._ iii. 13. 25 ff.

  [36] Pliny, _H.N._ xiv. 9; xvi. 216.

  [37] From the Polledrara tomb at Vulci, Martha fig. 335.

  [38] _Coll. Tyszkiewicz_, pl. 13.

  [39] _Mon. dell' Inst._ vi. pl. 59, cf. _Annali_ (1861), p. 402;
    _Mon. Ant._ viii. pl. xiii.-xiv.

  [40] _Mon. dell' Inst._ viii. pl. 20; Martha p. 347.

  [41] Martha pp. 333, 348.

  [42] See Körte, _Rilievi delle urne Etrusche_.

  [43] See _Mon. dell' Inst._ i. pl. 32-33, v. 16, 17, 33, 34, vi.
    30-32, 79, viii. 36, ix. 13-15; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 58. Cf.
    Helbig, _Annali_ (1863) p. 336, (1870) pp. 5-74; Brunn, ib. (1866),
    p. 442.

  [44] Mommsen, _Röm. Münzwesen_; G.F. Hill, _Handbook of Greek and
    Roman Coins_; Deecke, _Etruskische Forschungen_; also article
    NUMISMATICS.




ETTENHEIM, a town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Baden, pleasantly
situated on the Ettenbach, under the western slope of the Black Forest,
7 m. E. from the Rhine by rail. Pop. (1900) 3106. It has a handsome
Roman Catholic church, with ceiling frescoes, and containing the tomb of
Cardinal Rohan, the last prince bishop of Strassburg, who resided here
from 1790 till 1803; a Protestant church and a medieval town-hall. Its
industries include the manufacture of tobacco, soap and leather, and
there is a considerable trade in wine and agricultural produce. Founded
in the 8th century by Eddo, bishop of Strassburg, Ettenheim remained
attached to that see until 1802, when it passed to Baden. Louis Antoine
Henri de Bourbon-Condé, duke of Enghien (1772-1804), who had taken
refuge here in 1801, was arrested in Ettenheim on the 15th of March 1804
and conveyed to Paris, where he was shot on the 20th of March following.
The Benedictine abbey of Ettenheimmünster, which was founded in the 8th
century and which was dissolved in 1803, occupied a site south of the
town.




ETTINGSHAUSEN, CONSTANTIN, BARON VON (1826-1897), Austrian geologist and
botanist, was born in Vienna on the 16th of June 1826. He graduated as a
doctor of medicine in Vienna, and became in 1854 professor of botany and
natural history at the medical and surgical military academy in that
city. In 1871 he was chosen professor of botany at Graz, a position
which he occupied until the close of his life. He was distinguished for
his researches on the Tertiary floras of various parts of Europe, and on
the fossil floras of Australia and New Zealand. He died at Graz on the
1st of February 1897.

  PUBLICATIONS.--_Die Farnkräuter der Jetztwelt zur Untersuchung und
  Bestimmung der in den Formationen der Erdrinde eingeschlossenen
  Überreste von vorweltlichen Arten dieser Ordnung nach dem
  Flächen-Skelet bearbeitet_ (1865); _Physiographie der
  Medicinal-Pflanzen_ (1862); _A Monograph of the British Eocene Flora_
  (with J. Starkie Gardner), Palaeontograph. Soc. vol. i. (Filices,
  1879-1882).




ETTLINGEN, a town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Baden, on the Alb,
and the railway Mannheim-Basel, 4½ m. S. of Karlsruhe. Pop. (1905) 8040.
It is still surrounded by old walls and ditches, and presents a medieval
and picturesque appearance. Among its more striking edifices are an old
princely residence, with extensive grounds, an Evangelical and two Roman
Catholic churches, and the buildings of a former monastery. There are
also many Roman remains, notable among them the "Neptune" sculpture, now
embedded in the wall of the town-hall. Its chief manufactures are
paper-making, spinning, weaving and machine building. The cultivation of
wine and fruit is also largely carried on, and in these products
considerable trade is done.

The first notice of Ettlingen dates from the 8th century. It became a
town in 1227 and was presented by the emperor Frederick II. to the
margrave of Baden. In 1689 it was pillaged by the French, and near the
town Moreau defeated the archduke Charles on the 9th and 10th of July
1796.

  See Schwarz, _Geschichte der Stadt Ettlingen_ (Carlsruhe, 1900).




ETTMÜLLER, ERNST MORITZ LUDWIG (1802-1877), German philologist, was born
at Gersdorf near Löbau, in Saxony, on the 5th of October 1802. He was
privately educated by his father, the Protestant pastor of the village,
entered the gymnasium at Zittau in 1816 and studied from 1823 to 1826 at
the university of Leipzig. After a period of about two years during
which he was partly abroad and partly at Gersdorf, he proceeded to Jena,
where in 1830 he delivered, under the auspices of the university, a
course of lectures on the old Norse poets. Three years later he was
called to occupy the mastership of German language and literature at the
Zürich gymnasium; and in 1863 he left the gymnasium for the university,
with which he had been partially connected twenty years before. He died
at Zürich in April 1877. To the study of English Ettmüller contributed
by an alliterative translation of Beowulf (1840), an Anglo-Saxon
chrestomathy entitled _Engla and Seaxna scopas and boceras_ (1850), and
a well-known _Lexicon Anglo-Saxonicum_ (1851), in which the explanations
and comments are given in Latin, but the words unfortunately are
arranged according to their etymological affinity, and the letters
according to phonetic relations. He edited a large number of High and
Low German texts, and to the study of the Scandinavian literatures he
contributed an edition of the _Völuspa_ (1831), a translation of the
_Lieder der Edda von den Nibelungen_ (1837) and an old Norse reading
book and vocabulary. He was also the author of a _Handbuch der deutschen
Literaturgeschichte_ (1847), which includes the treatment of the
Anglo-Saxon, the Old Scandinavian, and the Low German branches; and he
popularized a great deal of literary information in his _Herbstabende
und Winternächte: Gespräche über Dichtungen und Dichter_ (1865-1867).
The alliterative versification which he admired in the old German poems
he himself employed in his _Deutsche Stammkönige_ (1844) and _Das
verhängnissvolle Zahnweh, oder Karl der Grosse und der Heilige Goar_
(1852).




ETTMÜLLER, MICHAEL (1644-1683), German physician, was born at Leipzig on
the 26th of May 1644, studied at his native place and at Wittenberg, and
after travelling in Italy, France and England was recalled in 1668 to
Leipzig, where he was admitted a member of the faculty of medicine in
1676. About the same time the university confided to him the chair of
botany, and appointed him extraordinary professor of surgery and
anatomy. He died on the 9th of March 1683, at Leipzig. He enjoyed a
great reputation as a lecturer, and wrote many tracts on medical and
chemical subjects. His collected works were published in 1708 by his
son, Michael Ernst Ettmüller (1673-1732), who was successively professor
of medicine (1702), anatomy and surgery (1706), physiology (1719) and
pathology (1724) at Leipzig.




ETTRICK, a river and parish of Selkirkshire, Scotland. The river rises
in Capel Fell (2223 ft.), a hill in the extreme S.W. of the shire, and
flows in a north-easterly direction for 32 m. to its junction with the
Tweed, its principal affluent being the Yarrow. In the parish of Ettrick
were born James Hogg, the "Ettrick shepherd" (the site of the cottage
being marked by a monument erected in 1898), Tibbie (Elizabeth) Shiel
(1782-1878), keeper of the famous inn at the head of St Mary's Loch,
both of whom are buried in the churchyard, and Thomas Boston
(1713-1767), one of the founders of the Relief church. About 2 m. below
Ettrick church is Thirlestane Castle, the seat of Lord Napier and
Ettrick, a descendant of the Napiers of Merchiston, and beside it is the
ruin of the stronghold that belonged to John Scott of Thirlestane, to
whom, in reward for his loyalty, James V. granted a sheaf of spears as a
crest, and the motto, "Ready, aye ready." Two miles up Rankle Burn, a
right-hand tributary, lies the site of Buccleuch, another stronghold of
the Scotts, which gave them the titles of earl (1619) and duke (1663).
Only the merest fragment remains of Tushielaw tower, occupying high
ground opposite the confluence of the Rankle and the Ettrick, the home
of Adam Scott, "King of the Border," who was executed for his misdeeds
in 1530. Lower down the dale is Deloraine, recalling one of the leading
characters in _The Lay of the Last Minstrel_. If the name come from the
Gaelic _dail Orain_, "Oran's field," the district was probably a scene
of the labours of St Oran (d. 548), an Irish saint and friend of
Columba. It seems that Sir Walter Scott's rhythm has caused the accent
wrongly to be laid on the last, instead of the penultimate syllable.
Carterhaugh, a corruption of Carelhaugh, occupying the land where
Ettrick and Yarrow meet, was the scene of the ballad of "Young Tamlane,"
and of the historic football match in 1815, under the auspices of the
duke of Buccleuch, between the burghers of Selkirk, championed by Walter
Scott, sheriff of the Forest (not yet a baronet), and the men of Yarrow
vale, championed by the Ettrick shepherd.




ETTY, WILLIAM (1787-1849), British painter, was born at York, on the
10th of March 1787. His father had been in early life a miller, but had
finally established himself in the city of York as a baker of
spice-bread. After some scanty instruction of the most elementary kind,
the future painter, at the age of eleven and a half, left the paternal
roof, and was bound apprentice in the printing-office of the _Hull
Packet_. Amid many trials and discouragements he completed his term of
seven years' servitude, and having in that period come by practice, at
first surreptitious, though afterwards allowed by his master "in lawful
hours," to know his own powers, he removed to London.

The kindness of an elder brother and a wealthy uncle, William Etty,
himself an artist, stood him in good stead. He commenced his training by
copying without instruction from nature, models, prints, &c.--his first
academy, as he himself says, being a plaster-cast shop in Cock Lane,
Smithfield. Here he made a copy from an ancient cast of Cupid and
Psyche, which was shown to Opie, and led to his being enrolled in 1807
as student of the Academy, whose schools were at that time conducted in
Somerset House. Among his fellow scholars at this period of his career
were some who in after years rose to eminence in their art, such as
Wilkie, Haydon, Collins, Constable. His uncle generously paid the
necessary fee of one hundred guineas, and in the summer of 1807 he was
admitted to be a private pupil of Sir Thomas Lawrence, who was at the
very acme of his fame. Etty himself always looked on this privilege as
one of incalculable value, and till his latest day regarded Lawrence as
one of the chief ornaments of British art. For some years after he
quitted Sir Thomas's studio, even as late as 1816, the influence of his
preceptor was traceable in the mannerism of his works. Though he had by
this time made great progress in his art, his career was still one of
almost continual failure, hardly cheered by even a passing ray of
success. In 1811, after repeated rejections, he had the satisfaction of
seeing his "Telemachus rescuing Antiope" on the walls of the Academy. It
was badly hung, however, and attracted little notice. For the next five
years he persevered with quiet and constant energy in overcoming the
disadvantages of his early training with yearly growing success, and he
was even beginning to establish something like a name when in 1816 he
resolved to improve his knowledge of art by a journey to Italy. After an
absence of three months, however, he was compelled to return home
without having penetrated farther south than Florence. Struggles and
vexations still continued to harass him, but he bore up against them
with patient endurance and force of will. In 1820 his "Coral-finders,"
exhibited at the Royal Academy, attracted much attention, and its
success was more than equalled by that of "Cleopatra's arrival in
Cilicia," shown in the following year. In 1822 he again set out on a
tour to Italy, taking Paris on his way, and astonishing his
fellow-students at the Louvre by the rapidity and fidelity with which he
copied from the old masters in that gallery. On arriving at Rome he
immediately resumed his studies of the old masters, and elicited many
expressions of wonder from his Italian fellow-artists for the same
qualities which had gained the admiration of the French. Though Etty was
duly impressed by the grand _chefs-d'oeuvre_ of Raphael and Michelangelo
at Rome, he was not sorry to exchange that city for Venice, which he
always regarded as the true home of art in Italy. His own style as a
colourist held much more of the Venetian than of any other Italian
school, and he admired his prototypes with a zeal and exclusiveness that
sometimes bordered on extravagance.

Early in 1824 he returned home to find that honours long unjustly
withheld were awaiting him. In that year he was made an associate of the
Royal Academy, and in 1828 he was promoted to the full dignity of an
Academician. In the interval between these dates he had produced the
"Combat (Woman interceding for the Vanquished)," and the first of the
series of three pictures on the subject of Judith, both of which
ultimately came into the possession of the Scottish Academy. Etty's
career was from this time one of slow but uninterrupted success. In 1830
he again crossed the channel with the view to another art tour through
the continent; but he was overtaken in Paris by the insurrection of the
Three Days, and was so much shocked by the sights he was compelled to
witness in that time that he returned home with all convenient speed.
During the next ten years of his life the zeal and unabated assiduity of
his studies were not at all diminished. He was a constant attendant at
the Academy Life School, where he used to work regularly along with the
students, notwithstanding the remonstrances of some of his
fellow-Academicians, who thought the practice undignified. The course of
his studies was only interrupted by occasional visits to his native
city, and to Scotland, where he was welcomed with the utmost enthusiasm,
and _fêted_ with the most gratifying heartiness by his brother-artists
at Edinburgh. On the occasion of one of these visits he gave the
finishing touches to his trio of Judiths. In 1840, and again in 1841,
Etty undertook a pilgrimage to the Netherlands, to seek and examine for
himself the masterpieces of Rubens in the churches and public galleries
there. Two years later he once more visited France with a view to
collecting materials for what he called "his last epic," his famous
picture of "Joan of Arc." This subject, which would have tasked to the
full even his great powers in the prime and vigour of manhood, proved
almost too serious an undertaking for him in his old age. It exhibits,
at least, amid great excellences, undeniable proofs of decay on the part
of the painter; yet it brought a higher price than any of his earlier
and more perfect works, £2500. In 1848, after completing this work, he
retired to York, having realized a comfortable independence. One wish
alone remained for him now to gratify; he desired to see a "gathering"
of his pictures. With much difficulty and exertion he was enabled to
assemble the great majority of them from various parts of the British
Islands; and so numerous were they that the walls of the large hall he
engaged in London for their exhibition were nearly covered. This took
place in the summer of 1849; on the 13th of November of that same year
he died. He received the honours of a public funeral in his native city.

Etty holds a secure place among English artists. His drawing was
frequently incorrect, but in feeling and skill as a colourist he has few
equals. His most conspicuous defects as a painter were the result of
insufficient general culture and narrowness of sympathy.

  See Etty's autobiography, published in the _Art Journal_ for 1849, and
  the _Life of William Etty, R.A._, by Gilchrist (2 vols., 1855).




ETYMOLOGY (Gr. [Greek: etymos], true, and [Greek: logos], account), that
part or branch of the science of linguistics which deals with the origin
or derivation of words. The Greek word [Greek: etymos], in so far as it
was applied to words, referred to the real underlying meaning rather
than to the origin. It was the Stoics who asserted that the discovery of
[Greek: to etymon] would explain the essence of the things and ideas
represented by words. Plato in the _Cratylus_ makes a nearer approach to
the modern view when he connects, e.g. [Greek: gynê], woman, with
[Greek: gonê], seed, while he jests at such etymological feats as the
derivation of [Greek: ouranos], heaven, [Greek: apo tou oran ta ano],
from looking at things above, or [Greek: anthrôpos], man, from [Greek:
ho anathrôn ha opôpen], he who looks up at what he sees. Until the
comparative study of philology and the development of the laws
underlying phonetic changes, the derivation of words was a matter mostly
of guess-work, sometimes right but more often wrong, based on
superficial resemblances of form and the like. This popular etymology,
to which the Germans have given the name _Volksetymologie_ or
folk-etymology, has had much influence in the form which words take
(e.g. "crawfish" or "crayfish," from the French _crevis_, modern
_écrevisse_, or "sand-blind," from _samblind_, i.e. semi-, half-blind),
and has frequently been the occasion of homonyms. W.W. Skeat has
embodied in certain canons or rules some well-known principles which
should be observed in giving the etymology of a word; these may be
usefully given here: "(1) Before attempting an etymology, ascertain the
earliest form and use of the word, and observe chronology. (2) Observe
history and geography; borrowings are due to actual contact. (3) Observe
phonetic laws, especially those which regulate the mutual relation of
consonants in the various Aryan languages, at the same time comparing
the vowel sounds. (4) In comparing two words, A and B, belonging to the
same language, of which A contains the lesser number of syllables, A
must be taken to be the more original word, unless we have evidence of
contraction or other corruption. (5) In comparing two words, A and B,
belonging to the same language and consisting of the same number of
syllables, the older form can usually be distinguished by observing the
sound of the principal vowel. (6) Strong verbs, in the Teutonic
languages, and the so-called "irregular verbs" in Latin, are commonly to
be considered as primary, other related forms being taken from them. (7)
The whole of a word, and not a portion only, ought to be reasonably
accounted for; and, in tracing changes of form, any infringement of
phonetic laws is to be regarded with suspicion. (8) Mere resemblances of
form and apparent connexion in sense between languages which have
different phonetic laws or no necessary connexion are commonly a
delusion, and are not to be regarded. (9) When words in two different
languages are more nearly alike than the ordinary phonetic laws would
allow, there is a strong probability that one language has borrowed the
word from the other. Truly cognate words ought not to be _too much_
alike. (10) It is useless to offer an explanation of an English word
which will not also explain all the cognate forms" (Introduction to
_Etymological Dictionary of the English Language_, 1898).

An English word is either "the extant formal representative or direct
phonetic descendant of an earlier (Teutonic) word; or it has been
_adopted_ or _adapted_ from some foreign language," adoption being a
popular, and adaptation being a literary or learned process; finally,
there is _formation_, i.e. the "combination of existing words (foreign
or native) or parts of words with each other or with living formatives,
i.e. syllables which no longer exist as separate words, but yet have an
appreciable signification which they impart to the new product" (see
Introduction to the Oxford _New English Dictionary_, p. xx). A further
classification of words according to their origin is that into (1)
naturals, i.e. purely native words, like "mother," "father," "house";
(2) those which become perfectly naturalized, though of foreign origin,
like "cat," "mutton," "beef"; (3) denizens, words naturalized in usage
but keeping the foreign pronunciation, spelling and inflections, e.g.
"focus," "camera"; (4) aliens, words for foreign things, institutions,
offices, &c., for which there is no English equivalent, e.g., _menu_,
_table d'hôte_, _impi_, _lakh_, _mollah_, _tarbush_; (5) casuals, e.g.,
_bloc_, _Ausgleich_, _sabotage_, differing only from "aliens" in their
temporary use. The full etymology of a word should include the phonetic
descent, the source of the word, whether from a native or from a foreign
origin, and, if the latter, whether by adoption or adaptation, or, if a
_formed_ word, the origin of the parts which go to make it up. In the
present edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ such full etymologies,
which would be necessary and in place in an etymological dictionary,
have not been given in every instance, but brief etymological notes are
appended, showing in outline the sources and history, and in many cases
the development in meaning. (See also DICTIONARY.)




EU, a town of north-western France, in the department of
Seine-Inférieure, on the river Bresle, 64 m. N.N.E. of Rouen on the
Western railway, and 2 m. E.S.E. of Le Tréport, at the mouth of the
Bresle, which is canalized between the two towns. Pop. (1906) 4865. The
extensive forest of Eu lies to the south-east of the town. Eu has three
buildings of importance--the beautiful Gothic church of St Laurent (12th
and 13th centuries) of which the exterior of the choir with its three
tiers of ornamented buttressing and the double arches between the
pillars of the nave are architecturally notable; the chapel of the
Jesuit college (built about 1625), in which are the tombs of Henry,
third duke of Guise, and his wife, Katherine of Cleves; and the château.
The latter was begun by Henry of Guise in 1578, in place of an older
château burnt by Louis XI. in 1475 to prevent its capture by the
English. It was continued by Mademoiselle de Montpensier in the latter
half of the 17th century, and restored by Louis Philippe who, in 1843
and 1845, received Queen Victoria within its walls. In 1902 the greater
part of the building was destroyed by fire. The town has a tribunal of
commerce and a communal college, flour-mills, manufactories of
earthenware, biscuits, furniture, casks, and glass and brick works; the
port has trade in grain, timber, hemp, flax, &c.

Eu (Augusta) was in existence under the Romans. The first line of its
counts, supposed to be descended from the dukes of Normandy, had as
heiress Alix (died 1227), who married Raoul (Ralph) de Lusignan, known
as the Sire d'Issoudun from his lordship of that name. Through their
grand-daughter Marie, the countship of Eu passed by marriage to the
house of Brienne, two members of which, both named Raoul, were
constables of France. King John confiscated the countship in 1350, and
gave it to John of Artois (1352). His great-grandson, Charles, son of
Philip of Artois, count of Eu, and Marie of Berry, played a conspicuous
part in the Hundred Years' War. He was taken prisoner at the battle of
Agincourt (1415), and remained in England twenty-three years, in
accordance with the dying injunctions of Henry V. that he was not to be
let go until his son, Henry VI., was of age to govern his dominions. He
accompanied Charles VII. on his campaigns in Normandy and Guyenne, and
was made lieutenant-general of these two provinces. It was he who
effected a reconciliation between the king and the dauphin after the
revolt of the latter. He was created a peer of France in 1458, and made
governor of Paris during the war of the League of the Public Weal
(1465). He died on the 15th of July 1472 at the age of about
seventy-eight, leaving no children. His sister's son, John of Burgundy,
count of Nevers, now received the countship, which passed through
heiresses, in the 15th century, to the house of Cleves, and to that of
Lorraine-Guise. In 1660 Henry II. of Lorraine, duke of Guise, sold it to
"Mademoiselle," Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, duchesse de Montpensier
(q.v.), who made it over (1682) to the duke of Maine, bastard son of
Louis XIV., as part of the price of the release of her lover Lauzun. The
second son of the duke of Maine, Louis Charles de Bourbon (1701-1775),
bore the title of count of Eu. In 1755 he inherited from his elder
brother, Louis Auguste de Bourbon (1700-1755), prince de Dombes, great
estates, part of which he sold to the king. The remainder, which was
still considerable, passed to his cousin the duke of Penthièvre. These
estates were confiscated at the Revolution; but at the Restoration they
were bestowed by Louis XVII. on the duchess-dowager of Orléans who, in
1821, bequeathed them to her son, afterwards King Louis Philippe. They
were again confiscated in 1852, but were restored to the Orleans family
by the National Assembly after the Franco-German War. The title of count
of Eu was revived in the 19th century in favour of the eldest son of the
duke of Nemours, second son of King Louis Philippe.




EUBOEA (pronounced _Evvia_ in the modern language), EURIPOS, or
NEGROPONT, the largest island of the Grecian archipelago. It is
separated from the mainland of Greece by the Euboic Sea. In general
outline it is long and narrow; it is about 90 m. long, and varies in
breadth from 30 m. to 4. Its general direction is from N.W. to S.E., and
it is traversed throughout its length by a mountain range, which forms
part of the chain that bounds Thessaly on the E., and is continued south
of Euboea in the lofty islands of Andros, Tenos and Myconos. The
principal peaks of this range are grouped in three knots which divide
the island into three portions. Towards the north, opposite the Locrian
territory, the highest peaks are Mts. Gaetsades (4436 ft.) and Xeron
(3232 ft.). The former was famed in ancient times for its medicinal
plants, and at its foot are the celebrated hot springs, near the town of
Aedepsus (mod. Lipsos), called the Baths of Heracles, used, we are told,
by the dictator L. Cornelius Sulla, and still frequented by the Greeks
for the cure of gout, rheumatism and digestive disorders. These springs,
strongly sulphurous, rise a short distance inland at several points, and
at last pour steaming over the rocks, which they have yellowed with
their deposit, into the Euboic Sea. Opposite the entrance of the Maliac
Gulf is the promontory of Cenaeum, the highest point (2221 ft.) behind
which is now called Lithada, a corruption of Lichades, the ancient name
of the islands off the extremity of the headland. Here again we meet
with the legends of Heracles, for this cape, together with the
neighbouring coast of Trachis, was the scene of the events connected
with the death of that hero, as described by Sophocles in the
_Trachiniae_. Near the north-east extremity of the island, and almost
facing the entrance of the Gulf of Pagasae, is the promontory of
Artemisium, celebrated for the great naval victory gained by the Greeks
over the Persians, 480 B.C. Towards the centre, to the N.E. of Chalcis,
rises the highest of its mountains, Dirphys or Dirphe, now Mount Delphi
(5725 ft.), the bare summit of which is not entirely free from snow till
the end of May, while its sides are clothed with pines and firs, and
lower down with chestnuts and planes. It is one of the most conspicuous
summits of eastern Greece, and from its flanks the promontory of
Chersonesus projects into the Aegean. At the southern extremity the
highest mountain is Ocha, now called St Elias (4830 ft.). The
south-western promontory was named Geraestus, the south-eastern
Caphareus; the latter, an exposed point, attracts the storms, which rush
between it and the neighbouring cliffs of Andros as through a funnel.
The whole of the eastern coast is rocky and destitute of harbours,
especially the part called Coela, or "the Hollows," where part of the
Persian fleet was wrecked. So greatly was this dreaded by sailors that
the principal line of traffic from the north of the Aegean to Athens
used to pass by Chalcis and the Euboic Sea.

Euboea was believed to have originally formed part of the mainland, and
to have been separated from it by an earthquake. This is the less
improbable because it lies in the neighbourhood of a line of earthquake
movement, and both from Thucydides and from Strabo we hear of the
northern part of the island being shaken at different periods, and the
latter writer speaks of a fountain at Chalcis being dried up by a
similar cause, and a mud volcano formed in the neighbouring plain.
Evidences of volcanic action are also traceable in the legends connected
with Heracles at Aedepsus and Cenaeum, which here, as at Lemnos and
elsewhere in Greece, have that origin. Its northern extremity is
separated from the Thessalian coast by a strait, which at one point is
not more than a mile and a half in width. In the neighbourhood of
Chalcis, both to the north and the south, the bays are so confined as
readily to explain the story of Agamemnon's fleet having been detained
there by contrary winds. At Chalcis itself, where the strait is
narrowest, it is called the Euripus, and here it is divided in the
middle by a rock, on which formerly a castle stood. The channel towards
Boeotia, which is now closed, is spanned by a stone bridge. The other,
which is far the deeper of the two, is crossed by an iron swing-bridge,
allowing for the passage of vessels. This bridge, which dates from 1896,
replaced a smaller wooden swing-bridge erected in 1856. The
extraordinary changes of tide which take place in this passage have been
a subject of wonder from classical times. At one moment the current runs
like a river in one direction, and shortly afterwards with equal
velocity in the other. Strabo speaks of it as varying seven times in the
day, but it is more accurate to say, with Livy, that it is irregular. A
bridge was first constructed here in the twenty-first year of the
Peloponnesian War, when Euboea revolted from Athens; and thus the
Boeotians, whose work it was, contrived to make that country "an island
to every one but themselves." The Boeotians by this means secured a
powerful weapon of offence against Athens, being able to impede their
supplies of gold and corn from Thrace, of timber from Macedonia, and of
horses from Thessaly. The name Euripus was corrupted during the middle
ages into Evripo and Egripo, and in this latter form transferred to the
whole island, whence the Venetians, when they occupied the district,
altered it to Negroponte, referring to the bridge which connected it
with the mainland.

The rivers of Euboea are few in number and scanty in volume. In the
north-eastern portion the Budorus flows into the Aegean, being formed by
two streams which unite their waters in a small plain, and were perhaps
the Cereus and Neleus concerning which the story was told that sheep
drinking the water of the one became white, of the other black. On the
north coast, near Histiaea, is the Callas; and on the western side the
Lelantus, near Chalcis, flowing through the plain of the same name. This
plain, which intervenes between Chalcis and Eretria, and was a fruitful
source of contention to those cities, is the most considerable of the
few and small spaces of level ground in the island, and was fertile in
corn. Aristotle, when speaking of the aristocratic character of the
horse, as requiring fertile soil for its support, and consequently being
associated with wealth, instances its use among the Chalcidians and
Eretrians, and in the former of those two states we find a class of
nobles called _Hippobotae_. This rich district was afterwards occupied
by Athenian cleruchs. The next largest plain was that of Histiaea, and
at the present day this and the neighbourhood of the Budorus (Ahmet-Aga)
are the two best cultivated parts of Euboea, owing to the exertions of
foreign colonists. The mountains afford excellent pasturage for sheep
and cattle, which were reared in great quantities in ancient times, and
seem to have given the island its name; these pastures belonged to the
state. The forests are extensive and fine, and are now superintended by
government officials, called [Greek: dasophylakes], in spite or with the
connivance of whom the timber is being rapidly destroyed--partly from
the merciless way in which it is cut by the proprietors, partly from its
being burnt by the shepherds, for the sake of the rich grass that
springs up after such conflagrations, and partly owing to the goats,
whose bite kills all the young growths. In the mountains were several
valuable mines of iron and copper; and from Karystos, at the south of
the island, came the green and white marble, the modern Cipollino, which
was in great request among the Romans of the imperial period for
architectural purposes, and the quarries of which belonged to the
emperor. The scenery of Euboea is perhaps the most beautiful in Greece,
owing to the varied combinations of rock, wood and water; for from the
uplands the sea is almost always in view, either the wide island-studded
expanse of the Aegean, or the succession of lakes formed by the Euboic
Sea, together with mountains of exquisite outline, while the valleys and
maritime plains are clothed either with fruit trees or with plane trees
of magnificent growth.

On the other hand, no part of Greece is so destitute of interesting
remains of antiquity as Euboea. The only site which has attracted
archaeologists is that of Eretria (q.v.), which was excavated by the
American School of Athens in 1890-1895.

Like most of the Greek islands, Euboea was originally known under other
names, such as Macris and Doliche from its shape, and Ellopia and
Abantis from the tribes inhabiting it. The races by which it was
occupied at an early period were different in the three districts, into
which, as we have seen, it was naturally divided. In the northern
portion we find the Histiaei and Ellopes, Thessalian races, which
probably had passed over from the Pagasaean Gulf. In central Euboea were
the Curetes and Abantes, who seem to have come from the neighbouring
continent by way of the Euripus; of these the Abantes, after being
reinforced by Ionians from Attica, rose to great power, and exercised a
sort of supremacy over the whole island, so that in Homer the
inhabitants generally are called by that name. The southern part was
occupied by the Dryopes, part of which tribe, after having been expelled
from their original seats in the south of Thessaly by the Dorians,
migrated to this island, and established themselves in the three cities
of Karystos, Dystos and Styra. The population of Euboea at the present
day is made up of elements not less various, for many of the Greek
inhabitants seem to have immigrated, partly from the mainland, and
partly from other islands; and besides these, the southern portion is
occupied by Albanians, who probably have come from Andros; and in the
mountain districts nomad Vlach shepherds are found.

_History._--The history of the island is for the most part that of its
two principal cities, Chalcis and Eretria, the latter of which was
situated about 15 m. S.E. of the former, and was also on the shore of
the Euboic Sea. The neighbourhood of the fertile Lelantian or Lelantine
plain, and their proximity to the place of passage to the mainland, were
evidently the causes of the choice of site, as well as of their
prosperity. Both cities were Ionian settlements from Attica, and their
importance in early times is shown by their numerous colonies in Magna
Graecia and Sicily, such as Cumae, Rhegium and Naxos, and on the coast
of Macedonia, the projecting portion of which, with its three
peninsulas, hence obtained the name of Chalcidice. In this way they
opened new trade routes to the Greeks, and extended the field of
civilization. How great their commerce was is shown by the fact that the
Euboic scale of weights and measures was in use at Athens (until Solon,
q.v.) and among the Ionic cities generally. They were rival cities, and
at first appear to have been equally powerful; one of the earliest of
the sea-fights mentioned in Greek history took place between them, and
in this we are told that many of the other Greek states took part. It
was in consequence of the aid which the people of Miletus lent to the
Eretrians on this occasion that Eretria sent five ships to aid the
Ionians in their revolt against the Persians (see IONIA); and owing to
this, that city was the first place in Greece proper to be attacked by
Datis and Artaphernes in 490 B.C. It was utterly ruined on that
occasion, and its inhabitants were transported to Persia. Though it was
restored after the battle of Marathon, on a site at a little distance
from its original position, it never regained its former eminence, but
it was still the second city in the island. From this time its neighbour
Chalcis, which, though it suffered from a lack of good water, was, as
Strabo says, the natural capital from its commanding the Euripus, held
an undisputed supremacy. Already, however, this city had suffered from
the growing power of Athens. In the year 506, when the Chalcidians
joined with the Boeotians and the Spartan king Cleomenes in a league
against that state, they were totally defeated by the Athenians, who
established 4000 Attic settlers (see CLERUCHY) on their lands, and seem
to have reduced the whole island to a condition of dependence. Again, in
446, when Euboea endeavoured to throw off the yoke, it was once more
reduced by Pericles, and a new body of settlers was planted at Histiaea
in the north of the island, after the inhabitants of that town had been
expelled. This event is referred to by Aristophanes in the _Clouds_
(212), where the old farmer, on being shown Euboea on the map "lying
outstretched in all its length," remarks,--"I know; we laid it prostrate
under Pericles." The Athenians fully recognized its importance to them,
as supplying them with corn and cattle, as securing their commerce, and
as guaranteeing them against piracy, for its proximity to the coast of
Attica rendered it extremely dangerous to them when in other hands, so
that Demosthenes, in the _De corona_, speaks of a time when the pirates
that made it their headquarters so infested the neighbouring sea as to
prevent all navigation. But in the 21st year of the Peloponnesian war
the island succeeded in regaining its independence. After this we find
it taking sides with one or other of the leading states, until, after
the battle of Chaeronea, it passed into the hands of Philip II. of
Macedon, and finally into those of the Romans. By Philip V. of Macedon
Chalcis was called one of the three fetters of Greece, Demetrias on the
Gulf of Pagasae and Corinth being the other two.

In modern history Euboea or Negropont comes once more prominently into
notice at the time of the fourth crusade. In the partition of the
Eastern empire by the Latins which followed that event the island was
divided into three fiefs, the occupants of which ere long found it
expedient to place themselves under the protection of the Venetian
republic, which thenceforward became the sovereign power in the country.
For more than two centuries and a half during which the Venetians
remained in possession, it was one of the most valuable of their
dependencies, and the lion of St Mark may still be seen, both over the
sea gate of Chalcis and in other parts of the town. At length in 1470,
after a valiant defence, this well-fortified city was wrested from them
by Mahommed II., and the whole island fell into the hands of the Turks.
One desperate attempt to regain it was made by Francesco Morosini (d.
1694) in 1688, when the city was besieged by land and sea for three
months; but owing to the strength of the place, and the disease which
thinned their ranks, the assailants were forced to withdraw. At the
conclusion of the Greek War of Independence, in 1830, the island was
delivered from the Turkish sway, and constituted a part of the newly
established Greek state. Euboea at the present time produces a large
amount of grain, and its mineral wealth is also considerable, great
quantities of magnesia and lignite being exported. In 1899 it was
constituted a separate nome (pop. 1907, 116,903).

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--H.N. Ulrichs, _Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland_,
  vol. ii. (Berlin, 1863); C. Bursian, _Geographie von Griechenland_,
  vol. ii. (Leipzig, 1872); C. Neumann and J. Partsch, _Physikalische
  Geographie von Griechenland_ (Breslau, 1885); Baedeker's _Greece_ (3rd
  ed., Leipzig, 1905); for statistics see GREECE: _Topography_.
       (H. F. T.)




EUBULIDES, a native of Miletus, Greek philosopher and successor of
Eucleides as head of the Megarian school. Nothing is known of the events
of his life. Indirect evidence shows that he was a contemporary of
Aristotle, whom he attacked with great bitterness. There was also a
tradition that Demosthenes was one of his pupils. His name has been
preserved chiefly by some celebrated, though false and captious,
syllogisms of which he was the reputed author. Though mainly examples of
verbal quibbling, they serve to show the difficulties of language and of
explaining the relations of sense-given impressions. Eubulides wrote a
treatise on Diogenes the Cynic and also a number of comedies. (See
MEGARIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY.)




EUBULUS, of Anaphlystus, Athenian demagogue during the time of
Demosthenes. He was a persistent opponent of that statesman, and was
chiefly instrumental in securing the acquittal of Aeschines (who had
been his own clerk) when accused of treachery in connexion with the
embassy to Philip of Macedon. Eubulus took little interest in military
affairs, and was (at any rate at first) a strong advocate of peace at
any price. He devoted himself to matters of administration, especially
in the department of finance, and although he is said to have increased
the revenues and to have done real service to his country, there is no
doubt that he took advantage of his position to make use of the material
forces of the state for his own aggrandizement. His proposal that any
one who should move that the Theoric Fund should be applied to military
purposes should be put to death may have gained him the goodwill of the
people, but it was not in the true interest of the state. Later, Eubulus
himself seems to have recognized this, and to have been desirous of
modifying or repealing the regulation, but it was too late; Athens had
lost all feelings of patriotism; cowardly and indolent, she rivalled
even Tarentum in her luxury and extravagance (Theopompus in Athenaeus
iv. p. 166). As one of the chief members of an embassy to Philip,
Eubulus allowed himself to be won over, and henceforth did his utmost to
promote the cause of the Macedonian. The indignant remonstrances of
Demosthenes failed to weaken Eubulus's hold on the popular favour, and
after his death (before 330) he was distinguished with special honours,
which were described by Hypereides in a speech ([Greek: Peri tôn
Euboulou dôreôn]) now lost. Eubulus was no doubt a man of considerable
talent and reputation as an orator, but none of his speeches has
survived, nor is there any appreciation of them in ancient writers.
Aristotle (_Rhetoric_, i. 15. 15) mentions a speech against Chares, and
Theopompus (in his _Philippica_) had given an account of his life,
extracts from which are preserved in Harpocration.

  See Demosthenes, _De corona_, pp. 232, 235; _De falsa legatione_, pp.
  434, 435, 438; _Adversus Leptinem_, p. 498; _In Midiam_, pp. 580, 581;
  Aeschines, _De falsa legatione, ad fin_.; Index to C.W. Müller's
  _Oratores Attici_; A.D. Schäfer, _Demosthenes und seine Zeit_ (1885).




EUBULUS, Athenian poet of the Middle comedy, flourished about 370 B.C.
Fragments from about fifty of the 104 plays attributed to him are
preserved in Athenaeus. They show that he took little interest in
political affairs, but confined himself chiefly to mythological
subjects, ridiculing, when opportunity offered, the bombastic style of
the tragedians, especially Euripides. His language is pure, and his
versification correct.

  Fragments in T. Kock. _Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta_, ii. (1884).




EUCALYPTUS, a large genus of trees of the natural order Myrtaceae,
indigenous, with a few exceptions, to Australia and Tasmania. In
Australia the Eucalypti are commonly called "gum-trees" or "stringy-bark
trees," from their gummy or resinous products, or fibrous bark. The
genus, from the evidence of leaf-remains, appears to have been
represented by several species in Eocene times. The leaves are leathery
in texture, hang obliquely or vertically, and are studded with glands
which contain a fragrant volatile oil. The petals cohere to form a
cap[1] which is discarded when the flower expands. The fruit is
surrounded by a woody cup-shaped receptacle and contains very numerous
minute seeds. The Eucalypti are rapid in growth, and many species are of
great height, _E. amygdalina_, the tallest known tree, attaining to as
much as 480 ft., exceeding in height the Californian big-tree (_Sequoia
gigantea_), with a diameter of 81 ft. _E. globulus_, so called from the
rounded form of its cap-like corolla, is the blue gum tree of Victoria
and Tasmania. The leaves of trees from three to five years of age are
large, sessile and of a glaucous-white colour, and grow horizontally;
those of older trees are ensiform, 6-12 in. long, and bluish-green in
hue, and are directed downwards. The flowers are single or in clusters,
and nearly sessile. This species is one of the largest trees in the
world, and attains a height of 375 ft. Since 1854 it has been
successfully introduced into the south of Europe, Algeria, Egypt,
Tahiti, New Caledonia, Natal and India, and has been extensively planted
in California, and, with the object of lessening liability to droughts,
along the line of the Central Pacific railway. It would probably thrive
in any situation having a mean annual temperature not below 60° F., but
it will not endure a temperature of less than 27° F. Its supposed
property of reducing the amount of malaria in marshy districts is
attributable to the drainage effected by its roots, rather than to the
antiseptic exhalations of its leaves. To the same cause also is ascribed
the gradual disappearance of mosquitoes in the neighbourhood of
plantations of this tree, as at Lake Fezara, in Algeria. Since about
1870, when the tree was planted in its cloisters, the monastery of St
Paolo a la trè Fontana has become habitable throughout the year,
although situated in one of the most fever-stricken districts of the
Roman Campagna. An essential oil is obtained by aqueous distillation of
the leaves of this and other species of _Eucalyptus_, which is a
colourless or straw-coloured fluid when freshly prepared, with a
characteristic odour and taste, of sp. gr. 0.910 to 0.930, and soluble
in its own weight of alcohol. This consists of many different bodies,
the most important of which is eucalyptol, a volatile oil, which
constitutes about 70%. This is the portion of eucalyptus oil which
passes over between 347° and 351° F., and crystallizes at 30° F. It
consists chiefly of a terpene and cymene. Eucalyptus oil also contains,
after exposure to the air, a crystallizable resin derived from
eucalyptol. The dose of the oil is ½ to 3 minims. Eucalyptol may be
given in similar doses, and is preferable for purposes of inhalation.
The oil derived from _E. amygdalina_ contains a large quantity of
phellandrene, which forms a crystalline nitrate, and is very irritating
when inhaled. The oils from different species of _Eucalyptus_ vary
widely in composition.

Eucalyptus oil is probably the most powerful antiseptic of its class,
especially when it is old, as ozone is formed in it on exposure to air.
Internally it has the typical actions of a volatile oil in marked
degree. Like quinine, it arrests the normal amoeboid movements of the
polymorphonuclear leucocytes, and has a definite antiperiodic action;
but it is a very poor substitute for quinine in malaria. In large doses
it acts as an irritant to the kidneys, by which it is largely excreted,
and as a marked nervous depressant, abolishing the reflex functions of
the spinal cord and ultimately arresting respiration by its action on
the medullary centre. An emulsion, made by shaking up equal parts of the
oil and powdered gum-arabic with water, has been used as a urethral
injection, and has also been given internally in drachm doses in
pulmonary tuberculosis and other microbic diseases of the lungs and
bronchi. The oil has somehow acquired an extraordinary popular
reputation in influenza, but there is no evidence to show that it has
any marked influence upon this disease or that its use tends to lessen
the chances of infection. It has been used as an antiseptic by surgeons,
and is an ingredient of "catheter oil," used for sterilizing and
lubricating urethral catheters, now that carbolic oil, formerly
employed, has been shown to be practically worthless as an antiseptic.
_Eucalyptus rostrata_ and other species yield eucalyptus or red gum,
which must be distinguished from Botany Bay kino. Red gum is very
powerfully astringent and is given internally, in doses of 2 to 5
grains, in cases of diarrhoea and pharyngeal inflammation. It is
prepared by the pharmacist in the form of tinctures, insufflations,
syrups, lozenges, &c. Red gum is official in Great Britain. _E.
globulus_, _E. resinifera_, and other species, yield what is known as
Botany Bay kino, an astringent dark-reddish amorphous resin, which is
obtained in a semi-fluid state by making incisions in the trunks of the
trees. The kino of _E. gigantea_ contains a notable proportion of gum.
J.H. Maiden enumerates more than thirty species as kino-yielding. From
the leaves and young bark of _E. mannifera_ and _E. viminalis_ is
procured Australian manna, a hard, opaque, sweet substance, containing
melitose. On destructive distillation the leaves yield much gas, 10,000
cub. ft. being obtained from one ton. The wood is extensively used in
Australia as fuel, and the timber is of remarkable size, strength and
durability. Maiden enumerates nearly 70 species as timber-yielding trees
including _E. amygdalina_, the wood of which splits with remarkable
facility, _E. botryoides_, hard, tough and durable and one of the finest
timbers for shipbuilding, _E. diversicolor_ or "karri," _E. globulus_,
_E. leucoxylon_ or ironbark, _E. marginata_ or "jarrah" (see JARRAH
WOOD), _E. obliqua_, _E. resinifera_, _E. siderophloia_ and others. The
timber is often very hard, tough and durable, and useful for
shipbuilding, building, fencing, planks, &c. The bark of different
species of _Eucalyptus_ has been used in paper-making and tanning, and
in medicine as a febrifuge.

  For further details see Baron von Müller's monograph of the genus,
  _Eucalyptographia_ (Melbourne, 1879-1884); J.H. Maiden, _Useful Native
  Plants of Australia_ (1889).


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] Whence the name ([Greek: eukaluptos], well-covered) given by
    L'Héritier, 1788.




EUCHARIS, in botany, a genus of the natural order Amaryllidaceae,
containing a few species, natives of Columbia. _Eucharis amazonica_ or
_grandiflora_ is the best-known and most generally cultivated species.
It is a bulbous plant with broad stalked leaves, and an erect scape 1½
to 2 ft. long, bearing an umbel of three to ten large white showy
flowers. The flowers resemble the daffodil in having a prominent central
cup or corona, which is sometimes tinged with green. It is propagated by
removing the offsets, which may be done in spring, potting them singly
in 6-in. pots. It requires good loamy soil, with sand enough to keep the
compost open, and should have a good supply of water and a temperature
of 65° to 70° during the night, with a rise of 8° or 10° in the day.
During summer growth is to be encouraged by repotting, but the plants
should afterwards be slightly rested by removal to a night temperature
of about 60°, water being withheld for a time, though they must not go
too long dry, the plant being an evergreen. By the turn of the year they
may again have more heat and more water, and this will probably induce
them to flower. After this is over they may be shifted and grown again
as before; and, as they get large, either be divided to form new plants
or allowed to develop into nobler specimens. With a stock of the smaller
plants to start them in succession, they may be had in flower all the
year round. A few years ago the bulbs of _E. amazonica_ were badly
inflicted with a disease known as the Eucharis mite, and all kinds of
remedies were tried without avail, although steeping in Condy's fluid
appeared to give the best results. The disease appears to have died out
again. Other species of Eucharis now met with in gardens are E_.
Bakeriana_, E_. Mastersii_, _E. Lowii_ and _E. Sanderii_. A remarkable
hybrid was raised a few years ago between _Eucharis_ and the allied
genus _Urceolina_, to which the compound name _Urceocharis_ was given.




EUCHARIST (Gr. [Greek: eucharistia], thanksgiving), in the Christian
Church, one of the ancient names of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
or Holy Communion. The term [Greek: eucharistia] was at first applied to
the act of thanksgiving associated with the sacrament; later, so early
as the 2nd century, to the objects, e.g. the sacramental bread and wine,
for which thanks were given; and so to the whole celebration. The term
_Mass_, which has the same connotation, is derived from the Lat. _missa_
or _missio_, because the children and catechumens, or unbaptized
believers, were dismissed before the eucharistic rite began. Other names
express various aspects of the rite: Communion (Gr. [Greek: koinônia]),
the fellowship between believers and union with Christ; _Lord's Supper_,
so called from the manner of its institution; _Sacrament_ as a
consecration of material elements; the _Mystery_ (in Eastern churches)
because only the initiated participated; the _Sacrifice_ as a rehearsal
of Christ's passion. In this article the history of the rite is first
traced up to A.D. 200 in documents taken in their chronological order;
differences of early and later usage are then discussed; lastly, the
meaning of the original rite is examined.

St Paul (1 Cor. xi. 17-34) attests that the faithful met regularly in
church, i.e. in religious meetings, to eat the dominical or Lord's
Supper, but that this aim was frustrated by some who ate up their
provisions before others, so that the poor were left hungry while the
rich got drunk; and the meetings were animated less by a spirit of
brotherhood and charity than of division and faction. He directs that,
when they so meet, they shall wait for one another. Those who are too
hungry to wait shall eat at home; and not put to shame those who have no
houses (and presumably not enough food either), by bringing their viands
to church and selfishly eating them apart.

It was therefore not the quantity or quality of the food eaten that
constituted the meal a Lord's Supper; nor even the circumstances that
they ate it "in church," as was assumed by those guilty of the practices
here condemned; but only the pervading sense of brotherhood and love.
The contrast lay between the _Dominical Supper_ or food and drink shared
unselfishly by all with all, and the _private supper_, the feast of
Dives, shamelessly gorged under the eyes of timid and shrinking Lazarus.
By way of enforcing this point Paul repeats the tradition he had
received direct from the Lord, and already handed on to the Corinthians,
of how "the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed" (not
necessarily the night of Passover) "took bread and having given thanks
brake it and said, This is my body, which is for your sake; this do in
remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying,
This cup is the new covenant through my blood: this do, as oft as ye
drink it, in remembrance of me." Paul adds that this rite commemorated
the Lord's death and was to be continued until he should come again, as
in that age they expected him to do after no long interval: "As often as
ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye do (or ye shall) proclaim the
Lord's death till he come."

The same epistle (x. 17) attests that one loaf only was broken and
distributed: "We who are many, are one loaf (or bread), one body; for we
all partake of the one loaf (or bread)." As a single loaf could not
satisfy the hunger of many, the rehearsal in these meals of Christ's own
action must have been a crowning episode, enhancing their sanctity. The
_Fractio Panis_ probably began, as the drinking of the cup certainly
ended, the supper; the interval being occupied with the common
consumption by the faithful of the provisions they brought. This much is
implied by the words "after supper." If, in any case, all present had
eaten in their homes beforehand, the giving of the cup would immediately
follow on the breaking and eating of the one loaf, but Paul's words
indicate that the common meal within the church was the norm. Those who
ate at home marked themselves out as both greedy and lacking in charity.
There is no demand that they should come fasting, or Paul could not
recommend in (xi. 34) that those who were too hungry to wait until all
the brethren were assembled in church, should eat at home and
beforehand.

Mark xiv. 22-25, Matt. xxvi. 26-29, Luke xxii. 14-20, are, in order of
time, our next accounts, Mark representing the oldest tradition. They
all in substance repeat Paul's account; but identify the night on which
Jesus was betrayed with that of the Pascha. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus
says of the bread "Take ye it, this is my body," omitting the idea of
sacrifice imported by Paul's addition "which is for you"; but in them
Jesus enunciates the same idea when he says of the cup: "This is my
blood of the covenant which is poured out for many," Matthew adding "for
the remission of sins," a phrase which savours of Heb. ix. 22: "apart
from the shedding of blood there is no remission." It is a later
addition, and so may be the words "which is poured out for many." But
the words which follow have an antique ring: "Amen, I say unto you, I
will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink
it new in the kingdom of God." For here Jesus affirms his conviction, in
view of his impending death, which unlike his disciples he foresaw,
that, when the kingdom of God is instituted on earth, he will take his
place in it. But this is the last time he will sit down upon earth with
his disciples at the table of the millenarist hope. These sources do not
hint that the Last Supper is to be repeated by Christ's followers until
the advent of the kingdom. Luke's account is too much interpolated from
Paul, and the texts of his oldest MSS. too discrepant, for us to rely on
it except so far as it supports the other gospels. It emphasizes the
fact that the Last Supper was the Pascha. "With desire have I desired to
eat this Passover, before I suffer"; and places the bread after the
wine, unless indeed the Pauline interpolation comprises the whole of
verse 19.

The fourth gospel, written perhaps A.D. 90-100, sublimates the rite, in
harmony with its general treatment of the life of Jesus: "I am the
living bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof
and not die" (John vi. 51). As in 1 Cor. x. the flesh of Christ is
contrasted with the manna which saved not the Jews from death, so here
the latter ask: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and Jesus
answers: "Amen, Amen I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.... He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him." In an
earlier passage, again in reference to the manna, Jesus is called "the
bread of God, which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the
world." They ask: "Lord, ever more give us this bread," and he answers:
"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he
that believeth on me shall never thirst." This writer's thought is
coloured by the older speculations of Philo, who in metaphor called the
Logos the heavenly bread and food, the cupbearer and cup of God; and he
seems even to protest against a literal interpretation of the words of
institution, since he not only pointedly omits them in his account of
the Last Supper, but in v. 63 of this chapter writes: "It is the Spirit
that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the _words_ that I have
spoken unto you are spirit and are life."

In Acts ii. 46 we read that, "the faithful continued steadfastly with
one accord in the temple"; at the same time "breaking bread at home they
partook of food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God."
All such repasts must have been sacred, but we do not know if they
included the Eucharistic rite. The care taken in the selecting and
ordaining of the seven deacons argues a religious character for the
common meals, which they were to serve. Their main duty was to look
after the duty of the Hellenistic widows, but inasmuch as meats
strangled or consecrated to idols were forbidden, it probably devolved
on the deacons to take care that such were not introduced at these
common meals. The Essenes, similarly, appointed houses all over
Palestine where they could safely eat, and priests of their own to
prepare their food. Some Christians escaped the difficulties of their
position by eating no meat at all. "He that is weak," says Paul (Rom.
xiv. 1), "eateth herbs"; that is, becomes a vegetarian. Rather than
scandalize weaker brethren, Paul was willing to eat herbs the rest of
his life.

The travel-document in Acts often refers to the solemn breaking of
bread. Thus Paul in xxvii. 35, having invited the ship's company of 276
persons to partake of food, took bread, gave thanks to God in the
presence of all, and brake it and began to eat. The rest on board then
began to be of good cheer, and themselves also took food. Here it is not
implied that Paul shared his food except with his co-believers, but he
ate before them all. Whether he repeated the words of institution we
cannot say.

In Acts xx. 7 the faithful of Troas gather together to break bread "on
the first day of the week" after sunset. After a discourse Paul, who was
leaving them the next morning, broke bread and ate. This was surely such
a meeting as we read of in 1 Cor. x., and was held on Sunday by night;
but long before dawn, since after it Paul "talked with them a long
while, even till break of day." In 1 Cor. xvi. 1 Paul bids the
Corinthians, as he had bidden the churches of Galatia, lay up in store
on the first of the week, each one of them, money for the poor saints of
Jerusalem. This is the first notice of Sunday Eucharistic collections of
alms for the poor.

Here seems to belong in the order of development the Cathar Eucharist
(see CATHARS). The Cathars used only the Lord's prayer in consecrating
the bread and used water for wine.

The next document in chronological order is the so-called Teaching of
the Apostles (A.D. 90-110). This assigns prayers and rubrics for the
celebration of the Eucharist:--

  IX.

  "1. Now with regard to the Thanksgiving, thus give ye thanks.

  "2. First concerning the cup:--We give thanks to thee, our Father, for
  the holy vine[1] of David thy servant, which thou didst make known to
  us through Jesus thy servant;[2] to thee be the glory for ever.

  "3. And concerning the broken bread:--We give thanks to thee, our
  Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us
  through Jesus thy servant; to thee be the glory for ever.

  "4. As this broken bread was (once) scattered on the face of the
  mountains and, gathered together, became one,[3] even so may thy
  Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy
  kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for
  ever.

  "5. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but
  they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning
  this the Lord hath said. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.[4]

  X.

  "1. Then, after being filled, thus give ye thanks:--

  "2. We give thanks to thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou
  hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith
  and immortality which thou didst make known to us through Jesus Christ
  thy servant; to thee be the glory for ever.

  "3. Thou Almighty Sovereign, didst create all things for thy name's
  sake, and food and drink thou didst give to men for enjoyment, that
  they should give thanks unto thee; but to us thou didst of thy grace
  give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through thy servant.

  "4. Before all things, we give thee thanks that thou art mighty; to
  thee be the glory for ever.

  "5. Remember, Lord, thy church to deliver it from all evil, and to
  perfect it in thy love, and gather it together from the four winds,[5]
  the sanctified, unto thy kingdom, which thou hast prepared for it; for
  thine is the power and the glory for ever.

  "6. Come grace, and pass this world away. Hosanna to the God of David!
  If any one is holy, let him come. If any one is not, let him repent.
  Maranatha.[6] Amen.

  "But allow the prophets to give thanks as much as they will."

From a subsequent section, ch. xiv. 1, we learn that the Eucharist was
on Sunday:--"Now when ye are assembled together on the Lord's day of the
Lord, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your
transgressions, so that your sacrifice may be pure."

The above, like the uninterpolated Lucan account, places the cup first
and has no mention of the body and blood of Christ. But in this last and
other respects it contrasts with the other synoptic and with the Pauline
accounts. The cup is not the _blood_ of Jesus, but _the holy vine of
David_, revealed through Jesus; and the holy vine can but signify the
spiritual Israel, the _Ecclesia_ or church or Messianic Kingdom, into
which the faithful are to be gathered.

The one loaf, as in Paul, symbolizes the unity of the _ecclesia_, but
the cup and bread, given for enjoyment, are symbols at best of the
spiritual food and drink of the life eternal given of grace by the
Almighty Father through his servant (lit. boy) Jesus. The bread and wine
are indeed an offering to God of what is his own, pure because offered
in purity of heart; but they are not interpreted of the sacrifice of
Jesus' body broken on the cross, or of his blood shed for the remission
of sin. It is not, as in Paul, a meal commemorative of Christ's death,
nor connected with the Passover, as in the Synoptics. Least of all is it
a sacramental eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Jesus, a
perpetual renewal of kinship, physical and spiritual, with him. The
teaching rather breathes the atmosphere of the fourth gospel, which sets
the Last Supper before the feast of the Passover (xiii. 1), and
pointedly omits Christ's institution of the Eucharist, substituting for
it the washing of his disciples' feet. The blessing of the Bread and
Cup, as an incident in a feast of Christian brotherhood, is all that the
_Didache_ has in common with Paul and the Synoptists. The use of the
words "after being filled," in x. 1, implies that the brethren ate
heartily, and that the cup and bread formed no isolated episode. The
Baptized alone are admitted to this Supper, and they only after
confession of their sins. Every Sunday at least they are to celebrate
it. A prophet can "in the Spirit appoint a table," that is, order a
Lord's Supper to be eaten, whenever he is warned by the Spirit to do
so. But he must not himself partake of it--a very practical rule. The
prophets are to give thanks as they like at these "breakings of bread,"
without being restricted to the prayers here set forth. In xv. 3 the
overseers or bishops and deacons, though their functions are less
spiritual than administrative and economic, are allowed to take the
place of the prophets and teachers. The phrase used is [Greek:
leitourgein tên leitourgian], "to liturgize the liturgy." This word
"liturgy" soon came to connote the Eucharist. The prophets who normally
preside over the Suppers are called "your high-priests," and receive
from the faithful the first-fruits of the winepress and threshing-floor,
of oxen and sheep, and of each batch of new-made bread, and of oil. Out
of these they provide the Suppers held every Lord's day, offering them
as "a pure sacrifice." Bishops and deacons hold a subordinate place in
this document; but the contemporary Epistle of Clement of Rome attests
that these bishops "had offered the gifts without blame and holily." The
word "liturgy" is also used by Clement.

Pliny's Letter (Epist. 96), written A.D. 112 to the emperor Trajan,
about the Christians of Bithynia, attests that on a fixed day, _stato
die_ (no doubt Sunday), they met before dawn and recited antiphonally a
hymn "to Christ as to a god." They then separated, but met again later
to partake of a meal, which, however, was of an ordinary and innocent
character. Pliny regarded their meal as identical in character with the
common meals of _hetairiae_, i.e. the trade-gilds or secret societies,
which were then, as now, often inimical to the government. Even benefit
societies were feared and forbidden by the Roman autocrats, and the
"dominical suppers" of the Christians were not likely to be spared.
Pliny accordingly forbade them in Bithynia, and the renegade Christians
to whom he owed his information gave them up. These suppers included an
Eucharist; for it was because the faithful ate in the latter of the
flesh and blood of the Son of God that the charge of devouring children
was made against them. If, then, this afternoon meal did not include it,
Pliny's remark that their food was ordinary and innocent is
unintelligible.

Ignatius, about A.D. 120, in his letter to the Ephesians, defines the
one bread broken in the Eucharist as a "drug of immortality, and
antidote that we should not die, but live for ever in Jesus Christ." He
also rejects as invalid any Eucharist not held "under the bishop or one
to whom he shall have committed it." For the Christian prophet has
disappeared, and with him the custom of holding Eucharists in private
dwellings.

In the Epistle to Diognetus, formerly assigned to Justin Martyr, we read
(v. 7) that "Christians have in vogue among themselves a table common,
yet not common" (i.e. unclean). In Justin's first apology (c. 140) we
have two detailed accounts of the Eucharist, of which the first, in ch.
65, describes the first communion of the newly baptized:--

  "After we have thus washed the person who has believed and conformed
  we lead him to the brethren so called, where they are gathered
  together, to offer public prayer both for ourselves and for the person
  illuminated, and for all others everywhere, earnestly, to the end that
  having learned the truth we may be made worthy to be found not only in
  our actions good citizens, but guardians of the things enjoined.

  "We salute one another with a kiss at the end of the prayers. Then
  there is presented to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of
  water (and of a mixture,)[7] and he having taken it sends up praise
  and glory to the father of all things by the name of the Son and Holy
  Spirit, and he offers at length thanksgiving (_eucharistia_) for our
  having been made worthy of these things by him. But when he concludes
  the prayer and thanksgiving all the people present answer with
  acclamation 'Amen.' But the word 'Amen' in Hebrew signifies 'so be
  it.' And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have
  so answered, those who are called by us deacons distribute to each of
  those present, for them to partake of the bread (and wine)[8] and
  water, for which thanks have been given, and they carry portions away
  to those who are not present. And this food is called by us
  _Eucharistia_, and of it none may partake save those who believe our
  teachings to be true and have been washed in the bath which is for
  remission of sin and rebirth, and who so live as Christ taught. For
  we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink. For as
  Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by Word of God and possessed
  flesh and blood for our sake; so we have been taught that the food
  blessed (lit. thanked for) by prayer of Word spoken by him, food by
  which our blood and flesh are by change of it (into them) nourished,
  is both flesh and blood of Jesus so made flesh. For the apostles in
  the memorials made by them, which are called gospels, have so related
  it to have been enjoined on them: to wit, that Jesus took bread, gave
  thanks and said: This do ye in memory of me; this is my body, and the
  cup likewise he took and gave thanks and said, This is my blood; and
  he distributed to them alone. And this rite too the evil demons by way
  of imitation handed down in the mysteries of Mithras. For that bread
  and a cup of water is presented in the rites of their initiation with
  certain conclusions (_or_ epilogues), you either know or can learn."

The second account, in ch. 67, adds that the faithful both of town and
country met for the rite on Sunday, that the prophets were read as well
as the gospels, that the president after the reading delivered an
exhortation to imitate in their lives the goodly narratives; and that
each brought offerings to the president out of which he aided orphans
and widows, the sick, the prisoners and strangers sojourning with them.
These contributions of the faithful seem to be included by Justin along
with the bread and cup as sacrifices acceptable to God. But he also
particularly specifies (Dialog. 345) that perfect and pleasing
sacrifices alone consist in prayers and thanksgivings (_thusia_). The
elements are _gifts_ or _offerings_. Justin was a Roman, but may not
represent the official Roman church. The rite as he pictures it agrees
well with the developed liturgies of a later age.

Irenaeus (Gaul and Asia Minor, before 190) in his work _against
heresies_, iv. 31, 4, points to the sacrament in proof that the human
body may become incorruptible:

  "As bread from the earth on receiving unto itself the invocation of
  God is no longer common bread, but is an Eucharist, composed of two
  elements, an earthly and a heavenly, so our bodies by partaking of the
  Eucharist cease to be corruptible, and possess the hope of eternal
  resurrection."

There is a similar passage in the 36th fragment (ed. Harvey ii. p. 500),
sketching the rite and calling the elements antitypes:

  "The oblation of the Eucharist is not fleshly, but spiritual and so
  pure. For we offer to God the bread and the cup of blessing ([Greek:
  eulogia]), thanking him for that he bade the earth produce these
  fruits for our sustenance. And therewith having finished the offering
  ([Greek: prosphora]) we invoke the Holy Spirit to constitute this
  offering, both the bread body of Christ and the cup the blood of
  Christ, that those who partake of these antitypes ([Greek: antitupa],
  i.e. surrogates) may win remission of sins and life eternal."

Here we note the stress laid on the Invocation of the Spirit to operate
the transformation of the elements, though in what sense they are
transformed is not defined. This _Epiklesis_ survives in the Greek
liturgies, but in the Roman a prayer takes its place that the angel of
the Lord may take the oblation laid on the visible altar, and carry it
up to the altar sublime into the presence of the divine majesty. We must
not forget that the church of Irenaeus was Greek.

To the second century, lastly, belongs in part the evidence of the
catacombs, on the walls of which are depicted persons reclining at
tables supporting a fish, accompanied by one or more baskets of loaves,
and more rarely by flasks of wine or water. The fish represents Christ;
and in the Inscription of Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis about A.D. 160,
we have this symbolism enshrined in a literary form: "In company with
Paul I followed, while everywhere Faith led the way, and set before me
the fish from the fountain, mighty and stainless, whom a pure virgin
grasped, and gave this to friends to eat always, having good wine and
giving the mixt cup with bread." This representation of baskets of
loaves and several fishes, or of one fish and several loaves, seems to
contradict the usage of one loaf. It may represent the _agapé_ or Lord's
Supper as a whole, of which the one loaf and cup formed an episode. Or
the entire stock of bread may have been regarded as flesh of Jesus in
virtue of the initial consecration of one single loaf.

To the second century also belong two gnostic uses. Firstly, that of
Marcus, a Valentinian, of South Gaul about 150, whose influence extended
to Asia Minor. Irenaeus relates (Bk. I., ch. vii. 2), that this
"magician" used in the Eucharist cups apparently mixt with wine, but
really containing water, and during long invocations made them appear
"purple and red, as if the universal Grace [Greek: charis] dropped some
of her blood into the cup through his invocation, and by way of
inspiring worshippers with a passion to taste the cup and drink deep of
the influence termed Charis." Such a rite presupposes a belief in a real
change of the elements; and water must have been used. In the sequel
Irenaeus recites the Invocation read by Marcus before the
communicants:--

  "Grace that is before all things, that passeth understanding and
  words, replenish thy inner man, and make to abound in thee the
  knowledge of her, sowing in the good soil the grain of mustard seed."

The _Acts of Thomas_, secondly, ch. 46, attest an Eucharistic usage,
somewhat apart from the orthodox. The apostle spreads a linen cloth on a
bench, lays on it bread of blessing ([Greek: eulogia]), and says:

  "Jesus Christ, Son of God, who hast made us worthy to commune in the
  Eucharist of thy holy body and precious blood, Lo, we venture on the
  thanksgiving (_Eucharistia_) and invocation of thy blessed name, come
  now and communicate with us. And he began to speak and said: Come Pity
  supreme, come communion of the male, come Lady who knowest the
  mysteries of the Elect one, ... come secret mother ... come and
  communicate with us in this Eucharist which we perform in thy name and
  in the love (_agapé_) in which we are met at thy calling. And having
  said this he made a cross upon the bread, and brake it and began to
  distribute it. And first he gave to the woman, saying: This shall be
  to thee for remission of sins and release of eternal transgressions.
  And after her he gave also to all the rest that had received the
  seal."

In the 2nd century the writer who nearest approaches to the later idea
of Transubstantiation is the gnostic Theodotus (c. 160):

  "The bread no less than the oil is hallowed by the power of the name.
  They remain the same in outward appearance as they were received, but
  by that power they are transformed into a spiritual power. So the
  water when it is exorcised and becomes baptismal, not only drives out
  the evil principle, but also contracts a power of hallowing."

In the Fathers of the first three or four centuries can be traced the
same tendency to spiritualize the Eucharist as we encountered in the
fourth gospel, and in the _Didache_. Ignatius, though in _Smyrn_. 7 he
asserts the Eucharist to be Christ's "flesh which suffered for our
sins," elsewhere speaks of the blood as being "joy eternal and lasting,"
as "hope," as "love incorruptible," and of the flesh as "faith" or as
"the gospel." Clement of Alexandria (c. 180) regards the rite as an
initiation in divine knowledge and immortality. The only food he
recognizes is spiritual; e.g. knowledge of the divine Essence is "eating
and drinking of the divine Word." So Origen declares the bread which God
the Word asserted was his body to be that which nourishes souls, the
word from God the Word proceeding, the Bread from the heavenly Bread.
Not the visible bread held in his hand, nor the visible cup, were
Christ's body and blood, but the word in the mystery of which the bread
was to be broken and the wine to be poured out. "We drink Christ's
blood," he says elsewhere, "when we receive His words in which standeth
Life." So the author of the _Contra Marcellum_ writes in view of John
vi. 63 as follows (_De eccl. Theol_. p. 180):

  "In these words he instructed them to interpret in a spiritual sense
  his utterances about his flesh and blood. Do not, he said, think that
  I mean the flesh which invests and covers me, and bid you eat that;
  nor suppose either that I command you to drink my sensible and somatic
  blood. Nay, you know well that my words which I have spoken unto you
  are spirit and life. It follows that the very words and discourses are
  his flesh and blood, of which he that constantly partakes, nourished
  as it were upon heavenly bread, will partake of the heavenly life. Let
  not then, he says, this scandalize you which I have said about eating
  of my flesh and about drinking of my blood. Nor let the obvious and
  first hand meaning of what I said about my flesh and blood disturb you
  when you hear it. For these words avail nothing if heard and
  understood literally (_or_ sensibly). But it is the spirit which
  quickens them that can understand spiritually what they hear."

But these views were not those of the uninstructed pagans who filled the
churches and needed a rite which brought them, as their old sacrifices
had done, into physical contact and union with their god. Their point of
view was better expressed in the scruples of priests, who, as Tertullian
(c. 200) records (_De Corona_, iii.), were careful lest a crumb of the
bread or a drop of the wine should fall on the ground, and by such
incidents the body of Christ be harassed and attacked!

_The Eucharist as a Sacrifice_.--Before the 3rd century we cannot trace
the view that in the Eucharistic rite the death of Christ, regarded from
the Pauline standpoint as an atoning or redemptive sacrifice for the
sins of mankind, is renewed and repeated, though the germ out of which
it would surely grow is already present in the words "My blood ... which
is shed for many" of Matt. and Mark; yet more surely in Paul's "my body
which is in your behoof" and "this do in commemoration of me," where the
Greek word for do, Gr. [Greek: poieite], Lat. _facite_, could to pagan
ears mean "this do ye sacrifice." In the first two centuries the rite is
spoken of as an offering and as a bloodless sacrifice; but it is God's
own creations, the bread and wine, alms and first-fruits, which, offered
with a pure conscience, he receives as from friends, and bestows in turn
on the poor; it is the praise and prayers which are the sacrifice. In
these centuries baptism was the rite for the remission of sin, not the
Eucharist; it is the prophet in the _Didache_ who presides at the Lord's
Supper, not the Levitically conceived priest; nor as yet has the Table
become an Altar. Among Christians, prayers, supplications and
thanksgivings have taken the place of the sacrifices of the old
covenant.

In Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250) we first find the Eucharist regarded as
a sacrifice of Christ's body and blood offered by the priest for the
sins of the living and dead. We cannot drink the blood of Christ unless
Christ has been first trodden under foot and pressed.... As Jesus our
high priest offered himself as a sacrifice to his Father, so the human
priest takes Christ's place, and imitates his action by offering in
church a true and full sacrifice to God the Father (Ep. 63). He speaks
of the dominical host (_hostia_), and takes the verb to _do_ in Paul's
letter in the sense of to _sacrifice_. As early as Tertullian prayers
for the dead, who were named, were offered in the rite; but there was as
yet no idea of the sacrifice of Christ being reiterated in their behalf.
After Cyprian's day this view gains ground in the West, and almost
obscures the older view that the rite is primarily an act of communion
with Christ. In harmony with Cyprian's new conception is another
innovation of his age and place, that of children communicating; both
were the natural accompaniment of infant baptism, of which we first hear
in his letters. In the East we do not hear of the sacrifice of the body
and blood before Eusebius, about the year 300. In the Armenian church of
the 12th century the idea of a reiterated sacrificial death of Christ
still seemed bizarre and barbarous.[9] But as early as 558 in Gaul the
bread was arranged on the altar in the form of a man, so that one
believer ate his eye, another his ear, a third his hand, and so on,
according to their respective merits! This was forbidden by Pope
Pelagius I.; but in the Greek church the custom survives, the priest
even stabbing with "the holy spear" in its right side the human figure
planned out of the bread, by way of rehearsing in pantomime the
narrative of John xix. 34.

The change from a commemoration of the Passion to a re-enacting of it
came slowly in the Greek church. Thus Chrysostom (_Ham_. 17, _ad Heb_.),
after writing "We offer ([Greek: poiouren]) not another sacrifice, but
the same," instantly corrects himself and adds: "or rather we perform a
commemoration of the sacrifice." This was exactly the position also of
the Armenian church.

_Wine or Water?_--Justin Martyr perhaps contemplated the use of water
instead of wine, and Tatian his pupil used it. The Marcionites, the
Ebionites, or Judaeo-Christians of Palestine, the Montanists of Phrygia,
Africa and Galatia, the confessor Alcibiades of Lyons, c. A.D. 177
(Euseb. _Hist. Eccl_. v. 3. 2), equally used it. Cyprian (_Ep_. 63)
affirms (c. 250) that his predecessors on the throne of Carthage had
used water, and that many African bishops continued to do so, "out of
ignorance," he says, "and simplemindedness, and God would forgive them."
Pionius, the Catholic martyr of Smyrna, c. 250, also used water. In the
_Acts of Thomas_ it is used. Such uniformity of language has led Prof.
Harnack to suppose that in the earliest age water was used equally with
wine, and Eusebius the historian, who had means of judging which we have
not, saw no difficulty in identifying with the first converts of St Mark
the Therapeutae of Philo who took only bread and water in their holy
repast.

Abercius and Irenaeus are the first to speak of wine mixt with water, of
a _krama_ ([Greek: krama]) or _temperamentum_. In the East, then as now,
no one took wine without so mixing it. Cyprian insists on the admixture
of water, which he says represented the humanity of Jesus, as wine his
godhood. The users of water were named _Aquarii_ or _hydroparastatae_ in
the 4th century, and were liable to death under the code of Theodosius.
Some of the Monophysite churches, e.g. the Armenian, eschewed water and
used pure wine, so falling under the censure of the council _in Trullo_
of A.D. 692. Milk and honey was added at first communions. Oil was
sometimes offered, as well as wine, but it would seem for consecration
only, and not for consumption along with the sacrament. With the bread,
however, was sometimes consecrated cheese, e.g. by the African
Montanists in the 2nd century. Bitter herbs also were often added,
probably because they were eaten with the Paschal lamb. Many early
canons forbid the one and the other. Hot water was mixt with the wine in
the Greek churches for some centuries, and this custom is seen in
catacomb paintings. It increased the resemblance to real blood.

_Position of the Faithful at the Eucharist_.--Tertullian, Eusebius,
Chrysostom and others represent the faithful as standing at the
Eucharist. In the art of the catacombs they sit or recline in the
ordinary attitude of banqueters. In the age of Christ standing up at the
Paschal meal had been given up, and it was become the rule to recline.
Kneeling with a view to adoration of the elements was unheard of in the
primitive church, and the Armenian Fathers of the 12th century insist
that the sacrament was intended by Christ to be eaten and not gazed at
(Nerses, _op. cit_. p. 167). Eucharistic or any other liturgical
vestments were unknown until late in the 5th century, when certain
bishops were honoured with the same _pallium_ worn by civil officials
(see VESTMENTS).

In the Latin and in the Monophysite churches of Armenia and Egypt
unleavened bread is used in the Eucharist on the somewhat uncertain
ground that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal. The Greek church uses
leavened.

_Transubstantiation_.--In the primitive age no one asked how Christ was
present in the Eucharist, or how the elements became his body and blood.
The Eucharist formed part of an _agapé_ or love feast until the end of
the 2nd century, and in parts of Christendom continued to be so much
later. It was, save where animal sacrifices survived, _the_ Christian
sacrifice, _par excellence_, the counterpart for the converted of the
sacrificial communions of paganism; and though charged with higher
significance than these, it yet reposed on a like background of
religious usage and beliefs. But when the Agapé on one side and paganism
on the other receded into a dim past, owing to the enhanced
sacrosanctity of the Eucharist and because of the severe edicts of the
emperor Theodosius and his successors, the psychological background fell
away, and the Eucharist was left isolated and hanging in the air. Then
men began to ask themselves what it meant. Rival schools of thought
sprang up, and controversy raged over it, as it had aforetime about the
_homoousion_, or the two natures. Thus the sacrament which was intended
to be a bond of peace, became a chief cause of dissension and bloodshed,
and was often discussed as if it were a vulgar talisman.

Serapion of Thmuis in Egypt, a younger contemporary of Athanasius, in
his Eucharistic prayers combines the language of the _Didache_ with a
high sacramentalism alien to that document which now only survived in
the form of a grace used at table in the nunneries of Alexandria (see
AGAPÉ). He entreats "the Lord of Powers to fill this sacrifice with his
Power and Participation," and calls the elements a "living sacrifice, a
bloodless offering." The bread and wine before consecration are
"likenesses of his body and blood," this in virtue of the words
pronounced over them by Jesus on the night of his betrayal. The prayer
then continues thus: "O God of truth, let thy holy Word settle upon this
bread, that the bread may become body of the word, and on this cup, that
the cup may become blood of the truth. And cause all who communicate to
receive a drug of life for healing of every disease and empowering of
all moral advance and virtue." Here the bread and wine become by
consecration tenements in which the Word is reincarnated, as he
aforetime dwelled in flesh. They cease to be mere _likenesses_ of the
body and blood, and are changed into receptacles of divine power and
intimacy, by swallowing which we are benefited in soul and body. Cyril
of Jerusalem in his _catechises_ 5^1 enunciates the same idea of [Greek:
metabolê] or transformation.

Gregory of Nyssa also about the same date (in Migne, _Patrolog. Graeca_,
vol. 46, col. 581, oration on the Baptism) asserts a "transformation" or
"transelementation" ([Greek: metastoicheiôsis]) of the elements into
centres of mystic force; and assimilates their consecration to that of
the water of baptism, of the altar, of oil or chrism, of the priest. He
compares it also to the change of Moses' rod into a snake, of the Nile
into blood, to the virtue inherent in Elijah's mantle or in the wood of
the cross or in the clay mixt of dust and the Lord's spittle, or in
Elisha's relics which raised a corpse to life, or in the burning bush.
All these, he says, "were parcels of matter destitute of life and
feeling, but through miracles they became vehicles of the power of God
absorbed or taken into themselves." He thus views the consecration of
the elements as akin to other consecrations; and, like priestly
ordination, as involving "a metamorphosis for the better," a phrase
which later on became classical. John of Damascus (c. 750) believed the
bread to be mysteriously changed into the Christ's body, just as when
eaten it is changed into any human body; and he argued that it is wrong
to say, as Irenaeus had said, that the elements are mere antitypes after
as before consecration. In the West, Augustine, like Eusebius and
Theodoret, calls the elements signs or symbols of the body and blood
signified in them; yet he argues that Christ "took and lifted up his own
body in his hands when he took the bread." At the same time he admits
that "no one eats Christ's flesh, unless he has first adored" (_nisi
prius adoraverit_). But he qualifies this "Receptionist" position by
declaring that Judas received the sacrament, as if the unworthiness of
the recipient made no difference.

Out of this mist of contradictions scholastic thought strove to emerge
by means of clear-cut definitions. The drawback for the dogmatist of
such a view as Serapion broaches in his prayers was this, that although
it explained how the Logos comes to be immanent in the elements, as a
soul in its body, nevertheless it did not guarantee the presence in or
rather substitution for the natural elements of Christ's real body and
blood. It only provided an [Greek: antitypon] or surrogate body. In
830-850, Paschasius Radbert taught that after the priest has uttered the
words of institution, nothing remains save the body and blood under the
outward form of bread and wine; the substance is changed and the
accidents alone remain. The elements are miraculously recreated as body
and blood. This view harmonized with the docetic view which lurked in
East and West, that the manhood of Jesus was but a likeness or semblance
under which the God was concealed. So Marcion argued that Christ's body
was not really flesh and blood, or he could not have called it bread and
wine. Paschasius shrank from the logical outcome of his view, namely,
that Christ's body or part of it is turned into human excrement, but
Ratramnus, another monk of Corbey, in a book afterwards ascribed to Duns
Scotus, drew this inference in order to discredit his antagonists, and
not because he believed it himself. The elements, he said, remain
physically what they were, but are spiritually raised as symbols to a
higher power. Perhaps we may illustrate his position by saying that the
elements undergo a change analogous to what takes place in iron, when by
being brought into an electric field it becomes magnetic. The substance
of the elements remain as well as their accidents, but like baptismal
water they gain by consecration a hidden virtue benefiting soul and
body. Ratramnus's view thus resembled Serapion's, after whom the
elements furnish a new vehicle of the Spirit's influence, a new body
through which the Word operates, a fresh sojourning among us of the
Word, though consecrated bread is in itself no more Christ's natural
body than are we who assimilate it. Other doctors of the 9th century,
e.g. Hincmar of Reims and Haimo of Halberstadt, took the side of
Paschasius, and affirmed that the substance of the bread and wine is
changed, and that God leaves the colour, taste and other outward
properties out of mercy to the worshippers, who would be overcome with
dread if the underlying real flesh and blood were nakedly revealed to
their gaze!

Berengar in the 11th century assailed this view, which was really that
of transubstantiation, alleging that there is no substance in matter
apart from the accidents, and that therefore Christ cannot be
_corporally_ present in the sacrament; because, if so, he must be
_spatially_ present, and there will be two material bodies in one space;
moreover his body will be in thousands of places at once. Christ, he
said, is present spiritually, so that the elements, while remaining what
they were, unremoved and undestroyed, are advanced to be something
better: _omne cui a Deo benedicatur, non absumi, non auferri, non
destrui, sed manere et in melius quam erat necessario provehi_. This was
the phrase of Gregory of Nyssa.

Berengar in a weak moment in 1059 was forced by the pope to recant and
assert that "the true body and blood are not only a sacrament, but in
truth touched and broken by the hands of the priests and pressed by the
teeth of the faithful," and this position remains in every Roman
catechism. Such dilemmas as whether a mouse can devour the true body,
and whether it is not involved in all the obscenities of human digestive
processes, were ill met by this ruling. Each party dubbed the other
_stercoranists_ (dung-feasters), and the controversy was often marred by
indecencies.

As in the 3rd century the Roman church decided in respect of baptism
that the sacrament carries the church and not the church the sacrament,
so in the dispute over the Eucharist it ended, in spite of more
spiritual views essayed by Peter Lombard, by insisting on the more
materialistic view at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, whose decree
runs thus:--"The body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly contained in
the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine, the
bread and wine respectively being transubstantiated into body and blood
by divine power, so that in order to the perfecting of the mystery of
unity we may ourselves receive from his (body) what he himself receives
from ours." In 1264 Urban IV. instituted the Corpus Christi Feast by way
of giving liturgical expression to this view.

_Communion in One Kind._--Up to about 1100 laymen in the West received
the communion in both kinds, and except in a few disciplinary cases the
wine was not refused. In 1099, by a decree of Pope Paschal II., children
might omit the wine and invalids the bread. The communion of the laity
in the bread alone was enjoined by the council of Constance in 1415, and
by the council of Trent in 1562. The reformed churches of the West went
back to the older rule which Eastern churches had never forsaken.

_Mass._--The term _mass_, which survives in Candlemas, Christmas,
Michaelmas, is from the Latin _missa_, which was in the 3rd century a
technical term for the dismissal of any lay meeting, e.g. of a
law-court, and was adopted in that sense by the church as early as
Ambrose (c. 350). The catechumens or unbaptized, together with the
penitents, remained in church during the Litany, collect, three
lections, two psalms and homily. The deacon then cried out: "Let the
catechumens depart. Let all catechumens go out." This was the _missa_ of
the catechumens. The rest of the rite was called _missa fidelium_,
because only the initiated remained. Similarly the collect with which
often the rite began is the prayer _ad collectam_, i.e. for the
congregation met together or collected. The corresponding Greek word was
_synaxis_.

After the catechumens were gone the priest said: "The Lord be with you,
let us pray," and the service of the mass followed.

In the West, says Duchesne (_Origines_, p. 179), not only catechumens,
but the baptized who did not communicate left the church before the
communion of the faithful began (? after the communion of the clergy).
In Anglican churches non-communicants used to leave the church after the
prayer for the Church Militant. Ritualists now keep unconfirmed children
in church during the entire rite, through ignorance of ancient usage, in
order that they may learn to adore the consecrated elements. For this
moment of homage to material elements ritually filled with divine
potency may be so exaggerated as to obscure the rite's ancient
significance as a communion of the faithful in mystic food.

_Ideas of Reformers._--The 16th-century reformers strove to avoid the
literalism of the words "This is my body," accepted frankly by the Roman
and Eastern churches, and urged a Receptionist view, viz. that Christ is
in the sacrament only spiritually consumed by worthy recipients alone,
the material body not being actually chewed. This is seen by a
comparison of other confessions with the Profession of Catholic Faith in
accordance with the council of Trent, in the bull of Pius IV., which
runs thus:--

  "I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper and
  propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, and that in the
  most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly really and in
  substance the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of
  our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there does take place a conversion of
  the entire substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire
  substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic
  Church doth call Transubstantiation. I also admit that under one of
  the other species alone the entire and whole Christ and the true
  sacrament is received."

The 28th Article of Religion of the Church of England is as follows:--

  "The Supper of the Lord ... is a Sacrament of our Redemption by
  Christ's death; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with
  faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of
  the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of
  the Blood of Christ.

  "Transubstantiation ... cannot be proved by holy writ....

  "The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the Supper, only
  after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body
  of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

  "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance
  reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

At the end of the communion rite the prayer-book, in view of the
ordinance to receive the Sacrament kneeling, adds the following:--

  "It is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or
  ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine, there
  bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural
  Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in
  their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for
  that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and
  the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and
  not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at
  one time in more places than one."

These monitions and prescriptions are rapidly becoming a dead-letter,
but they possess a certain historical interest.

The Helvetic Confession[10] of A.D. 1566 (_caput_ xxi. _De sacra coena
Domini_) runs as follows:--

  "That it may be more rightly and clearly understood how the flesh and
  blood of Christ can be food and drink of the faithful, and be received
  by them unto eternal life, let us add these few remarks. Chewing is
  not of one kind alone. For there is a corporeal chewing, by which food
  is taken into the mouth by man, bruised with the teeth and swallowed
  down into the belly.... As the flesh of Christ cannot be corporeally
  chewed without wickedness and truculence, so it is not food of the
  belly.... There is also a spiritual chewing of the body of Christ, not
  such that by it we understand the very food to be changed into spirit,
  but such that, the body and blood of the Lord abiding in their essence
  and peculiarity, they are spiritually communicated to us, not in any
  corporeal way, but in a spiritual, through the Holy Spirit which
  applies and bestows on us those things which were prepared through the
  flesh and blood of the Lord betrayed for our sake to death, to wit,
  remission of sins, liberation and life eternal, so that Christ lives
  in us and we in him....

  "In addition to the aforesaid spiritual chewing, there is also a
  sacramental chewing of the Lord's body, by which the faithful not only
  partakes spiritually and inwardly of the true body and blood of the
  Lord, but outwardly by approaching the Lord's table, receives the
  visible sacrament of his body and blood.... But he who without faith
  approaches the sacred table, albeit he communicate in the sacrament,
  yet he perceives not the matter of the sacrament, whence is life and
  salvation...."

The Augustan Confession presented by the German electors to Charles V.
in the section on the Mass merely protests against the view that "the
Lord's Supper is a work (_opus_) which being performed by a priest earns
remission of sin for the doer and for others, and that in virtue of the
work done (_ex opere operato_), without a good motive on the part of the
user. Also that being applied for the dead, it is a satisfaction, that
is to say, earns for them remission of the pains of purgatory."

The Saxon Confession of Wittenberg, June 1551, while protesting against
the same errors, equally abstains from trying to define narrowly how
Christ is present in the sacrament.

_Consubstantiation_.--The symbolical books of the Lutheran Church,
following the teaching of Luther himself, declare the doctrine of the
real presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist, _together
with_ the bread and wine (_consubstantiation_), as well as the ubiquity
of his body, as the orthodox doctrine of the church. One consequence of
this view was that the unbelieving recipients are held to be as really
partakers of the body of Christ in, with and under the bread as the
faithful, though they receive it to their own hurt. (Hagenbach, _Hist.
of Doctr_. ii. 300.)

Of all the Reformers, the teaching of Zwingli was the farthest removed
from that of Luther. At an early period he asserted that the Eucharist
was nothing more than food for the soul, and had been instituted by
Christ only as an act of commemoration and as a visible sign of his body
and blood (_Christenliche Ynleitung_, 1523, quoted by Hagenbach, _Hist.
of Doctr_. ii. 296, Clark's translation). But that Zwingli did not
reject the higher religious significance of the Eucharist, and was far
from degrading the bread and wine into "nuda et inania symbola," as he
was accused of doing, we see from his _Fidei ratio ad Carolum
Imperatorem_ (ib. p. 297).

_Original Significance of the Eucharist_.--It is doubtful if the
attempts of reformers to spiritualize the Eucharist bring us, except so
far as they pruned ritual extravagances, nearer to its original
significance; perhaps the Roman, Greek and Oriental churches have better
preserved it. This significance remains to be discussed; the cognate
question of how far the development of the Eucharist was influenced by
the pagan mysteries is discussed in the article SACRAMENT.

That the Lord's Supper was from the first a meal symbolic of Christian
unity and commemorative of Christ's death is questioned by none. But
Paul, while he saw this much in it, saw much more; or he could not in
the same epistle, x. 18-22 assimilate communion in the flesh and blood
of Jesus, on the one hand, to the sacrificial communion with the altar
which made Israel after the flesh one; and on the other to the communion
with devils attained by pagans through sacrifices offered before idols.
It has been justly remarked of the Pauline view, that--

  "The union with the Lord Himself, to which those who partake of the
  Lord's Supper have, is compared with the union which those who partake
  of a sacrifice have with the deity to whom the altar is devoted--in
  the case of the Israelites with God, of the heathen with demons. This
  idea that to partake of sacrifice is to devote oneself to the deity,
  lies at the root of the ancient idea of worship, whether Jewish or
  heathen; and St Paul uses it as being readily understood. In this
  connexion the symbol is never a mere symbol, but a means of real
  union. 'The cup is the covenant'" (Prof. Sanday in Hastings'
  _Dictionary of the Bible_, 3, 149).

Paul caps his argument thus:--"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and
the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the
table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger
than he?" And these words with their context prove that Paul, like the
Fathers of the church, regarded the gods and goddesses as real living
supernatural beings, but malignant. They were the powers and
principalities with whom he was ever at war. The Lord also is jealous of
them, if any one attempt to combine their cult with his, for to do so is
to doubt the supremacy of his name above all names. Both in its inner
nature then and outward effects the Eucharist was the Christian
counterpart of these two other forms of communion of which one, the
heathen, was excluded from the first, and the other, the Jewish, soon to
disappear. It is their analogue, and to understand it we must understand
them, not forgetting that Paul, as a Semite, and his hearers, as
converted pagans, were imbued with the sacrificial ideas of the old
world.

"A kin," remarks W. Robertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, 1894),
"was a group of persons whose lives were so bound up together, in what
must be called a physical unity, that they could be treated as parts of
one common life. The members of one kindred looked on themselves as one
living whole, a single animated mass of blood, flesh and bones, of which
no member could be touched without all the members suffering." "In later
times," observes the same writer (_op. cit._ p. 313), "we find the
conception current that any food which two men partake of together, so
that the same substance enters into their flesh and blood, is enough to
establish some sacred unity of life between them; but in ancient times
this significance seems to be always attached to participation in the
flesh of a sacrosanct victim, and the solemn mystery of its death is
justified by the consideration that only in this way can the sacred
cement be procured, which creates or keeps alive a living bond of union
between the worshippers and their god. This cement is nothing else than
the actual life of the sacred and kindred animal, which is conceived as
residing in its flesh, but specially in its blood, and so, in the sacred
meal, is actually distributed among all the participants, each of whom
incorporates a particle of it with his own individual life."

The above conveys the cycle of ideas within which Paul's reflection
worked. Christ who knew no sin (2 Cor. v. 21) had been made sin, and
sacrificed for us, becoming as it were a new Passover (1 Cor. v. 7). By
a mysterious sympathy the bread and wine over which the words, "This is
my body which is for you," and "This cup is the new covenant in my
blood," had been uttered, became Christ's body and blood; so that by
partaking of these the faithful were united with each other and with
Christ into one kinship. They became the body of Christ, and his blood
or life was in them, and they were members of him. Participation in the
Eucharist gave actual life, and it was due to their irregular attendance
at it that many members of the Corinthian church "were weak and sickly
and not a few slept" (i.e. had died). As the author already cited adds
(p. 313): "The notion that by eating the flesh, or particularly by
drinking the blood, of another living being, a man absorbs its nature or
life into his own, is one which appears among primitive peoples in many
forms."

But this effect of participation in the bread and cup was not in Paul's
opinion automatic, was no mere _opus operatum_; it depended on the
ethical co-operation of the believer, who must not eat and drink
_unworthily_, that is, after refusing to share his meats with the poorer
brethren, or with any other guilt in his soul. The phrases "discern the
body" and "discern ourselves" in 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31 are obscure. Paul
evidently plays on the verb, _krinô, diakrinô, katakrinô_ ([Greek:
krinô], [Greek: diakrinô], [Greek: katakrinô]). The general sense is
clear, that those who consume the holy food without a clear conscience,
like those who handle sacred objects with impure hands, will suffer
physical harm from its contact, as if they were undergoing the ordeal of
touching a holy thing. The idea, therefore, seems to be that as we must
distinguish the holy food over which the words "This is my body" have
been uttered from common food, so we must separate ourselves before
eating it from all that is guilty and impure. The food that is _taboo_
must only be consumed by persons who are equally _taboo_ or pure. If
they are not pure, it condemns them.

The "one" loaf has many parallels in ancient sacrifices, e.g. the Latin
tribes when they met annually at their common temple partook of a
"single" bull. And in Greek _Panegureis_ or festivals the sacrificial
wine had to be dispensed from one common bowl: "Unto a common cup they
come together, and from it pour libations as well as sacrifice," says
Aristides Rhetor in his _Isthmica in Neptunum_, p. 45. To ensure the
continued unity of the bread, the Roman church ever leaves over from a
preceding consecration half a holy wafer, called _fermentum_, which is
added in the next celebration.

With what awe Paul regarded the elements mystically identified with
Christ's body and life is clear from his declaration in 1 Cor. xi. 27,
that he who consumes them unworthily is guilty or holden of the Lord's
body and blood. This is the language of the ancient ordeal which as a
test of innocence required the accused to touch or still better to eat a
holy element. A wife who drank the holy water in which the dust of the
Sanctuary was mingled (Num. v. 17 foll.) offended so deeply against it,
if unfaithful, that she was punished with dropsy and wasting. The very
point is paralleled in the _Acts of Thomas_, ch. xlviii. A youth who has
murdered his mistress takes the bread of the Eucharist in his mouth, and
his two hands are at once withered up. The apostle immediately invites
him to confess the crime he must have committed, "for, he says, the
Eucharist of the Lord hath convicted thee."

It has been necessary to consider at such length St Paul's account of
the Eucharist, both because it antedates nearly by half a century that
of the gospels, and because it explains the significance which the rite
had no less for the Gnostics than for the great church. The synoptists'
account is to be understood thus: Jesus, conscious that he now for the
last time lies down to eat with his disciples a meal which, if not the
Paschal, was anyhow anticipatory of the Millennial Regeneration (Matt.
xix. 28), institutes, as it were, a blood-brotherhood between himself
and them. It is a covenant similar to that of Exodus xxiv., when after
the peace-offering of oxen, Moses took the blood in basins and sprinkled
half of it on the altar and on twelve pillars erected after the twelve
tribes, and the other half on the people, to whom he had first read out
the writing of the covenant and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant
which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words."

But the covenant instituted by Jesus on the eve of his death was hardly
intended as a new covenant with God, superseding the old. This
reconstruction of its meaning seems to have been the peculiar revelation
of the Lord to Paul, who viewed Christ's crucifixion and death as an
atoning sacrifice, liberating by its grace mankind from bonds of sin
which the law, far from snapping, only made more sensible and grievous.
This must have been the gist of the special revelation which he had
received from Christ as to the inner character of a supper which he
already found a ritual observance among believers. The Eucharist of the
synoptists is rather a covenant or tie of communion between Jesus and
the twelve, such as will cause his life to survive in them after he has
been parted from them in the flesh. An older prophet would have slain an
animal and drunk its blood in common with his followers, or they would
all alike have smeared themselves with it. In the East, even now, one
who wishes to create a blood tie between himself and his followers and
cement them to himself, makes under his left breast an incision from
which they each in turn suck his blood. Such barbarisms was alien to the
spirit of the Founder, who substitutes bread and wine for his own flesh
and blood, only imparting to these his own quality by the declaration
that they _are_ himself. He broke the bread not in token of his
approaching death, but in order to its equal distribution. Wine he
rather chose than water as a surrogate for his actual blood, because it
already in Hebrew sacrifices passed as such. "The Hebrews," says
Robertson Smith (_op. cit_. p. 230), "treated it like the blood, pouring
it out at the base of the altar." As a red liquid it was a ready symbol
of the blood which is the life. It was itself the covenant, for the
genitive [Greek: tês diathêkês] in Mark xiv. 24 is epexegetic, and Luke
and Paul rightly substitute the nominative. It was, as J. Wellhausen
remarks,[11] a better cement than the bread, because through the
drinking of it the very blood of Jesus coursed through the veins of the
disciples, and that is why more stress is laid on it than on the bread.
To the apostles, as Jews bred and born, the action and words of their
master formed a solemn and intelligible appeal. It belongs to the same
order of ideas that the headship of the Messianic _ecclesia_ in Judea
was assigned after the death of Jesus to his eldest brother James, and
after him for several generations to the eldest living representative of
his family.

To the modern mind it is absurd that an image or symbol should be taken
for that which is imaged or symbolized, and that is why the early
history of the Eucharist has been so little understood by ecclesiastical
writers. And yet other religions, ancient and modern, supply many
parallels, which are considered in the article SACRAMENT.

  Authorities.--Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_; Goetz, _Die
  Abendmahlsfrage_; G. Anrich, _Das antike Mysterienwesen_ (Göttingen,
  1894); _Sylloge confessionum_ (Oxford, 1804); Duchesne, _Origins of
  Christian Culture_; Funk's edition of _Constitutiones Apostolicae_;
  Hagenbach, _History of Doctrines_, vol. ii.; Geo. Bickell, _Messe und
  Pascha_; idem. "Die Entstehung der Liturgie," _Ztsch. f. Kath. Theol_.
  iv. Jahrg. 94 (1880), p. 90 (shows how the prayers of the Christian
  sacramentaries derive from the Jewish Synagogue); Goar, _Rituale
  Graecorum_; F.E. Brightman, _Eastern Liturgies_; Cabrol and Leclercq,
  _Monumenta liturgica, reliquiae liturgicae vetustissimae_ (Paris,
  1900); Harnack, _History of Dogma_; Jas. Martineau, _Seat of Authority
  in Religion_, bk. iv. (London, 1890); Loofs, art. "Abendmahlsfeier" in
  Herzog's _Realencyklopädie_ (1896.) Spitta, _Urchristentum_
  (Göttingen, 1893); Schultzen, _Das Abendmahl im N.T._ (Göttingen,
  1895); Kraus, _Real-Encykl. d. christl. Altert_. (for the
  Archaeology); art. "Eucharistic"; Ch. Gore, _Dissertations_ (1895);
  Hoffmann, _Die Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu Christi_ (Königsberg, 1896);
  Sanday, art. "Lord's Supper" in _Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible_;
  Th. Harnack, _Der christl. Gemeindegottesdienst_.     (F. C. C.)


RESERVATION OF THE EUCHARIST

The practice of reserving the sacred elements for the purpose of
subsequent reception prevailed in the church from very early times. The
Eucharist being the seal of Christian fellowship, it was a natural
custom to send portions of the consecrated elements by the hands of the
deacons to those who were not present (Justin Martyr, _Apol_. i. 65).
From this it was an easy development, which prevailed before the end of
the 2nd century, for churches to send the consecrated Bread to one
another as a sign of communion (the [Greek: eucharistia] mentioned by
Irenaeus, _ap_. Eus. _H.E._ v. 24), and for the faithful to take it to
their own homes and reserve it in _arcae_ or caskets for the purpose of
communicating themselves (Tert. _ad Uxor_. ii. 5, _De orat_. 19; St
Cypr. _De lapsis_, 132). Being open to objection on grounds both of
superstition and of irreverence, these customs were gradually put down
by the council of Laodicea in A.D. 360. But some irregular forms of
reservation still continued; the prohibition as regards the lay people
was not extended, at any rate with any strictness, to the clergy and
monks; the Eucharist was still carried on journeys; occasionally it was
buried with the dead; and in a few cases the pen was even dipped in the
chalice in subscribing important writings. Meanwhile, both in East and
West, the general practice has continued unbroken of reserving the
Eucharist, in order that the "mass of the presanctified" might take
place on certain "aliturgic" days, that the faithful might be able to
communicate when there was no celebration, and above all that it might
be at hand to meet the needs of the sick and dying. It was reserved in a
closed vessel, which took various forms from time to time, known in the
East as the [Greek: artophorion], and in the West as the _turris_, the
_capsa_, and later on as the _pyx_. In the East it was kept against the
wall behind the altar; in the West, in a locked aumbry in some part of
the church, or (as in England and France) in a pyx made in the form of a
dove and suspended over the altar.

In the West it has been used in other ways. A portion of the consecrated
Bread from one Eucharist, known as the "Fermentum," was long made use of
in the next, or sent by the bishop to the various churches of his city,
no doubt with the object of emphasizing, the solidarity and the
continuity of "the one Eucharist"; and amongst other customs which
prevailed for some centuries, from the 8th onward, were those of giving
it to the newly ordained in order that they might communicate
themselves, and of burying it in or under the altar-slab of a newly
consecrated church. At a later date, apparently early in the 14th
century, began the practice of carrying the Eucharist in procession in a
monstrance; and at a still later period, apparently after the middle of
the 16th century, the practice of Benediction with the reserved
sacrament, and that of the "forty hours' exposition," were introduced in
the churches of the Roman communion. It should be said, however, that
most of these practices met with very considerable opposition both from
councils and from theologians and canonists, amongst others from the
English canonist William Lyndwood (_Provinciale_, lib. iii. c. 26), on
the following grounds amongst others: that the Body of Christ is the
food of the soul, that it ought not to be reserved except for the
benefit of the sick, and that it ought not to be applied to any other
use than that for which it was instituted.

In England, during the religious changes of the 16th century, such of
these customs as had already taken root were abolished; and with them
the practice of reserving the Eucharist in the churches appears to have
died out too. The general feeling on the subject is expressed by the
language of the 28th Article, first drafted in 1553, to the effect that
"the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance
reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped," and by the fact that
a form was provided for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist for the
sick in their own homes. This latter practice was in accordance with
abundant precedent, but had become very infrequent, if not obsolete, for
many years before the Reformation. The first Prayer-Book of Edward VI.
provided that if there was a celebration in church on the day on which a
sick person was to receive the Holy Communion, it should be reserved,
and conveyed to the sick man's house to be administered to him; if not,
the curate was to visit the sick person before noon and there celebrate
according to a form which is given in the book. At the revision of the
Prayer-Book in 1552 all mention of reservation is omitted, and the
rubric directs that the communion is to be celebrated in the sick
person's house, according to a new form; and this service has continued,
with certain minor changes, down to the present day. That the tendency
of opinion in the English Church during the period of the Reformation
was against reservation is beyond doubt, and that the practice actually
died out would seem to be equally clear. The whole argument of some of
the controversial writings of the time, such as Bishop Cooper on
_Private Mass_, depends upon that fact; and when Cardinal du Perron
alleged against the English Church the lack of the reserved Eucharist,
Bishop Andrewes replied, not that the fact was otherwise, but that
reservation was unnecessary in view of the English form for the
Communion of the Sick: "So that reservation needeth not; the intent is
had without it" (_Answers to Cardinal Perron, &c._, p. 19, Library of
Anglo-Catholic Theology). It does not follow, however, that a custom
which has ceased to exist is of necessity forbidden, nor even that what
was rejected by the authorities of the English Church in the 16th
century is so explicitly forbidden as to be unlawful under its existing
system; and not a few facts have to be taken into account in any
investigation of the question. (1) The view has been held that in the
Eucharist the elements are only consecrated as regards the particular
purpose of reception in the service itself, and that consequently what
remains unconsumed may be put to common uses. If this view were held
(and it has more than once made its appearance in church history, though
it has never prevailed), reservation might be open to objection on
theological grounds. But such is not the view of the Church of England
in her doctrinal standards, and there is an express rubric directing
that any that remains of that which was consecrated is not to be carried
out of the church, but reverently consumed. There can therefore be no
theological obstacle to reservation in the English Church: it is a
question of practice only. (2) Nor can it be said that the rubric just
referred to is in itself a condemnation of reservation: it is rather
directed, as its history proves, against the irreverence which prevailed
when it was made; and in fact its wording is based upon that of a
pre-Reformation order which coexisted with the practice of reservation
(Lyndwood, _Provinciale_, lib. iii. tit. 26, note q). (3) Nor can it be
said that the words of the 28th Article (see above) constitute in
themselves an express prohibition of reservation, strong as their
evidence may be as to the practice and feeling of the time. The words
are the common property of an earlier age which saw nothing
objectionable in reservation for the sick. (4) It has indeed been
contended (by Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury) that reservation was not
actually, though tacitly, continued under the second Prayer-Book of
Edward VI., since that book orders that the curate shall "minister," and
not "celebrate," the communion in the sick person's house. But such a
tacit sanction on the part of the compilers of the second Prayer-Book is
in the highest degree improbable, in view of their known opinions on the
subject; and an examination of contemporary writings hardly justifies
the contention that the two words are so carefully used as the argument
would demand. Anyhow, as the bishop notes, this could not be the case
with the Prayer-Book of 1661, where the word is "celebrate." (5) The
Elizabethan Act of Uniformity contained a provision that at the
universities the public services, with the exception of the Eucharist,
might be in a language other than English; and in 1560 there appeared a
Latin version of the Prayer-Book, issued under royal letters patent, in
which there was a rubric prefixed to the Order for the Communion of the
Sick, based on that in the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI. (see above),
and providing that the Eucharist should be reserved for the sick person
if there had been a celebration on the same day. But although the book
in question was issued under letters patent, it is not really a
translation of the Elizabethan book at all, but simply a reshaping of
Aless's clever and inaccurate translation of Edward VI.'s first book. In
the rubric in question words are altered here and there in a way which
shows that its reappearance can hardly be a mere printer's error; but in
any case its importance is very slight, for the Act of Uniformity
specially provides that the English service alone is to be used for the
Eucharist. (6) It has been pointed out that reservation for the sick
prevails in the Scottish Episcopal Church, the doctrinal standards of
which correspond with those of the Church of England. But it must be
remembered that the Scottish Episcopal Church has an additional order of
its own for the Holy Communion, and that consequently its clergy are not
restricted to the services in the Book of Common Prayer. Moreover, the
practice of reservation which has prevailed in Scotland for over 150
years would appear to have arisen out of the special circumstances of
that church during the 18th century, and not to have prevailed
continuously from earlier times. (7) Certain of the divines who took
part in the framing of the Prayer-Book of 1661 seem to speak of the
practice as though it actually prevailed in their day. But Bishop
Sparrow's words on the subject (_Rationale_, p. 349) are not free from
difficulty on any hypothesis, and Thorndike (_Works_, v. 578, Library of
Anglo-Catholic Theology) writes in such a style that it is often hard to
tell whether he is describing the actual practice of his day or that
which in his view it ought to be. (8) There appears to be more evidence
than is commonly supposed to show that a practice analogous to that of
Justin Martyr's day has been adopted from time to time in England, viz.
that of conveying the sacred elements to the houses of the sick during,
or directly after, the celebration in church. And in 1899 this practice
received the sanction of Dr Westcott, then bishop of Durham. (9) On the
other hand, the words of the oath taken by the clergy under the 36th of
the Canons of 1604 are to the effect that they will use the form
prescribed in the Prayer-Book and none other, except so far as shall be
otherwise ordered by lawful authority; and the Prayer-Book does not even
mention the reservation of the Eucharist, whilst the Articles mention it
only in the way of depreciation.

The matter has become one of no little practical importance owing to
modern developments of English Church life. On the one hand, it is
widely felt that neither the form for the Communion of the Sick, nor yet
the teaching with regard to spiritual communion in the third rubric at
the end of that service, is sufficient to meet all the cases that arise
or may arise. On the other hand, it is probable that in many cases the
desire for reservation has arisen, in part at least, from a wish for
something analogous to the Roman Catholic customs of exposition and
benediction; and the chief objection to any formal practice of
reservation, on the part of many who otherwise would not be opposed to
it, is doubtless to be found in this fact. But however that may be, the
practice of reservation of the Eucharist, either in the open church or
in private, has become not uncommon in recent days.

The question of the legality of reservation was brought before the two
archbishops in 1899, under circumstances analogous to those in the
Lambeth Hearing on Incense (q.v.). The parties concerned were three
clergymen, who appealed from the direction of their respective
diocesans, the bishops of St Albans and Peterborough and the archbishop
of York: in the two former cases the archbishop (Temple) of Canterbury
was the principal and the archbishop of York (Maclagan) the assessor,
whilst in the latter case the functions were reversed. The hearing
extended from 17th to 20th July; counsel were heard on both sides,
evidence was given in support of the appeals by two of the clergy
concerned and by several other witnesses, lay and clerical, and the
whole matter was gone into with no little fulness. The archbishops gave
their decision on the 1st of May 1900 in two separate judgments, to the
effect that, in Dr Temple's words, "the Church of England does not at
present allow reservation in any form, and that those who think that it
ought to be allowed, though perfectly justified in endeavouring to get
the proper authorities to alter the law, are not justified in practising
reservation until the law has been so altered." The archbishop of York
also laid stress upon the fact that the difficulties in the way of the
communion of the sick, when they are really ready for communion, are not
so great as has sometimes been suggested.

  See W.E. Scudamore, _Notitia eucharistica_ (2nd ed., London, 1876);
  and art. "Reservation" in _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_, vol.
  ii. (London, 1893); _Guardian_ newspaper, July 19 and 26, 1899, and
  May 2, 1900; _The Archbishops of Canterbury and York on Reservation of
  the Sacrament_ (London, 1900); J.S. Franey, _Mr Dibdin's Speech on
  Reservation, and some of the Evidence_ (London, 1899); F.C. Eeles,
  _Reservation of the Holy Eucharist in the Scottish Church_ (Aberdeen,
  1899); Bishop J. Wordsworth, _Further Considerations on Public
  Worship_ (Salisbury, 1901).     (W. E. Co.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Ps. lxxx. 8-19.

  [2] Acts iv. 25, 27.

  [3] 1 Cor. x. 17; Soph. iii. 10.

  [4] Matt. vii. 6.

  [5] Matt. xxiv. 31.

  [6] 1 Cor. xvi. 22.

  [7] We should probably omit the words bracketed.

  [8] The codex Othobonianus omits the words bracketed.

  [9] See Nerses of Lambron, _Opera Armenice_ (Venice, 1847), pp. 74,
    75, 101, &c.

  [10] This represents the views of Calvin.

  [11] _Das Evangelium Marci_, p. 121.




EUCHRE, a game of cards. The name is supposed by some to be a corruption
of _écarté_, to which game it bears some resemblance; others connect it
with the Ger. _Juchs_ or _Jux_, a joke, owing to the presence in the
pack, or "deck," of a special card called "the joker"; but neither
derivation is quite satisfactory. The "deck" consists of 32 cards, all
cards between the seven and ace being rejected from an ordinary pack.
Sometimes the sevens and eights are rejected as well. The "joker" is the
best card, i.e. the highest trump. Second in value is the "right bower"
(from Dutch _boer_, farmer, the name of the knave), or knave of trumps;
third is the "left bower," the knave of the other suit of the same
colour as the right bower, also a trump: then follow ace, king, queen,
&c., in order. Thus if spades are trumps the order is (1) the joker, (2)
knave of spades, (3) knave of clubs, (4) ace of spades, &c. The joker,
however, is not always used. When it is, the game is called "railroad"
euchre. In suits not trumps the cards rank as at whist. Euchre can be
played by two, three or four persons. In the cut for deal, the highest
card deals, the knave being the highest and the ace the next best card.
The dealer gives five cards to each person, two each and then three
each, or vice versa: when all have received their cards the next card in
the pack is turned up for trumps.

  _Two-handed Euchre_.--If the non-dealer, who looks at his cards first,
  is satisfied, he says "I order it up," i.e. he elects to play with his
  hand as it stands and with the trump suit as turned up. The dealer
  then rejects one card, which is put face downwards at the bottom of
  the pack, and takes the trump card into his hand. If, however, the
  non-dealer is not satisfied with his original hand, he says "I pass,"
  on which the dealer can either "adopt," or "take it up," the suit
  turned up, and proceed as before, or he can pass, turning down the
  trump card to show that he passes. If both players pass, the
  non-dealer can make any other suit trumps, by saying "I make it
  spades," for example, or he can pass again, when the dealer can either
  make another suit trumps or pass. If both players pass, the hand is at
  an end. If the trump card is black and either player makes the other
  black suit trumps, he "makes it next"; if he makes a red suit trumps
  he "crosses the suit"; the same applies to trumps in a red suit,
  _mutatis mutandis_. The non-dealer leads; the dealer must follow suit
  if he can, but he need not win the trick, nor need he trump if unable
  to follow suit. The left bower counts as a trump, and a trump must be
  played to it if led. The game is five up. If the player who orders up
  or adopts makes five tricks (a "march") he scores two points; if four
  or three tricks, one point; if he makes less than three tricks, he is
  "euchred" and the other player scores two. A rubber consists of three
  games, each game counting one, unless the loser has failed to score at
  all, when the winner counts two for that game. This is called a
  "lurch." When a player wins three tricks, he is said to win the
  "point." The rubber points are two, as at whist. All three games are
  played out, even if one player win the first two. It is sometimes
  agreed that if a score "laps," i.e. if the winner makes more than five
  points in a game, the surplus may be carried on to the next game. The
  leader should be cautious about ordering up, since the dealer will
  probably hold one trump in addition to the one he takes in. If the
  point is certain, the leader should pass, in case the dealer should
  take up the trump. If the dealer "turns it down," it is not wise to
  "make it," unless the odds on getting the point against one trump are
  two to one. With good cards in two suits, it is best to make it
  "next," as the dealer is not likely to have a bower in that suit. The
  dealer, if he adopts, should discard a singleton, unless it is an ace.
  If the dealer's score is three, only a very strong hand justifies one
  in "ordering up." It is generally wise in play to discard a singleton
  and not to unguard another suit. With one's adversary at four, the
  trump should be adopted even on a light hand.

  _Three-handed (cut-throat) Euchre_.--In this form of the game the
  option of playing or passing goes round in rotation, beginning with
  the player on the dealer's left. The player who orders up, takes up,
  or makes, plays against the other two; if he is euchred his
  adversaries score two each; by other laws he is set back two points,
  and should his score be at love, he has then to make seven points. The
  procedure is the same as in two-handed euchre.

  _Four-handed Euchre_.--The game is played with partners, cutting and
  sitting, and the deal passing, as at whist. If the first player
  passes, the second may say "I assist," which is the same as "ordering
  up," or he may pass. If the first player has ordered up, his partner
  may say "I take it from you," which means that he will play alone
  against the two adversaries, the first player's cards being put face
  downwards on the table, and not being used in that hand. Any player
  can similarly play "a lone hand," his partner taking no part in the
  play. Even if the first hand plays alone, the third may take it from
  him. Similarly the dealer may take it from the second hand, but the
  second hand cannot take it from the dealer. If all four players pass,
  the first player can pass, make it, or play alone, naming the suit he
  makes. The third hand can "take it" from the first, or play alone in
  the suit made by the first, the dealer having a similar right over his
  own partner. If all four pass again, the hand is at an end and the
  deal passes. The game is five up, points being reckoned as before. If
  a lone player makes five tricks his side scores four: if three tricks,
  one: if he fails to make three tricks the opponents score four. It is
  not wise for the first hand to order up or cross the suit unless very
  strong. It is good policy to lead trumps through a hand that assists,
  bad policy to do so when the leader adopts. Trumps should be led to a
  partner who has ordered up or made it. It is sometimes considered wise
  for the first hand to "keep the bridge," i.e. order up with a bad
  hand, to prevent the other side from playing alone, if their score is
  only one or two and the leader's is four. This right is lost if a
  player reminds his partner, after the trump card has been turned, that
  they are at the point of bridge. If the trump under these
  circumstances is not ordered up, the dealer should turn down, unless
  very strong. The second hand should not assist unless really strong,
  except when at the point of four-all or four-love. When led through,
  it is generally wise, _ceteris paribus_, to head the trick. The dealer
  should always adopt with two trumps in hand, or with one trump if a
  bower is turned up. At four-all and four-love he should adopt on a
  weaker hand. Also, being fourth player, he can make it on a weaker
  hand than other players. If the dealer's partner assists, the dealer
  should lead him a trump at the first opportunity; it is also a good
  opportunity for the dealer to play alone if moderately strong. If a
  player who generally keeps the bridge passes, his partner should
  rarely play alone.

  _Extracts from Rules_.--If the dealer give too many or too few cards
  to any player, or exposes two cards in turning up, it is a misdeal and
  the deal passes. If there is a faced card in the pack, or the dealer
  exposes a card, he deals again. If any one play with the wrong number
  of cards, or the dealer plays without discarding, trumps being ordered
  up, his side forfeits two points (a lone hand four points) and cannot
  score during that hand. The revoke penalty is three points for each
  revoke (five in the case of a lone hand), and no score can be made
  that hand; a card may be taken back, before the trick is quitted, to
  save a revoke, but it is an exposed card. If a lone player expose a
  card, no penalty; if he lead out of turn, the card led may be called.
  If an adversary of a lone player plays out of turn to his lead, all
  the cards of both adversaries can be called, and are exposed on the
  table.

  _Bid Euchre_.--This game resembles "Napoleon" (q.v.). It is played
  with a euchre deck, each player receiving five cards, the others being
  left face-downwards. Each player "bids," i.e. declares and makes a
  certain number of tricks, the highest bidder leading and his first
  card being a trump. When six play, the player who bids highest claims
  as his partner the player who has the best card of the trump suit, not
  in the bidder's hand: if it is among the undealt cards, which is
  ascertained by the fact that no one else holds it, he calls for the
  next best and so on. The partners then play against the other four.




EUCKEN, RUDOLF CHRISTOPH (1846-   ), German philosopher, was born on the
5th of January 1846 at Aurich in East Friesland. His father died when he
was a child, and he was brought up by his mother, a woman of
considerable activity. He was educated at Aurich, where one of his
teachers was the philosopher Wilhelm Reuter, whose influence was the
dominating factor in the development of his thought. Passing to the
university of Göttingen he took his degree in classical philology and
ancient history, but the bent of his mind was definitely towards the
philosophical side of theology. Subsequently he studied in Berlin,
especially under Trendelenburg, whose ethical tendencies and historical
treatment of philosophy greatly attracted him. From 1871 to 1874 Eucken
taught philosophy at Basel, and in 1874 became professor of philosophy
at the university of Jena. In 1908 he was awarded the Nobel prize for
literature. Eucken's philosophical work is partly historical and partly
constructive, the former side being predominant in his earlier, the
latter in his later works. Their most striking feature is the close
organic relationship between the two parts. The aim of the historical
works is to show the necessary connexion between philosophical concepts
and the age to which they belong; the same idea is at the root of his
constructive speculation. All philosophy is philosophy of life, the
development of a new culture, not mere intellectualism, but the
application of a vital religious inspiration to the practical problems
of society. This practical idealism Eucken described by the term
"Activism." In accordance with this principle, Eucken has given
considerable attention to social and educational problems.

  His chief works are:--_Die Methode der aristotelischen Forschung_
  (1872); the important historical study on the history of conceptions,
  _Die Grundbegriffe der Gegenwart_ (1878; Eng. trans. by M. Stuart
  Phelps, New York, 1880; 3rd ed. under the title _Geistige Strömungen
  der Gegenwart_, 1904; 4th ed., 1909); _Geschichte der philos.
  Terminologie_ (1879); _Prolegomena zu Forschungen über die Einheit des
  Geisteslebens_ (1885); _Beiträge zur Geschichte der neueren
  Philosophie_ (1886, 1905); _Die Einheit des Geisteslebens_ (1888);
  _Die Lebensanschauungen der grossen Denker_ (1890; 7th ed., 1907; Eng.
  trans., W. Hough and Boyce Gibson, _The Problem of Human Life_, 1909);
  _Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion_ (1901; 2nd ed., 1905); _Thomas von
  Aquino und Kant_ (1901); _Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Philos. und
  Lebensanschauung_ (1903); _Philosophie der Geschichte_ (1907); _Der
  Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt_ (1896, 1907); _Grundlinien
  einer neuen Lebensanschauung_ (1907); _Einführung in die Philosophie
  der Geisteslebens_ (1908; Eng. trans., _The Life of the Spirit_, F.L.
  Pogson, 1909, Crown Theological Library); _Der Sinn und Wert des
  Lebens_ (1908; Eng. trans., 1909); _Hauptprobleme der
  Religionsphilosophie der Gegenwart_ (1907). The following of Eucken's
  works also have been translated into English:--_Liberty in Teaching in
  the German Universities_ (1897); _Are the Germans still a Nation of
  Thinkers_? (1898); _Progress of Philos. in the 19th Century_ (1899);
  _The Finnish Question_ (1899); _The Present Status of Religion in
  Germany_ (1901). See W.R. Boyce Gibson, _Rudolf Eucken's Philosophy of
  Life_ (2nd ed., 1907), and _God with Us_ (1909); for the historical
  work, Falckenberg's _Hist. of Philos_. (Eng. trans., 1895, index);
  also H. Pöhlmann, _R. Euckens Theologie mit ihren philosophischen
  Grundlagen dargestellt_ (1903); O. Siebert, _R. Euckens Welt- und
  Lebensanschauung_ (1904).




EUCLASE, a very rare mineral, occasionally cut as a gem-stone for the
cabinet. It bears some relation to beryl in that it is a silicate
containing beryllium and aluminium, but hydrogen is also present, and
the analyses of euclase lead to the formula HBeAlSiO5 or Be(AlOH)SiO4.
It crystallizes in the monoclinic system, the crystals being generally
of prismatic habit, striated vertically, and terminated by acute
pyramids. Cleavage is perfect, parallel to the clinopinacoid, and this
suggested to R.J. Haüy the name euclase, from the Greek [Greek: eu],
easily, and [Greek: klasis], fracture. The ready cleavage renders the
stone fragile with a tendency to chip, and thus detracts from its use
for personal ornament. The colour is generally pale-blue or green,
though sometimes the mineral is colourless. When cut it resembles
certain kinds of beryl (aquamarine) and topaz, from which it may be
distinguished by its specific gravity (3.1). Its hardness (7.5) is
rather less than that of topaz. Euclase occurs with topaz at Boa Vista,
near Ouro Preto (Villa Rica) in the province of Minas Geraes, Brazil. It
is found also with topaz and chrysoberyl in the gold-bearing gravels of
the R. Sanarka in the South Urals; and is met with as a rarity in the
mica-schist of the Rauris in the Austrian Alps.




EUCLID [EUCLEIDES], of Megara, founder of the Megarian (also called the
eristic or dialectic) school of philosophy, was born c. 450 B.C.,
probably at Megara, though Gela in Sicily has also been named as his
birthplace (Diogenes Laërtius ii. 106), and died in 374. He was one of
the most devoted of the disciples of Socrates. Aulus Gellius (vi. 10)
states that, when a decree was passed forbidding the Megarians to enter
Athens, he regularly visited his master by night in the disguise of a
woman; and he was one of the little band of intimate friends who
listened to the last discourse. He withdrew subsequently with a number
of fellow disciples to Megara, and it has been conjectured, though there
is no direct evidence, that this was the period of Plato's residence in
Megara, of which indications appear in the _Theaetetus_. He is said to
have written six dialogues, of which only the titles have been
preserved. For his doctrine (a combination of the principles of
Parmenides and Socrates) see MEGARIAN SCHOOL.




EUCLID, Greek mathematician of the 3rd century B.C.; we are ignorant not
only of the dates of his birth and death, but also of his parentage, his
teachers, and the residence of his early years. In some of the editions
of his works he is called _Megarensis_, as if he had been born at Megara
in Greece, a mistake which arose from confounding him with another
Euclid, a disciple of Socrates. Proclus (A.D. 412-485), the authority
for most of our information regarding Euclid, states in his commentary
on the first book of the _Elements_ that Euclid lived in the time of
Ptolemy I., king of Egypt, who reigned from 323 to 285 B.C., that he was
younger than the associates of Plato, but older than Eratosthenes
(276-196 B.C.) and Archimedes (287-212 B.C.). Euclid is said to have
founded the mathematical school of Alexandria, which was at that time
becoming a centre, not only of commerce, but of learning and research,
and for this service to the cause of exact science he would have
deserved commemoration, even if his writings had not secured him a
worthier title to fame. Proclus preserves a reply made by Euclid to King
Ptolemy, who asked whether he could not learn geometry more easily than
by studying the _Elements_--"There is no royal road to geometry." Pappus
of Alexandria, in his _Mathematical Collection_, says that Euclid was a
man of mild and inoffensive temperament, unpretending, and kind to all
genuine students of mathematics. This being all that is known of the
life and character of Euclid, it only remains therefore to speak of his
works.

Among those which have come down to us the most remarkable is the
_Elements_ ([Greek: Stoicheia]) (see GEOMETRY). They consist of thirteen
books; two more are frequently added, but there is reason to believe
that they are the work of a later mathematician, Hypsicles of
Alexandria.

The question has often been mooted, to what extent Euclid, in his
_Elements_, is a discoverer or a compiler. To this question no entirely
satisfactory answer can be given, for scarcely any of the writings of
earlier geometers have come down to our times. We are mainly dependent
on Pappus and Proclus for the scanty notices we have of Euclid's
predecessors, and of the problems which engaged their attention; for the
solution of problems, and not the discovery of theorems, would seem to
have been their principal object. From these authors we learn that the
property of the right-angled triangle had been found out, the principles
of geometrical analysis laid down, the restriction of constructions in
plane geometry to the straight line and the circle agreed upon, the
doctrine of proportion, for both commensurables and incommensurables, as
well as loci, plane and solid, and some of the properties of the conic
sections investigated, the five regular solids (often called the
Platonic bodies) and the relation between the volume of a cone or
pyramid and that of its circumscribed cylinder or prism discovered.
Elementary works had been written, and the famous problem of the
duplication of the cube reduced to the determination of two mean
proportionals between two given straight lines. Notwithstanding this
amount of discovery, and all that it implied, Euclid must have made a
great advance beyond his predecessors (we are told that "he arranged the
discoveries of Eudoxus, perfected those of Theaetetus, and reduced to
invincible demonstration many things that had previously been more
loosely proved"), for his _Elements_ supplanted all similar treatises,
and, as Apollonius received the title of "the great geometer," so Euclid
has come down to later ages as "the elementator."

For the past twenty centuries parts of the _Elements_, notably the first
six books, have been used as an introduction to geometry. Though they
are now to some extent superseded in most countries, their long
retention is a proof that they were, at any rate, not unsuitable for
such a purpose. They are, speaking generally, not too difficult for
novices in the science; the demonstrations are rigorous, ingenious and
often elegant; the mixture of problems and theorems gives perhaps some
variety, and makes their study less monotonous; and, if regard be had
merely to the metrical properties of space as distinguished from the
graphical, hardly any cardinal geometrical truths are omitted. With
these excellences are combined a good many defects, some of them
inevitable to a system based on a very few axioms and postulates. Thus
the arrangement of the propositions seems arbitrary; associated theorems
and problems are not grouped together; the classification, in short, is
imperfect. Other objections, not to mention minor blemishes, are the
prolixity of the style, arising partly from a defective nomenclature,
the treatment of parallels depending on an axiom which is not axiomatic,
and the sparing use of superposition as a method of proof.

Of the thirty-three ancient books subservient to geometrical analysis,
Pappus enumerates first the _Data_ ([Greek: Dedomena]) of Euclid. He
says it contained 90 propositions, the scope of which he describes; it
now consists of 95. It is not easy to explain this discrepancy, unless
we suppose that some of the propositions, as they existed in the time of
Pappus, have since been split into two, or that what were once scholia
have since been erected into propositions. The object of the _Data_ is
to show that when certain things--lines, angles, spaces, ratios,
&c.--are given by hypothesis, certain other things are given, that is,
are determinable. The book, as we are expressly told, and as we may
gather from its contents, was intended for the investigation of
problems; and it has been conjectured that Euclid must have extended the
method of the _Data_ to the investigation of theorems. What prompts this
conjecture is the similarity between the analysis of a theorem and the
method, common enough in the _Elements_, of _reductio ad absurdum_--the
one setting out from the supposition that the theorem is true, the other
from the supposition that it is false, thence in both cases deducing a
chain of consequences which ends in a conclusion previously known to be
true or false.

The _Introduction to Harmony_ ([Greek: Eisagôgê harmonikê]), and the
_Section of the Scale_ ([Greek: Katatomê kanonos]), treat of music.
There is good reason for believing that one at any rate, and probably
both, of these books are not by Euclid. No mention is made of them by
any writer previous to Ptolemy (A.D. 140), or by Ptolemy himself, and in
no ancient codex are they ascribed to Euclid.

The _Phaenomena_ ([Greek: Phainomena]) contains an exposition of the
appearances produced by the motion attributed to the celestial sphere.
Pappus, in the few remarks prefatory to his sixth book, complains of the
faults, both of omission and commission, of writers on astronomy, and
cites as an example of the former the second theorem of Euclid's
_Phaenomena_, whence, and from the interpolation of other proofs, David
Gregory infers that this treatise is corrupt.

The _Optics_ and _Catoptrics_ ([Greek: Optika, Katoptrika]) are ascribed
to Euclid by Proclus, and by Marinus in his preface to the _Data_, but
no mention is made of them by Pappus. This latter circumstance, taken in
connexion with the fact that two of the propositions in the sixth book
of the _Mathematical Collection_ prove the same things as three in the
_Optics_, is one of the reasons given by Gregory for deeming that work
spurious. Several other reasons will be found in Gregory's preface to
his edition of Euclid's works.

In some editions of Euclid's works there is given a book on the
_Divisions of Superficies_, which consists of a few propositions,
showing how a straight line may be drawn to divide in a given ratio
triangles, quadrilaterals and pentagons. This was supposed by John Dee
of London, who transcribed or translated it, and entrusted it for
publication to his friend Federico Commandino of Urbino, to be the
treatise of Euclid referred to by Proclus as [Greek: to peri diaireseôn
biblion]. Dee mentions that, in the copy from which he wrote, the book
was ascribed to Machomet of Bagdad, and adduces two or three reasons for
thinking it to be Euclid's. This opinion, however, he does not seem to
have held very strongly, nor does it appear that it was adopted by
Commandino. The book does not exist in Greek.

The fragment, in Latin, _De levi et ponderoso_, which is of no value,
and was printed at the end of Gregory's edition only in order that
nothing might be left out, is mentioned neither by Pappus nor Proclus,
and occurs first in Bartholomew Zamberti's edition of 1537. There is no
reason for supposing it to be genuine.

The following works attributed to Euclid are not now extant:--

1. Three books on _Porisms_ ([Greek: Peri tôn porismatôn]) are mentioned
both by Pappus and Proclus, and the former gives an abstract of them,
with the lemmas assumed. (See PORISM.)

2. Two books are mentioned, named [Greek: Topôn pros epiphaneia], which
is rendered _Locorum ad superficiem_ by Commandino and subsequent
geometers. These books were subservient to the analysis of loci, but the
four lemmas which refer to them and which occur at the end of the
seventh book of the _Mathematical Collection_, throw very little light
on their contents. R. Simson's opinion was that they treated of curves
of double curvature, and he intended at one time to write a treatise on
the subject. (See Trail's _Life of Dr Simson_).

3. Pappus says that Euclid wrote four books on the _Conic Sections_
([Greek: biblia tessara Kônikôn]), which Apollonius amplified, and to
which he added four more. It is known that, in the time of Euclid, the
parabola was considered as the section of a right-angled cone, the
ellipse that of an acute-angled cone, the hyperbola that of an
obtuse-angled cone, and that Apollonius was the first who showed that
the three sections could be obtained from any cone. There is good ground
therefore for supposing that the first four books of Apollonius's
_Conics_, which are still extant, resemble Euclid's _Conics_ even less
than Euclid's _Elements_ do those of Eudoxus and Theaetetus.

4. A book on _Fallacies_ ([Greek: Peri pseudariôn]) is mentioned by
Proclus, who says that Euclid wrote it for the purpose of exercising
beginners in the detection of errors in reasoning.

  This notice of Euclid would be incomplete without some account of the
  earliest and the most important editions of his works. Passing over
  the commentators of the Alexandrian school, the first European
  translator of any part of Euclid is Boëtius (500), author of the _De
  consolatione philosophiae_. His _Euclidis Megarensis geometriae libri
  duo_ contain nearly all the definitions of the first three books of
  the _Elements_, the postulates, and most of the axioms. The
  enunciations, with diagrams but no proofs, are given of most of the
  propositions in the first, second and fourth books, and a few from the
  third. Some centuries afterwards, Euclid was translated into Arabic,
  but the only printed version in that language is the one made of the
  thirteen books of the _Elements_ by Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi (13th
  century), which appeared at Rome in 1594.

  The first printed edition of Euclid was a translation of the fifteen
  books of the _Elements_ from the Arabic, made, it is supposed, by
  Adelard of Bath (12th century), with the comments of Campanus of
  Novara. It appeared at Venice in 1482, printed by Erhardus Ratdolt,
  and dedicated to the doge Giovanni Mocenigo. This edition represents
  Euclid very inadequately; the comments are often foolish, propositions
  are sometimes omitted, sometimes joined together, useless cases are
  interpolated, and now and then Euclid's order changed.

  The first printed translation from the Greek is that of Bartholomew
  Zamberti, which appeared at Venice in 1505. Its contents will be seen
  from the title: _Euclidis megaresis philosophi platonici
  Mathematicaru[z] disciplinaru Janitoris: Habent in hoc volumine
  quicuq[z] ad mathematica substantia aspirat: elemetorum libros xiii cu
  expositione Theonis insignis mathematici ... Quibus ... adjuncta.
  Deputatum scilicet Euclidi volume xiiii cu expositioe Hypsi. Alex.
  Itideq[z] Phaeno. Specu. Perspe. cum expositione Theonis ac mirandus
  ille liber Datorum cum expostioe Pappi Mechanici una cu Marini
  dialectici protheoria. Bar. Zaber. Vene. Interpte._

  The first printed Greek text was published at Basel, in 1533, with the
  title [Greek: Eukleidou Stoicheiôn bibl. ie ek tôn Theônos synousiôn].
  It was edited by Simon Grynaeus from two MSS. sent to him, the one
  from Venice by Lazarus Bayfius, and the other from Paris by John
  Ruellius. The four books of Proclus's commentary are given at the end
  from an Oxford MS. supplied by John Claymundus.

  The English edition, the only one which contains all the extant works
  attributed to Euclid, is that of Dr David Gregory, published at Oxford
  in 1703, with the title, [Greek: Eukleidou ta sôzomena]. _Euclidis
  quae supersunt omnia_. The text is that of the Basel edition,
  corrected from the MSS. bequeathed by Sir Henry Savile, and from
  Savile's annotations on his own copy. The Latin translation, which
  accompanies the Greek on the same page, is for the most part that of
  Commandino. The French edition has the title, _Les Oeuvres d'Euclide,
  traduites en Latin et en Français, d'après un manuscrit très-ancien
  qui était resté inconnu jusqu'à nos jours. Par F. Peyrard, Traducteur
  des oeuvres d'Archimède_. It was published at Paris in three volumes,
  the first of which appeared in 1814, the second in 1816 and the third
  in 1818. It contains the _Elements_ and the _Data_, which are, says
  the editor, certainly the only works which remain to us of this
  ever-celebrated geometer. The texts of the Basel and Oxford editions
  were collated with 23 MSS., one of which belonged to the library of
  the Vatican, but had been sent to Paris by the comte de Peluse
  (Monge). The Vatican MS. was supposed to date from the 9th century;
  and to its readings Peyrard gave the greatest weight. What may be
  called the German edition has the title [Greek: Eukleidou Stoicheia].
  _Euclidis Elementa ex optimis libris in usum Tironum Graece edita ab
  Ernesto Ferdinando August_. It was published at Berlin in two parts,
  the first of which appeared in 1826 and the second in 1829. The above
  mentioned texts were collated with three other MSS. Modern standard
  editions are by Dr Heiberg of Copenhagen, _Euclidis Elementa, edidit
  et Latine interpretatus est J.L. Heiberg_. vols. i.-v. (Lipsiae,
  1883-1888), and by T.L. Heath, _The Thirteen Books of Euclid's
  Elements_, vols. i.-iii. (Cambridge, 1908).

  Of translations of the _Elements_ into modern languages the number is
  very large. The first English translation, published at London in
  1570, has the title, _The Elements of Geometrie of the most auncient
  Philosopher Euclide of Megara. Faithfully (now first) translated into
  the Englishe toung, by H. Billingsley, Citizen of London. Whereunto
  are annexed certaine Scholies, Annotations and Inventions, of the best
  Mathematiciens, both of time past and in this our age_. The first
  French translation of the whole of the _Elements_ has the title, _Les
  Quinze Livres des Elements d'Euclide. Traduicts de Latin en François.
  Par D. Henrion, Mathematicien_. The first edition of it was published
  at Paris in 1615, and a second, corrected and augmented, in 1623.
  Pierre Forcadel de Beziés had published at Paris in 1564 a translation
  of the first six books of the _Elements_, and in 1565 of the seventh,
  eighth and ninth books. An Italian translation, with the title,
  _Euclide Megarense acutissimo philosopho solo introduttore delle
  Scientie Mathematice. Diligentemente rassettato, et alla integrità
  ridotto, per il degno professore di tal Scientie Nicolò Tartalea
  Brisciano_, was published at Venice in 1569, and Federico Commandino's
  translation appeared at Urbino in 1575; a Spanish version, _Los Seis
  Libros primeros de la geometria de Euclides. Traduzidos en legua
  Española por Rodrigo Camorano, Astrologo y Mathematico_, at Seville in
  1576; and a Turkish one, translated from the edition of J. Bonnycastle
  by Husain Rifki, at Bulak in 1825. Dr Robert Simson's editions of the
  first six and the eleventh and twelfth books of the _Elements_, and of
  the _Data_.

  AUTHORITIES.--The authors and editions above referred to; Fabricius,
  _Bibliotheca Graeca_, vol. iv.; Murhard's _Litteratur der
  mathematischen Wissenschaften_; Heilbronner's _Historia matheseos
  universae_; De Morgan's article "Eucleides" in Smith's _Dictionary of
  Biography and Mythology_; Moritz Cantor's _Geschichte der Mathematik_,
  vol. i.     (J. S. M.)




EUCRATIDES, king of Bactria (c. 175-129 B.C.), came to the throne by a
rebellion against the dynasty of Euthydemus, whose son Demetrius had
conquered western India. His authority was challenged by a great many
other pretenders and Greek dynasts in Sogdiana, Aria (Herat), Drangiana
(Sijistan), &c., whose names--Pantaleon, Agathocles, Antimachus,
Antalcidas "the victorious" ([Greek: nikêphoros]), Plato, whose unique
coin is dated from the year 147 of the Seleucid era (= 166 B.C.), and
others--are known only from coins with Greek and Indian legends. In the
west the Parthian king Mithradates I. began to enlarge his kingdom and
attacked Eucratides; he succeeded in conquering two provinces between
Bactria and Parthia, called by Strabo "the country of Aspiones and
Turiua," two Iranian names. But the principal opponent of Eucratides was
Demetrius (q.v.) of India, who attacked him with a large army "of
300,000 men"; Eucratides fled with 300 men into a fortress and was
besieged. But at last he beat Demetrius, and conquered a great part of
western India. According to Apollodorus of Artemita, the historian of
the Parthians, he ruled over 1000 towns (Strabo xv. 686; transferred to
Diodotus of Bactria in Justin 41, 4. 6); and the extent of his kingdom
over Bactria, Sogdiana (Bokhara), Drangiana (Sijistan), Kabul and the
western Punjab is confirmed by numerous coins. On these coins, which
bear Greek and Indian legends (in Kharoshti writing, cf. BACTRIA), he is
called "the great King Eucratides." On one his portrait and name are
associated on the reverse with those of Heliocles and Laodice; Heliocles
was probably his son, and the coin may have been struck to celebrate his
marriage with Laodice, who seems to have been a Seleucid princess. In
Bactria Eucratides founded a Greek city, Eucratideia (Strabo xi. 516,
Ptolem. vi. 11. 8). On his return from India Eucratides was (about 150
B.C.) murdered by his son, whom he had made co-regent (Justin 41, 6).
This son is probably the Heliocles just mentioned, who on his coins
calls himself "the Just" ([Greek: basileôs Hêliokleous dikaiou]). In his
time the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom lost the countries north of the Hindu
Kush. Mongolian tribes, the Yue-chi of the Chinese, called by the Greeks
Scythians, by the Indians Saka, among which the Tochari are the most
conspicuous, invaded Sogdiana in 159 B.C. and conquered Bactria in 139.
Meanwhile the Parthian kings Mithradates I. and Phraates II. conquered
the provinces in the west of the Hindu Kush (Justin 41, 6. 8); for a
short time Mithradates I. extended his dominion to the borders of India
(Diod. 33. 18, Orosius v. 4. 16). When Antiochus VII. Sidetes tried once
more to restore the Seleucid dominion in 130, Phraates allied himself
with the Scythians (Justin 42, 1. 1); but after his decisive victory in
129 he was attacked by them and fell in the battle. The changed state of
affairs is shown by the numerous coins of Heliocles; while his
predecessors maintained the Attic standard, which had been dominant
throughout the Greek east, he on his later coins passes over to a native
silver standard, and his bronze coins became quite barbarous. Besides
his coins we possess coins of many other Greek kings of these times,
most of whom take the epithet of "invincible" ([Greek: anikêtos]) and
"saviour" ([Greek: sôtêr]). They are records of a desperate struggle of
the Greeks to maintain their nationality and independence in the Far
East; one usurper after the other rose to fight for the rescue of the
kingdom. But these internal wars only accelerated the destruction; about
120 B.C. almost the whole of eastern Iran was in the hands either of a
Parthian dynasty or of the Mongol invaders, who are now called
Indo-Scythians. Only in the Kabul valley and western India the Greeks
maintained themselves about two generations longer (see MENANDER).
     (Ed. M.)




EUDAEMONISM (from Gr. [Greek: eudaimonia], literally the state of being
under the protection of a benign spirit, a "good genius"), in ethics,
the name applied to theories of morality which find the chief good of
man in some form of happiness. The term Eudaemonia has been taken in a
large number of senses, with consequent variations in the meaning of
Eudaemonism. To Plato the "happiness" of all the members of a state,
each according to his own capacity, was the final end of political
development. Aristotle, as usual, adopted "eudaemonia" as the term which
in popular language most nearly represented his idea and made it the
keyword of his ethical doctrine. None the less he greatly expanded the
content of the word, until the popular idea was practically lost: if a
man is to be called [Greek: eudaimôn], he must have all his powers
performing their functions freely in accordance with virtue, as well as
a reasonable degree of material well-being; the highest conceivable good
of man is the life of contemplation. Aristotle further held that the
good man in achieving virtue must experience pleasure ([Greek: hêdonê]),
which is, therefore, not the same as, but the sequel to or concomitant
of eudaemonia. Subsequent thinkers have to a greater or less degree
identified the two ideas, and much confusion has resulted. Among the
ancients the Epicureans expressed all eudaemonia in terms of pleasure.
On the other hand attempts have been made to separate hedonism, as the
search for a continuous series of physical pleasures, from eudaemonism,
a condition of enduring mental satisfaction. Such a distinction involves
the assumptions that bodily pleasures are generically different from
mental ones, and that there is in practice a clearly marked dividing
line,--both of which hypotheses are frequently denied. Among modern
writers, James Seth (_Ethical Princ._, 1894) resumes Aristotle's
position, and places Eudaemonism as the mean between the Ethics of
Sensibility (hedonism) and the Ethics of Rationality, each of which
overlooks the complex character of human life. The fundamental
difficulty which confronts those who would distinguish between pleasure
and eudaemonia is that all pleasure is ultimately a mental phenomenon,
whether it be roused by food, music, doing a moral action or committing
a theft. There is a marked disposition on the part of critics of
hedonism to confuse "pleasure" with animal pleasure or "passion,"--in
other words, with a pleasure phenomenon in which the predominant feature
is entire lack of self-control, whereas the word "pleasure" has strictly
no such connotation. Pleasure is strictly nothing more than the state of
being pleased, and hedonism the theory that man's chief good consists in
acting in such a way as to bring about a continuous succession of such
states. That they are in some cases produced by physical or sensory
stimuli does not constitute them irrational, and it is purely arbitrary
to confine the word pleasure to those cases in which such stimuli are
the proximate causes. The value of the term Eudaemonism as an antithesis
to Hedonism is thus very questionable.




EUDOCIA AUGUSTA (c. 401-c. 460), the wife of Theodosius II., East Roman
emperor, was born in Athens, the daughter of the sophist Leontius, from
whom she received a thorough training in literature and rhetoric.
Deprived of her small patrimony by her brothers' rapacity, she betook
herself to Constantinople to obtain redress at court. Her
accomplishments attracted Theodosius' sister Pulcheria, who took her
into her retinue and destined her to be the emperor's wife. After
receiving baptism and discarding her former name, Athenaïs, for that of
Aelia Licinia Eudocia, she was married to Theodosius in 421; two years
later, after the birth of a daughter, she received the title Augusta.
The new empress repaid her brothers by making them consuls and prefects,
and used her large influence at court to protect pagans and Jews. In
438-439 she made an ostentatious pilgrimage to Jerusalem, whence she
brought back several precious relics; during her stay at Antioch she
harangued the senate in Hellenic style and distributed funds for the
repair of its buildings. On her return her position was undermined by
the jealousy of Pulcheria and the groundless suspicion of an intrigue
with her protégé Paulinus, the master of the offices. After the latter's
execution (440) she retired to Jerusalem, where she was made responsible
for the murder of an officer sent to kill two of her followers and
stripped of her revenues. Nevertheless she retained great influence;
although involved in the revolt of the Syrian monophysites (453), she
was ultimately reconciled to Pulcheria and readmitted into the orthodox
church. She died at Jerusalem about 460, after devoting her last years
to literature. Among her works were a paraphrase of the Octateuch in
hexameters, a paraphrase of the books of Daniel and Zechariah, a poem on
St Cyprian and on her husband's Persian victories. A _Passion History_
compiled out of Homeric verses, which Zonaras attributed to Eudocia, is
perhaps of different authorship.

  See W. Wiegand, _Eudokia_ (Worms, 1871); F. Gregorovius, _Athenaïs_
  (Leipzig, 1892); C. Diehl, _Figures byzantines_ (Paris, 1906), pp.
  25-49; also THEODOSIUS. On her works cf. A. Ludwich, _Eudociae
  Augustae carminum reliquiae_ (Königsberg, 1893).




EUDOCIA MACREMBOLITISSA (c. 1021-1096), daughter of John Macrembolites,
was the wife of the Byzantine emperor Constantine X., and after his
death (1067) of Romanus IV. She had sworn to her first husband on his
death-bed not to marry again, and had even imprisoned and exiled
Romanus, who was suspected of aspiring to the throne. Perceiving,
however, that she was not able unaided to avert the invasions which
threatened the eastern frontier of the empire, she revoked her oath,
married Romanus, and with his assistance dispelled the impending danger.
She did not live very happily with her new husband, who was warlike and
self-willed, and when he was taken prisoner by the Turks (1071) she was
compelled to vacate the throne in favour of her son Michael and retire
to a convent, where she died. The dictionary of mythology entitled
[Greek: Iônia] ("Collection of Violets"), which formerly used to be
ascribed to her, was not composed till 1543 (Constantine Palaeokappa).

  See J. Flach, _Die Kaiserin Eudokia Makrembolitissa_ (Tübingen, 1876);
  P. Pulch, _De Eudociae quod fertur Violario_ (Strassburg, 1880); and
  in _Hermes_, xvii. (1882), p. 177 ff.




EUDOXIA LOPUKHINA (1669-1731), tsaritsa, first consort of Peter the
Great, was the daughter of the boyarin Theodore Lopukhin. Peter, then a
youth of seventeen, married her on the 27th of January 1689 at the
command of his mother, who hoped to wean him from the wicked ways of the
German suburb of Moscow by wedding him betimes to a lady who was as
pious as she was beautiful. The marriage was in every way unfortunate.
Accustomed from her infancy to the monastic seclusion of the _terem_, or
women's quarter, Eudoxia's mental horizon did not extend much beyond her
embroidery-frame or her illuminated service-book. From the first her
society bored Peter unspeakably, and after the birth of their second,
short-lived son Alexander, he practically deserted her. In 1698 she was
unceremoniously sent off to the Pokrovsky monastery at Suzdal for
refusing to consent to a divorce, though it was not till June 1699 that
she disappeared from the world beneath the hood of sister Elena. In the
monastery, however, she was held in high honour by the archimandrite;
the nuns persisted in regarding her as the lawful empress; and she was
permitted an extraordinary degree of latitude, unknown to Peter, who
dragged her from her enforced retreat in 1718 on a charge of adultery.
As the evidence was collected by Peter's creatures, it is very doubtful
whether Eudoxia was guilty, though she was compelled to make a public
confession. She was then divorced and consigned to the remote monastery
of Ladoga. Here she remained for ten years till the accession of her
grandson, Peter II., when the reactionaries proposed to appoint her
regent. She was escorted with great ceremony to Moscow in 1728 and
exhibited to the people attired in the splendid, old-fashioned robes of
a tsaritsa; but years of rigid seclusion had dulled her wits, and her
best friends soon convinced themselves that a convent was a much more
suitable place for her than a throne. An allowance of 60,000 roubles a
year was accordingly assigned to her, and she disappeared again in a
monastery at Moscow, where she died in 1731.

  See Robert Nisbet Bain, _Pupils of Peter the Great_ (London, 1895),
  chaps. ii. and iv.; and _The First Romanovs_ (London, 1905), chaps.
  viii. and xii.     (R. N. B.)




EUDOXUS, of Cnidus, Greek savant, flourished about the middle of the 4th
century B.C. It is chiefly as an astronomer that his name has come down
to us (see ASTRONOMY and ZODIAC). From a life by Diogenes Laërtius, we
learn that he studied at Athens under Plato, but, being dismissed,
passed over into Egypt, where he remained for sixteen months with the
priests of Heliopolis. He then taught physics in Cyzicus and the
Propontis, and subsequently, accompanied by a number of pupils, went to
Athens. Towards the end of his life he returned to his native place,
where he died. Strabo states that he discovered that the solar year is
longer than 365 days by 6 hours; Vitruvius that he invented a sun-dial.
The _Phaenomena_ of Aratus is a poetical account of the astronomical
observations of Eudoxus. Several works have been attributed to him, but
they are all lost; some fragments are preserved in the extant [Greek:
Tôn Aratou kai Eudoxou phainomenon exêgêseôn biblia tria] of the
astronomer Hipparchus (ed. C. Manitius, 1894). According to Aristotle
(_Ethics_ x. 2), Eudoxus held that pleasure was the chief good, because
(1) all beings sought it and endeavoured to escape its contrary, pain;
(2) it is an end in itself, not a relative good. Aristotle, who speaks
highly of the sincerity of Eudoxus's convictions, while giving a
qualified approval to his arguments, considers him wrong in not
distinguishing the different kinds of pleasure and in making pleasure
the _summum bonum_.

  See J.A. Letronne, _Sur les écrites et les travaux d'Eudoxe de Cnide,
  d'après L. Ideler_ (1841); G.V. Schiaparelli, _Le Sfere omocentriche
  di Eudosso_ (Milan, 1876); T.H. Martin in _Académie des inscriptions_,
  3rd of October, 1879; article in Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine
  Encyklopädie_.





EUDOXUS, of Cyzicus, Greek navigator, flourished about 130 B.C. He was
employed by Ptolemy Euergetes, who sent out a fleet under him to explore
the Arabian Sea. After two successful voyages, Eudoxus left the Egyptian
service, and proceeded to Cadiz with the object of fitting out an
expedition for the purpose of African discovery; and we learn from
Strabo, who utilized the results of his observations, that the veteran
explorer made at least two voyages southward along the coast of Africa.

  There is a good account of Eudoxus in E.H. Bunbury, _History of
  Ancient Geography_, ii. (1879); see also P. Gaffarel, _Eudoxe de
  Cyzique_ (1873).




EUGENE OF SAVOY [FRANÇOIS EUGÈNE], PRINCE (1663-1736), fifth son of
Prince Eugene Maurice of Savoy-Carignano, count of Soissons, and of
Olympia Mancini, niece of Cardinal Mazarin, was born at Paris on the
18th of October 1663. Originally destined for the church, Eugene was
known at court as the petit abbé, but his own predilection was strongly
for the army. His mother, however, had fallen into disgrace at court,
and his application for a commission, repeated more than once, was
refused by Louis XIV. This, and the influence of his mother, produced in
him a lifelong resentment against the king. Having quitted France in
disgust, he proceeded to Vienna, where his relative the emperor Leopold
I. received him kindly, and he served with the Austrian army during the
campaign of 1683 against the Turks. He displayed his bravery in a
cavalry fight at Petronell (7th July) and in the great battle for the
relief of Vienna. The emperor now gave him the command of a regiment of
dragoons. At the capture of Buda in 1686 he received a wound (3rd
August), but he continued to serve up to the siege of Belgrade in 1688,
in which he was dangerously wounded. At the instigation of Louvois, a
decree of banishment from France was now issued against all Frenchmen
who should continue to serve in foreign armies. "The king will see me
again," was Eugene's reply when the news was communicated to him; he
continued his career in foreign service.

Prince Eugene's next employment was in a service that required
diplomatic as well as military skill (1689). He was sent by the emperor
Leopold to Italy with the view of binding the duke of Savoy to the
coalition against France and of co-operating with the Italian and
Spanish troops. Later in 1689 he served on the Rhine and was again
wounded. He returned to Italy in time to take part in the battle of
Staffarda, which resulted in the defeat of the coalition at the hands of
the French marshal Catinat; but in the spring of 1691 Prince Eugene,
having secured reinforcements, caused the siege of Coni to be raised,
took possession of Carmagnola, and in the end completely defeated
Catinat. He followed up his success by entering Dauphiné, where he took
possession of Embrun and Gap. After another campaign, which was
uneventful, the further prosecution of the war was abandoned owing to
the defection of the duke of Savoy from the coalition, and Prince Eugene
returned to Vienna, where he soon afterwards received the command of the
army in Hungary, on the recommendation of the veteran count Rüdiger von
Starhemberg, the defender of Vienna in 1683. It was about this time that
Louis XIV. secretly offered him the bâton of a marshal of France, with
the government of Champagne which his father had held, and also a
pension. But Eugene rejected these offers with indignation, and
proceeded to operate against the Turks commanded by Kara Mustapha. After
some skilful manoeuvres, he surprised the enemy (September 11th, 1697)
at Zenta, on the Theiss. His attack was vigorous and daring, and the
victory was one of the most complete and important ever won by the
Austrian arms. Formerly it was often stated that the battle of Zenta was
fought against express orders from the court, that Eugene was placed
under arrest for violating these orders, and that a proposal to bring
him before a council of war was frustrated only by the threatening
attitude of the citizens of Vienna. This story, minute in details as it
is, is entirely without foundation. After a further period of
manoeuvres, peace was at length concluded at Karlowitz on the 26th of
January 1699.

Two years later he was again in active service in the War of the
Spanish Succession (q.v.). At the beginning of the year 1701 he was sent
into Italy once more to oppose his old antagonist Catinat. He achieved a
rapid success, crossing the mountains from Tirol into Italy in spite of
almost insurmountable difficulties (_Journal d. militärwissensch.
Verein_, No. 5, 1907), forcing the French army, after sustaining several
checks, to retire behind the Oglio, where a series of reverses equally
unexpected and severe led to the recall of Catinat in disgrace. The
incapable duke of Villeroi, who succeeded to the command of which
Catinat had been deprived, ventured to attack Eugene at Chiari, and was
repulsed with great loss. And this was only the forerunner of more
signal reverses; for, in a short time, Villeroi was forced to abandon
the whole of the Mantuan territory and to take refuge in Cremona, where
he seems to have considered himself secure. By means of a stratagem,
however, Eugene penetrated into the city during the night, at the head
of 2000 men, and, though he found it impossible to hold the town,
succeeded in carrying off Villeroi as a prisoner. But as the duke of
Vendôme, a much abler general, replaced the captive, the incursion,
daring though it was, proved anything but advantageous to the Austrians.
The generalship of his new opponent, and the fact that the French army
had been largely reinforced, while reinforcements had not been sent from
Vienna, forced Prince Eugene to confine himself to a war of observation.
The campaign was terminated by the sanguinary battle of Luzzara, fought
on the 1st of August 1702, in which each party claimed the victory. Both
armies having gone into winter quarters, Eugene returned to Vienna,
where he was appointed president of the council of war. He then set out
for Hungary in order to combat the insurgents in that country; but his
means proving insufficient, he effected nothing of importance. The
collapse of the revolt, however, soon freed the prince for the more
important campaign in Bavaria, where, in 1704, he made his first
campaign along with Marlborough. Similarity of tastes, views and talents
soon established between these two great men a friendship which is
rarely to be found amongst military chiefs, and contributed in the
fullest measure to the success which the allies obtained. The first and
perhaps the most important of these successes was that of Höchstädt or
Blenheim (q.v.) on the 3rd of August 1704, where the English and
imperial troops triumphed over one of the finest armies that France had
ever sent into Germany.

But since Prince Eugene had quitted Italy, Vendôme, who commanded the
French army in that country, had obtained various successes against the
duke of Savoy, who had once more joined Austria. The emperor deemed the
crisis so serious that he recalled Eugene and sent him to Italy to the
assistance of his ally. Vendôme at first opposed great obstacles to the
plan which the prince had formed for carrying succours into Piedmont;
but after a variety of marches and counter-marches, in which both
commanders displayed signal ability, the two armies met at Cassano
(August 16, 1705), where a deadly engagement ensued, and Prince Eugene
received two severe wounds which forced him to quit the field. This
accident decided the fate of the battle and for the time suspended the
prince's march towards Piedmont. Vendôme, however, was recalled, and La
Feuillade (who succeeded him) was incapable of long arresting the
progress of such a commander as Eugene. After once more passing several
rivers in presence of the French army, and executing one of the most
skilful and daring marches he had ever performed, the latter appeared
before the entrenched camp at Turin, which place the French were now
besieging with an army eighty thousand strong. Prince Eugene had only
thirty thousand men; but his antagonist the duke of Orleans, though full
of zeal and courage, wanted experience, and Marshal Marsin, his
_adlatus_, held powers from Louis XIV. which could not fail to produce
dissensions in the French headquarters. With equal courage and address,
Eugene profited by the misunderstandings between the French generals;
and on the 7th of September 1706 he attacked the French army in its
entrenchments and gained a victory which decided the fate of Italy. In
the heat of the battle Eugene received a wound, and was thrown from his
horse. His recompense for this important service was the government of
the Milanese, of which he took possession with great pomp on the 16th of
April 1707. He was also made lieutenant-general to the emperor Joseph I.

The attempt which he made against Toulon in the course of the same year
failed completely, because the invasion of the kingdom of Naples
retarded the march of the troops which were to have been employed in it,
and this delay afforded Marshal de Tessé time to make good dispositions.
Obliged to renounce his project, therefore, the prince went to Vienna,
where he was received with great enthusiasm both by the people and by
the court. "I am very well satisfied with you," said the emperor,
"excepting on one point only, which is, that you expose yourself too
much." This monarch immediately despatched Eugene to Holland, and to the
different courts of Germany, in order to forward the necessary
preparations for the campaign of the following year, 1708 (see SPANISH
SUCCESSION, WAR OF THE).

Early in the spring of 1708 the prince proceeded to Flanders, in order
to assume the command of the German army which his diplomatic ability
had been mainly instrumental in assembling, and to unite his forces with
those of Marlborough. The campaign was opened by the victory of
Oudenarde (q.v.), to which the perfect union of Marlborough and Eugene
on the one hand, and the misunderstanding between Vendôme and the duke
of Burgundy on the other, seem to have equally contributed. The French
immediately abandoned the Low Countries, and, remaining in observation,
made no attempt whatever to prevent Eugene's army, covered by that of
Marlborough, making the siege of Lille. The French governor, Boufflers,
made a glorious defence, and Eugene paid a flattering tribute to his
valour in inviting him to prepare the articles of capitulation himself,
with the words "I subscribe to everything beforehand, well persuaded
that you will not insert anything unworthy of yourself or of me." After
this important conquest, Eugene and Marlborough proceeded to the Hague,
where they were received in the most flattering manner by the public, by
the states-general, and above all, by their esteemed friend the
pensionary Heinsius. Negotiations were then opened for peace, but proved
fruitless. In 1709 France put forth a supreme effort, and placed Marshal
Villars, her best living general, in command. The events of this year
were very different to those of previous campaigns, and the bloody
battle of Malplaquet (q.v.), though a victory for Marlborough and
Eugene, led to little result, and this at the cost of enormous losses.
The Dutch army, it is said, never recovered from the slaughter of
Malplaquet; indeed, the success was so dearly bought that the allies
found themselves soon afterwards out of all condition to undertake
anything. Their army accordingly went into winter quarters, and Prince
Eugene returned to Vienna, whence the emperor almost immediately
despatched him to Berlin. From the king of Prussia the prince obtained
everything which he had been instructed to require; and having thus
fulfilled his mission, he returned into Flanders, where, excepting the
capture of Douai, Bethune and Aire, the campaign of 1710 presented
nothing remarkable. On the death of the emperor Joseph I. in April 1711,
Prince Eugene, in concert with the empress, exerted his utmost
endeavours to secure the crown to the archduke, who afterwards ascended
the imperial throne under the name of Charles VI. In the same year the
changes which had occurred in the policy, or rather the caprice, of
Queen Anne, brought about an approximation between England and France,
and put an end to the influence which Marlborough had hitherto
possessed. When this political revolution became known, Prince Eugene
immediately repaired to London, charged with a mission from the emperor
to re-establish the credit of his illustrious companion in arms, as well
as to re-attach England to the coalition. The mission having proved
unsuccessful, the emperor found himself under the necessity of making
the campaign of 1712 with the aid of the Dutch alone. The defection of
the English, however, did not induce Prince Eugene to abandon his
favourite plan of invading France. He resolved, at whatever cost, to
penetrate into Champagne; and in order to support his operations by the
possession of some important places, he began by making himself master
of Quesnoy. But the Dutch, having been surprised and beaten in the lines
of Denain, where Prince Eugene had placed them at too great a distance
to receive timely support in case of an attack, he was obliged to raise
the siege of Landrecies, and to abandon the project which he had so long
cherished. This was the last campaign in which Austria acted in
conjunction with her allies. Abandoned first by England and then by
Holland, the emperor, notwithstanding these desertions, still wished to
maintain the war in Germany; but Eugene was unable to relieve either
Landau or Freiburg, which were successively obliged to capitulate; and
seeing the Empire thus laid open to the armies of France, and even the
Austrian hereditary states themselves exposed to invasion, the prince
counselled his master to make peace. Sensible of the prudence of this
advice, the emperor immediately entrusted Eugene with full powers to
negotiate a treaty of peace, which was concluded at Rastadt on the 6th
of March 1714. On his return to Vienna, Prince Eugene was employed for a
time in political matters, and at this time he exchanged the government
of the Milanese for that of the Austrian Netherlands.

It was not long, however, before he was again called on to assume the
command of the army in the field. In the spring of 1716 the emperor,
having concluded an offensive alliance with Venice against Turkey,
appointed Eugene to command the army of Hungary; and at Peterwardein he
gained (5th of August 1716) a signal victory over a Turkish army of more
than twice his own strength. In recognition of this service to
Christendom the pope sent to the victorious general the consecrated hat
and sword which the court of Rome was accustomed to bestow upon those
who had triumphed over the infidels. Eugene won another victory in this
campaign at Temesvár. But the ensuing campaign, that of 1717, was still
more remarkable on account of the battle of Belgrade. After having
besieged the city for a month Eugene found himself in a most critical,
if not hopeless situation. He had to deal not only with the garrison of
30,000 men, but with a relieving army of 200,000, and his own force was
only about 40,000 strong. In these circumstances the only possible
deliverance was by a bold and decided stroke. Accordingly on the morning
of the 16th of August 1717 Prince Eugene ordered a general attack, which
resulted in the total defeat of the enemy with an enormous loss, and in
the capitulation of the city six days afterwards. The prince was wounded
in the heat of the action, this being the thirteenth time that he had
been hit upon the field of battle. On his return to Vienna he received,
among other testimonies of gratitude, a sword valued at 80,000 florins
from the emperor. The popular song "Prinz Eugen, der edle Ritter,"
commemorates the victory of Belgrade. In the following year, 1718, after
some fruitless negotiations with a view to the conclusion of peace, he
again took the field; but the treaty of Passarowitz (July 21, 1718) put
an end to hostilities at the moment when the prince had well-founded
hopes of obtaining still more important successes than those of the last
campaign, and even of reaching Constantinople, and dictating a peace on
the shores of the Bosporus.

As the government of the Netherlands, up to 1724 held by Eugene, had now
for some reason been bestowed on a sister of the emperor, the prince was
appointed vicar-general of Italy, with a pension of 300,000 florins.
Though still retaining his official position and much of his influence
at court, his personal relations with the emperor were not so cordial as
before, and he suffered from the intrigues of the Spanish or anti-German
party. The most remarkable of these political intrigues was the
conspiracy of Tedeschi and Nimptsch against the prince in 1719. On
discovering this the prince went to the emperor and threatened to lay
down all his offices if the conspirators were not punished, and after
some resistance he achieved his purpose. During the years of peace
between the treaty of Passarowitz and the War of the Polish Succession,
Eugene occupied himself with the arts and with literature, to which he
had hitherto been able to devote little of his time. This new interest
led him to correspond with many of the most eminent men in Europe. But
the contest which arose out of the succession of Augustus II. to the
throne of Poland having afforded Austria a pretext for attacking France,
war was resolved on, contrary to the advice of Eugene (1734). In spite
of this, however, he was appointed to command the army destined to act
upon the Rhine, which from the commencement had very superior forces
opposed to it; and if it could not prevent the capture of Philipsburg
after a long siege, it at least prevented the enemy from entering
Bavaria. Prince Eugene, having now attained his seventy-first year, no
longer possessed the vigour and activity necessary for a general in the
field, and he welcomed the peace which was concluded on the 3rd of
October 1735. On his return to Vienna his health declined more and more,
and he died in that capital on the 21st of April 1736, leaving an
immense inheritance to his niece, the princess Victoria of Savoy.

Of a character cold and severe, Prince Eugene had almost no other
passion than that of glory. He died unmarried, and seemed so little
susceptible to female influence that he was styled a Mars without a
Venus. That he was one of the great captains of history is universally
admitted. He was strangely unlike the commanders of his time in many
respects, though as a matter of course he was, when he saw fit to follow
the accepted rules, equal to any in careful and methodical strategy. The
special characteristics of his generalship were imagination, fiery
energy, and a tactical resolution which was rare indeed in the 18th
century. Despising the lives of his soldiers as much as he exposed his
own, it was always by persevering efforts and great sacrifices that he
obtained victory. His almost invariable success raised the reputation of
the Austrian army to a point which it never reached either before or
since his day. War was with him a passion. Always on the march, in
camps, or on the field of battle during more than fifty years, and under
the reigns of three emperors, he had scarcely passed two years together
without fighting. Yet his political activity was not inconsiderable, and
his advice was always sound and well-considered; while in his government
of the Netherlands, which he exercised through the marquis de Prié, he
set himself resolutely to oppose the many wild schemes, such as Law's
Mississippi project, in which the times were so fertile. His interest in
literature and art has been alluded to above. His palace in Vienna, and
the Belvedere near that city, his library, and his collection of
paintings, were renowned. Prince Eugene was a man of the middle size,
but, upon the whole, well made; the cast of his visage was somewhat
long, his mouth moderate and almost always open; his eyes were black and
animated, and his complexion such as became a warrior.

  See A. v. Arneth, _Prinz Eugen_ (3 vols., Vienna, 1858; 2nd ed.,
  1864); H. v. Sybel, _Prinz Eugen von Savoyen_ (Munich, 1868); Austrian
  official history, _Feldzuge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen_ (Vienna,
  1876); Malleson, _Prince Eugene_ (London, 1888); Heller, _Militärische
  Korrespondenz des Prinzen Eugens_ (Vienna, 1848); Keym, _Prinz Eugen_
  (Freiburg, 1899); _Österr. militärische Zeitschrift_ ("Streffleur");
  Ridler's _Österr. Archiv für Geschichte_ (1831-1833); _Archivio
  storico Italico_, vol. 17; _Mitteil. des Instituts für österr.
  Geschichtsforschung_, vol. 13.

  The political memoirs attributed to Prince Eugene (ed. Sartori,
  Tübingen, 1812) are spurious; see Böhm, _Die Sammlung der
  hinterlassenen politischen Schriften des Prinzen Eugens_ (Freiburg,
  1900).




EUGENE, a city and the county-seat of Lane county, Oregon, U.S.A., on
the Willamette river, at the head of navigation, about 125 m. S. of
Portland. Pop. (1900) 3236, of whom 237 were foreign-born; (1910 Federal
census) 9009. Eugene is served by the Southern Pacific railroad and by
interurban electric railway. It is situated on the edge of a broad and
fertile prairie, at the foot of a ridge of low hills and within view of
the peaks of the Coast Range; the streets are pleasantly shaded with
Oregon maples. The city is most widely known as the seat of the
University of Oregon. This institution, opened in 1876 and having 95
instructors and 734 students in 1907-1908, occupies eight buildings on a
grassy slope along the river bank, and embraces a college of literature,
science and the arts, a college of engineering, a graduate school, and
(at Portland) a school of law and a school of medicine. In the city is
the Eugene Divinity School of the Disciples of Christ, opened in 1895.
Eugene is the commercial centre of an extensive agricultural district;
does a large business in grain, fruit, hops, cattle, wool and lumber;
and has various manufactures, including flour, lumber, woollen goods and
canned fruit. Eugene was settled in 1854, and was first incorporated in
1864.




EUGENICS (from the Gr. [Greek: eugenês], well born), the modern name
given to the science which deals with the influences which improve the
inborn qualities of a race, but more particularly with those which
develop them to the utmost advantage, and which generally serves to
disseminate knowledge and encourage action in the direction of
perpetuating a higher racial standard. The founder of this science may
be said to be Sir Francis Galton (q.v.), who has done much to further
its study, not only by his writings, but by the establishment of a
research fellowship and scholarship in eugenics in the university of
London. The aim of the science as laid down by Galton is to bring as
many influences as can reasonably be employed, to cause the useful
classes in the community to contribute _more_ than their proportion to
the next generation. It can hardly be said that the science has advanced
beyond the stage of disseminating a knowledge of the laws of heredity,
so far as they are surely known, and endeavouring to promote their
further study. Useful work has been done in the compilation of
statistics of the various conditions affecting the science, such as the
rates with which the various classes of society in ancient and modern
nations have contributed in civic usefulness to the population at
various times, the inheritance of ability, the influences which affect
marriage, &c.

  Works by Galton bearing on eugenics are: _Hereditary Genius_ (2nd ed.,
  1892), _Human Faculty_ (1883), _Natural Inheritance_ (1889), _Huxley
  Lecture of the Anthropol. Inst. on the Possible Improvement of the
  Human Breed under the existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment_
  (1901); see also, _Biometrika_ (a journal for the statistical study of
  biological problems, of which the first volume was published in 1902).




EUGÉNIE [MARIE-EUGÉNIE-IGNACE-AUGUSTINE DE MONTIJO] (1826-   ), wife of
Napoleon III., emperor of the French, daughter of Don Cipriano Guzman y
Porto Carrero, count of Teba, subsequently count of Montijo and grandee
of Spain, was born at Grenada on the 5th of May 1826. Her mother was a
daughter of William Kirkpatrick, United States consul at Malaga, a
Scotsman by birth and an American by nationality. Her childhood was
spent in Madrid, but after 1834 she lived with her mother and sister
chiefly in Paris, where she was educated, like so many French girls of
good family, in the convent of the Sacré Coeur. When Louis Napoleon
became president of the Republic she appeared frequently with her mother
at the balls given by the prince president at the Elysée, and it was
here that she made the acquaintance of her future husband. In November
1852 mother and daughter were invited to Fontainebleau, and in the
picturesque hunting parties the beautiful young Spaniard, who showed
herself an expert horsewoman, was greatly admired by all present and by
the host in particular. Three weeks later, on the 2nd of December, the
Empire was formally proclaimed, and during a series of fêtes at
Compiègne, which lasted eleven days (19th to 30th December), the emperor
became more and more fascinated. On New Year's Eve, at a ball at the
Tuileries, Mdlle de Montijo, who had necessarily excited much jealousy
and hostility in the female world, had reason to complain that she had
been insulted by the wife of an official personage. On hearing of it the
emperor said to her, "Je vous vengerai"; and within three days he made a
formal proposal of marriage. In a speech from the throne on the 22nd of
January he formally announced his engagement, and justified what some
people considered a mésalliance. "I have preferred," he said, "a woman
whom I love and respect to a woman unknown to me, with whom an alliance
would have had advantages mixed with sacrifices." Of her whom he had
chosen he ventured to make a prediction: "Endowed with all the qualities
of the soul, she will be the ornament of the throne, and in the day of
danger she will become one of its courageous supports." The marriage was
celebrated with great pomp at Notre Dame on the 30th of January 1853. On
the 16th of March 1856 the empress gave birth to a son, who received the
title of Prince Imperial. The emperor's prediction regarding her was not
belied by events. By her beauty, elegance and charm of manner she
contributed largely to the brilliancy of the imperial régime, and when
the end came, she was, as the official _Enquête_ made by her enemies
proved, one of the very few who showed calmness and courage in face of
the rising tide of revolution. The empress acted three times as regent
during the absence of the emperor,--in 1859, 1865 and 1870,--and she was
generally consulted on important questions. When the emperor vacillated
between two lines of policy she generally urged on him the bolder
course; she deprecated everything tending to diminish the temporal power
of the papacy, and she disapproved of the emperor's liberal policy at
the close of his reign. On the collapse of the Empire she fled to
England, and settled with the emperor and her son at Chislehurst. After
the emperor's death she removed to Farnborough, where she built a
mausoleum to his memory. In 1879 her son was killed in the Zulu War, and
in the following year she visited the spot and brought back the body to
be interred beside that of his father. At Farnborough and in a villa she
built at Cap Martin on the Riviera, she continued to live in retirement,
following closely the course of events, but abstaining from all
interference in French politics.




EUGENIUS, the name of four popes.

EUGENIUS I., pope from 654 to 657. Elected on the banishment of Martin
I. by the emperor Constans II., and at the height of the Monothelite
crisis, he showed greater deference than his predecessor to the
emperor's wishes, and made no public stand against the patriarchs of
Constantinople. He, however, held no communication with them, being
closely watched in this respect by Roman opinion.

EUGENIUS II., pope, was a native of Rome, and was chosen to succeed
Pascal I. in 824. His election did not take place without difficulty.
Eugenius was the candidate of the nobles, and the clerical faction
brought forward a competitor. But the monk Wala, the representative of
the emperor Lothair, succeeded in arranging matters, and Eugenius was
elected. Lothair, however, came to Rome in person, and took advantage of
this opportunity to redress many abuses in the papal administration, to
vest the election of the pope in the nobles, and to confirm the statute
that no pope should be consecrated until his election had the approval
of the emperor. A council which assembled at Rome during the reign of
Eugenius passed several enactments for the restoration of church
discipline, took measures for the foundation of schools and chapters,
and decided against priests wearing a secular dress or engaging in
secular occupations. Eugenius also adopted various provisions for the
care of the poor and of widows and orphans. He died in 827. (L. D.*)

EUGENIUS III. (Bernardo Paganelli), pope from the 15th of February 1145
to the 8th of July 1153, a native of Pisa, was abbot of the Cistercian
monastery of St Anastasius at Rome when suddenly elected to succeed
Lucius II. His friend and instructor, Bernard of Clairvaux, the most
influential ecclesiastic of the time, remonstrated against his election
on account of his "innocence and simplicity," but Bernard soon
acquiesced and continued to be the mainstay of the papacy throughout
Eugenius's pontificate. It was to Eugenius that Bernard addressed his
famous work _De consideratione_. Immediately after his election, the
Roman senators demanded the pope's renunciation of temporal power. He
refused and fled to Farfa, where he was consecrated on the 17th of
February. By treaty of December 1145 he recognized the republic under
his suzerainty, substituted a papal prefect for the "patrician" and
returned to Rome. The celebrated schismatic, Arnold of Brescia, however,
put himself again at the head of the party opposed to the temporal power
of the papacy, re-established the patricianate, and forced the pope to
leave Rome. Eugenius had already, on hearing of the fall of Edessa,
addressed a letter to Louis VII. of France (December 1145), announcing
the Second Crusade and granting plenary indulgence under the usual
conditions to those who would take the cross; and in January 1147 he
journeyed to France to further preparations for the holy war and to seek
aid in the constant feuds at Rome. After holding synods at Paris, Reims
and Trier, he returned to Italy in June 1148 and took up his residence
at Viterbo. The following month he excommunicated Arnold of Brescia in a
synod at Cremona, and thenceforth devoted most of his energies to the
recovery of his see. As the result of negotiations between Frederick
Barbarossa and the Romans, Eugenius was finally enabled to return to
Rome in December 1152, but died in the following July. He was succeeded
by Anastasius IV. Eugenius retained the stoic virtues of monasticism
throughout his stormy career, and was deeply reverenced for his personal
character. His tomb in St Peter's acquired fame for miraculous cures,
and he was pronounced blessed by Pius IX. in 1872.

  The chief sources for the career of Eugenius III. are his letters in
  J.P. Migne, _Patrol. Lat_., vols. 106, 180, 182, and in _Bibliothèque
  de l'École des Chartes_, vol. 57 (Paris, 1896); the life by Cardinal
  Boso in J.M. Watterich, _Pontif. Roman. vitae_, vol. 2; and the life
  by John of Salisbury in _Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores_,
  vol. 20.

  See J. Langen, _Geschichte der römischen Kirche von Gregor VII. bis
  Innocenz III_. (Bonn, 1893); F. Gregorovius, _Rome in the Middle
  Ages_, vol. 4, trans. by Mrs G.W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); K.J.
  von Hefele, _Conciliengeschichte_, Bd. 5, 2nd ed.; Jaffé-Wattenbach,
  _Regesta pontif_. Roman. (1885-1888); M. Jocham, _Geschichte des
  Lebens u. der Verehrung des seligen Papstes Eugen III_. (Augsburg,
  1873); G. Sainati, _Vita del beato Eugenio III_ (Pisa, 1868); J.
  Jastrow and G. Winter, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
  Hohenstaufen_, i. (Stuttgart, 1897); C. Neumann, _Bernhard von
  Clairvaux u. die Anfänge der zweiten Kreuzzuges_ (Heidelberg, 1882);
  B. Kugler, _Analekten zur Geschichte des zweiten Kreuzzugs_ (Tübingen,
  1878, 1883).     (C. H. Ha.)

Eugenius IV. (Gabriel Condulmieri), pope from the 3rd of March 1431 to
the 23rd of February 1447, was born at Venice of a merchant family in
1383. He entered the Celestine order and came into prominence during the
pontificate of his uncle, Gregory XII., by whom he was appointed bishop
of Siena, papal treasurer, protonotary, cardinal-priest of St Marco e St
Clemente, and later cardinal-priest of Sta Maria in Trastevere. His
violent measures, as pope, against the relations of his predecessor,
Martin V., at once involved him in a serious contest with the powerful
house of Colonna. But by far the most important feature of Eugenius's
pontificate was the great struggle between pope and council. On the 23rd
of July 1431 his legate opened the council of Basel which had been
convoked by Martin, but, distrustful of its purposes and moved by the
small attendance, the pope issued a bull on the 18th of December 1431,
dissolving the council and calling a new one to meet in eighteen months
at Bologna. The council refused to dissolve, renewed the revolutionary
resolutions by which the council of Constance had been declared superior
to the pope, and cited Eugenius to appear at Basel. A compromise was
arranged by Sigismund, who had been crowned emperor at Rome on the 31st
of May 1433, by which the pope recalled the bull of dissolution, and,
reserving the rights of the Holy See, acknowledged the council as
ecumenical (15th of December 1433). The establishment of an
insurrectionary republic at Rome drove him into exile in May 1434, and,
although the city was restored to obedience in the following October, he
remained at Florence and Bologna. Meanwhile the struggle with the
council broke out anew. Eugenius at length convened a rival council at
Ferrara on the 8th of January 1438 and excommunicated the prelates
assembled at Basel. The result was that the latter formally deposed him
as a heretic on the 25th of June 1439, and in the following November
elected the ambitious Amadeus VIII., duke of Savoy, antipope under the
title of Felix V. The conduct of France and Germany seemed to warrant
this action, for Charles VII. had introduced the decrees of the council
of Basel, with slight changes, into the former country through the
Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (7th of July 1438), and the diet of Mainz
had deprived the pope of most of his rights in the latter country (26th
of March 1439). At Florence, whither the council of Ferrara had been
transferred on account of an outbreak of the plague, was effected in
July 1439 a union with the Greeks, which, as the result of political
necessities, proved but temporary. This union was followed by others of
even less stability. Eugenius signed an agreement with the Armenians on
the 22nd of November 1439, and with a part of the Jacobites in 1443; and
in 1445 he received the Nestorians and Maronites. He did his best to
stem the Turkish advance, pledging one-fifth of the papal income to the
crusade which set out in 1443, but which met with overwhelming defeat.
His rival, Felix V., meanwhile obtained small recognition, and the
latter's ablest adviser, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, made peace with
Eugenius in 1442. The pope's recognition of the claims to Naples of King
Alphonso of Aragon withdrew the last important support from the council
of Basel, and enabled him to make a victorious entry into Rome on the
28th of September 1443, after an exile of nearly ten years. His protests
against the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges were ineffectual, but by means
of the Concordat of the Princes, negotiated by Piccolomini with the
electors in February 1447, the whole of Germany declared against the
antipope. Although his pontificate had been so stormy and unhappy that
he is said to have regretted on his death-bed that he ever left his
monastery, nevertheless Eugenius's victory over the council of Basel and
his efforts in behalf of church unity contributed greatly to break down
the conciliar movement and restore the papacy to the position it had
held before the Great Schism. Eugenius was dignified in demeanour, but
inexperienced and vacillating in action and excitable in temper. Bitter
in his hatred of heresy, he yet displayed great kindness to the poor. He
laboured to reform the monastic orders, especially the Franciscan, and
was never guilty of nepotism. Although a type of the austere monk in his
private life, he was a sincere friend of art and learning, and in 1431
re-established finally the university at Rome. He died on the 23rd of
February 1447, and was succeeded by Nicholas V.

  See L. Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. 1., trans, by F.I.
  Antrobus (London, 1899); M. Creighton, _History of the Papacy_, vol. 3
  (London, 1899); F. Gregorovius, _Rome in the Middle Ages_, vol. 7,
  trans. by Mrs G.W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); K.J. von Hefele,
  _Conciliengeschichte_, Bd. 7, 2nd ed.; H.H. Milman, _Latin
  Christianity_, vol. 8 (London, 1896); G. Voigt, _Enea Silvio de
  Piccolomini_, Bd. 1-3 (Berlin, 1856); _Aus den Annaten-Registern der
  Päpste Eugen IV., Pius II., Paul II. u. Sixtus IV_., ed. by K. Hayn
  (Cologne, 1896). There is an admirable article by Tschackert in
  Hauck's _Realencyklopädie_, 3rd ed. vol. 5.     (C. H. Ha.)




EUGENOL (_allyl guaiacol, eugenic acid_), C10H12O2, an odoriferous
principle; it is the chief constituent of oil of cloves, and occurs in
many other essential oils. It can be synthetically prepared by the
reduction of coniferyl alcohol, (HO)(CH3O)C6H3·CH:CH·CH2OH, which occurs
in combination with glucose in the glucoside coniferin, C16H22O8. It is
a colourless oil boiling at 247° C., and having a spicy odour. On
oxidation with potassium permanganate it gives homovanillin, vanillin,
&c.; with chromic acid in acetic acid solution it is converted into
carbon dioxide and acetic acid, whilst nitric acid oxidizes it to oxalic
acid. By the action of alkalis it is converted into iso-eugenol, which
on oxidation yields vanillin, the odorous principle of vanilla (q.v.).
This transformation of allyl phenols into propenyl phenols is very
general (see _Ber_., 1889, 22, p. 2747; 1890, 23, p. 862). Alkali fusion
of eugenol gives protocatechuic acid. The amount of eugenol in oil of
cloves can be estimated by acetylation, in presence of pyridine (A.
Verley and Fr. Baelsing, _Ber._, 1901, 34, P. 3359). _Chavibetol_, an
isomer of eugenol, occurs in the ethereal oil obtained from _Piper
betle_.

The structural relations are:

    OH           OH          OH          OCH3
    /\           /\          /\          /\
   /  \OCH3     /  \OCH3    /  \OCH3    /  \
  |    |       |    |      |    |      |    |
  |    |       |    |      |    |      |    |
   \  /         \  /        \  /        \  /
    \/           \/          \/          \/
   CH2·CH:CH2   CH:CH·CH3   CHO         CH·CH:CH2
   Eugenol     Iso-eugenol  Vanillin    Chavibetol




EUHEMERUS [EUEMERUS, EVEMERUS], Greek mythographer, born at Messana, in
Sicily (others say at Chios, Tegea, or Messene in Peloponnese),
flourished about 300 B.C., and lived at the court of Cassander. He is
chiefly known by his _Sacred History_ ([Greek: Hiera anagraphê]), a
philosophical romance, based upon archaic inscriptions which he claimed
to have found during his travels in various parts of Greece. He
particularly relies upon an account of early history which he discovered
on a golden pillar in a temple on the island of Panchaea when on a
voyage round the coast of Arabia, undertaken at the request of
Cassander, his friend and patron. There is apparently no doubt that this
island is imaginary. In this work he for the first time systematized an
old Oriental (perhaps Phoenician) method of interpreting the popular
myths, asserting that the gods who formed the chief objects of popular
worship had been originally heroes and conquerors, who had thus earned a
claim to the veneration of their subjects. This system spread widely,
and the early Christians especially appealed to it as a confirmation of
their belief that ancient mythology was merely an aggregate of fables of
human invention. Euhemerus was a firm upholder of the Cyrenaic
philosophy, and by many ancient writers he was regarded as an atheist.
His work was translated by Ennius into Latin, but the work itself is
lost, and of the translation only a few fragments, and these very short,
have come down to us.

This rationalizing method of interpretation is known as Euhemerism.
There is no doubt that it contains an element of truth; as among the
Romans the gradual deification of ancestors and the apotheosis of
emperors were prominent features of religious development, so among
primitive peoples it is possible to trace the evolution of family and
tribal gods from great chiefs and warriors. All theories of religion
which give prominence to ancestor worship and the cult of the dead are
to a certain extent Euhemeristic. But as the sole explanation of the
origin of the idea of gods it is not accepted by students of comparative
religion. It had, however, considerable vogue in France. In the 18th
century the abbé Banier, in his _Mythologie et la fable expliquées par
l'histoire_, was frankly Euhemeristic; other leading Euhemerists were
Clavier, Sainte-Croix, Raoul Rochette, Em. Hoffmann and to a great
extent Herbert Spencer.

  See Raymond de Block, _Évhémère, son lime et sa doctrine_ (Mons,
  1876); G.N. Némethy, _Euhemeri relliquiae_ (Budapest, 1889); Gauss,
  _Quaestiones Euhemereae_ (Kempen, 1860); Otto Sieroka, _De Euhemero_
  (1869); Susemihl, _Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der
  Alexandrinerzeit_, vol. i. (Leipzig, 1891); and works on comparative
  religion and mythology.




EULENSPIEGEL [ULENSPIEGEL], TILL, the name of a German folk-hero, and
the title of a popular German chapbook on the subject, of the beginning
of the 16th century. The oldest existing German text of the book was
printed at Strassburg in 1515 (_Ein kurtzweilig lesen von Dyl
Vlenspiegel geboren vss dem land zu Brunsswick_), and again in 1519.
This is not in the original dialect, which was undoubtedly Low Saxon,
but in High German, the translation having been formerly ascribed--but
on insufficient evidence--to the Catholic satirist Thomas Murner. Its
hero, Till Eulenspiegel or Ulenspiegel, the son of a peasant, was born
at Kneitlingen in Brunswick, at the end of the 13th or at the beginning
of the 14th century. He died, according to tradition, at Mölln near
Lübeck in 1350. The jests and practical jokes ascribed to him were
collected--if we may believe a statement in one of the old prints--in
1483; but in any case the edition of 1515 was not even the oldest High
German edition. Eulenspiegel himself is locally associated with the Low
German area extending from Magdeburg to Hanover, and from Lüneburg to
the Harz Mountains. He is the wily peasant who loves to exercise his wit
and roguery on the tradespeople of the towns, above all, on the
innkeepers; but priests, noblemen, even princes, are also among his
victims. His victories are often pointless, more often brutal; he stoops
without hesitation to scurrility and obscenity, while of the finer,
sharper wit which the humanists and the Italians introduced into the
anecdote, he has little or nothing. His jests are coarsely practical,
and his satire turns on class distinctions. In fact, this chapbook might
be described as the retaliation of the peasant on the townsman who in
the 14th and 15th centuries had begun to look down upon the country boor
as a natural inferior.

In spite of its essentially Low German character, _Eulenspiegel_ was
extremely popular in other lands, and, at an early date, was translated
into Dutch, French, English, Latin, Danish, Swedish, Bohemian and
Polish. In England, "Howleglas" (Scottish, _Holliglas_) was long a
familiar figure; his jests were rapidly adapted to English conditions,
and appropriated in the collections associated with Robin Goodfellow,
Scogan and others. Ben Johnson refers to him as "Howleglass" and
"Ulenspiegel" in his _Masque of the Fortunate Isles, Poetaster,
Alchemist_ and _Sad Shepherd_, and a verse by Taylor the "water poet"
would seem to imply that the "Owliglasse" was a familiar popular type.
Till Eulenspiegel's "merry pranks" have been made the subject of a
well-known orchestral symphony by Richard Strauss. In France, it may be
noted, the name has given rise to the words _espiègle_ and
_espièglerie_.

  The Strassburg edition of 1515 (British Museum) has been reprinted by
  H. Knust in the _Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des 16. und 17.
  Jahrh._ No. 55-56 (1885); that of 1519 by J.M. Lappenberg, _Dr Thomas
  Murners Ulenspiegel_ (1854). W. Scherer ("Die Anfänge des Prosaromans
  in Deutschland," in _Quellen und Forschungen_, vol. xxi., 1877, pp. 28
  ff. and 78 ff.) has shown that there must have been a still earlier
  High German edition. See also C. Walter in _Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch_,
  xix. (1894), pp. 1 ff. Further editions appeared at Cologne, printed
  by Servais Kruffter, undated (reproduced in photo-lithography from the
  two imperfect copies in Berlin and Vienna, 1865); Erfurt, 1532,
  1533-1537 and 1538; Cologne, 1539; Strassburg, 1539; Augsburg, 1540
  and 1541; Strassburg, 1543; Frankfort on the Main, 1545; Strassburg,
  1551; Cologne, 1554, &c. Johann Fischart published an adaptation in
  verse, _Der Eulenspiegel Reimensweis_ (Strassburg, 1571), K. Simrock a
  modernization in 1864 (2nd ed., 1878); there is also one by K. Pannier
  in Reclam's _Universalbibliothek_ (1883). The earliest translation was
  that into Dutch, printed by Hoochstraten at Antwerp (Royal Lib.,
  Copenhagen); it is undated, but may have appeared as early as 1512.
  See facsimile reprint by M. Nijhoff (the Hague, 1898). This served as
  the basis for the first French version: _Ulenspiegel, de sa vie, de
  ses oeuvres et merveilleuses aduentures par luy faictes ...
  nouuellement translate et corrige de Flamant en Francoys_ (Paris,
  1532). Reprint, edited by P. Jannet (1882). This was followed by
  upwards of twenty French editions down to the beginning of the 18th
  century. The latest translation is that by J.C. Delepierre (Bruges,
  1835 and 1840). Cf. Prudentius van Duyse, _Étude littéraire sur Tiel
  l'Espiègle_ (Ghent, 1858). The first complete English translation was
  also made from the Dutch, and bears the title: _Here beginneth a merye
  Jest of a man called Howleglas_, &c., printed by Copland in three
  editions, probably between 1548 and 1560. Reprint by F. Ouvry (1867).
  This, however, was itself merely a reprint of a still older English
  edition (1518?), of which the British Museum possesses fragments.
  Reprinted by F. Brie, _Eulenspiegel in England_ (1903). In 1720
  appeared _The German Rogue, or the Life and Merry Adventures of Tiel
  Eulenspiegel. Made English from the High-Dutch_; and an English
  illustrated edition, adapted by K.R.H. Mackenzie in 1880 (2nd ed.,
  1890). On Eulenspiegel in England, see especially C.H. Herford,
  _Studies in the Literary Relations of England and Germany in the
  Sixteenth Century_ (1888), pp. 242 ff., and F. Brie's work already
  referred to.     (J. G. R.)




EULER, LEONHARD (1707-1783), Swiss mathematician, was born at Basel on
the 15th of April 1707, his father Paul Euler, who had considerable
attainments as a mathematician, being Calvinistic pastor of the
neighbouring village of Riechen. After receiving preliminary
instructions in mathematics from his father, he was sent to the
university of Basel, where geometry soon became his favourite study. His
mathematical genius gained for him a high place in the esteem of Jean
Bernoulli, who was at that time one of the first mathematicians in
Europe, as well as of his sons Daniel and Nicolas Bernoulli. Having
taken his degree as master of arts in 1723, Euler applied himself, at
his father's desire, to the study of theology and the Oriental languages
with the view of entering the church, but, with his father's consent, he
soon returned to geometry as his principal pursuit. At the same time, by
the advice of the younger Bernoullis, who had removed to St Petersburg
in 1725, he applied himself to the study of physiology, to which he made
a happy application of his mathematical knowledge; and he also attended
the medical lectures at Basel. While he was engaged in physiological
researches, he composed a dissertation on the nature and propagation of
sound, and an answer to a prize question concerning the masting of
ships, to which the French Academy of Sciences adjudged the second rank
in the year 1727.

In 1727, on the invitation of Catherine I., Euler took up his residence
in St Petersburg, and was made an associate of the Academy of Sciences.
In 1730 he became professor of physics, and in 1733 he succeeded Daniel
Bernoulli in the chair of mathematics. At the commencement of his new
career he enriched the academical collection with many memoirs, which
excited a noble emulation between him and the Bernoullis, though this
did not in any way affect their friendship. It was at this time that he
carried the integral calculus to a higher degree of perfection, invented
the calculation of sines, reduced analytical operations to a greater
simplicity, and threw new light on nearly all parts of pure mathematics.
In 1735 a problem proposed by the academy, for the solution of which
several eminent mathematicians had demanded the space of some months,
was solved by Euler in three days, but the effort threw him into a fever
which endangered his life and deprived him of the use of his right eye.
The Academy of Sciences at Paris in 1738 adjudged the prize to his
memoir on the nature and properties of fire, and in 1740 his treatise on
the tides shared the prize with those of Colin Maclaurin and Daniel
Bernoulli--a higher honour than if he had carried it away from inferior
rivals.

In 1741 Euler accepted the invitation of Frederick the Great to Berlin,
where he was made a member of the Academy of Sciences and professor of
mathematics. He enriched the last volume of the _Mélanges_ or
Miscellanies of Berlin with five memoirs, and these were followed, with
an astonishing rapidity, by a great number of important researches,
which are scattered throughout the annual memoirs of the Prussian
Academy. At the same time he continued his philosophical contributions
to the Academy of St Petersburg, which granted him a pension in 1742.
The respect in which he was held by the Russians was strikingly shown in
1760, when a farm he occupied near Charlottenburg happened to be
pillaged by the invading Russian army. On its being ascertained that the
farm belonged to Euler, the general immediately ordered compensation to
be paid, and the empress Elizabeth sent an additional sum of four
thousand crowns.

In 1766 Euler with difficulty obtained permission from the king of
Prussia to return to St Petersburg, to which he had been originally
invited by Catherine II. Soon after his return to St Petersburg a
cataract formed in his left eye, which ultimately deprived him almost
entirely of sight. It was in these circumstances that he dictated to his
servant, a tailor's apprentice, who was absolutely devoid of
mathematical knowledge, his _Anleitung zur Algebra_ (1770), a work
which, though purely elementary, displays the mathematical genius of its
author, and is still reckoned one of the best works of its class.
Another task to which he set himself immediately after his return to St
Petersburg was the preparation of his _Lettres à une princesse
d'Allemagne sur quelques sujets de physique et de philosophie_ (3 vols.,
1768-1772). They were written at the request of the princess of
Anhalt-Dessau, and contain an admirably clear exposition of the
principal facts of mechanics, optics, acoustics and physical astronomy.
Theory, however, is frequently unsoundly applied in it, and it is to be
observed generally that Euler's strength lay rather in pure than in
applied mathematics.

In 1755 Euler had been elected a foreign member of the Academy of
Sciences at Paris, and some time afterwards the academical prize was
adjudged to three of his memoirs _Concerning the Inequalities in the
Motions of the Planets_. The two prize-questions proposed by the same
academy for 1770 and 1772 were designed to obtain a more perfect theory
of the moon's motion. Euler, assisted by his eldest son Johann Albert,
was a competitor for these prizes, and obtained both. In the second
memoir he reserved for further consideration several inequalities of the
moon's motion, which he could not determine in his first theory on
account of the complicated calculations in which the method he then
employed had engaged him. He afterwards reviewed his whole theory with
the assistance of his son and W.L. Krafft and A.J. Lexell, and pursued
his researches until he had constructed the new tables, which appeared
in his _Theoria motuum lunae_ (1772). Instead of confining himself, as
before, to the fruitless integration of three differential equations of
the second degree, which are furnished by mathematical principles, he
reduced them to the three co-ordinates which determine the place of the
moon; and he divided into classes all the inequalities of that planet,
as far as they depend either on the elongation of the sun and moon, or
upon the eccentricity, or the parallax, or the inclination of the lunar
orbit. The inherent difficulties of this task were immensely enhanced by
the fact that Euler was virtually blind, and had to carry all the
elaborate computations it involved in his memory. A further difficulty
arose from the burning of his house and the destruction of the greater
part of his property in 1771. His manuscripts were fortunately
preserved. His own life was only saved by the courage of a native of
Basel, Peter Grimmon, who carried him out of the burning house.

Some time after this an operation restored Euler's sight; but a too
harsh use of the recovered faculty, along with some carelessness on the
part of the surgeons, brought about a relapse. With the assistance of
his sons, and of Krafft and Lexell, however, he continued his labours,
neither the loss of his sight nor the infirmities of an advanced age
being sufficient to check his activity. Having engaged to furnish the
Academy of St Petersburg with as many memoirs as would be sufficient to
complete its _Acta_ for twenty years after his death, he in seven years
transmitted to the academy above seventy memoirs, and left above two
hundred more, which were revised and completed by another hand.

Euler's knowledge was more general than might have been expected in one
who had pursued with such unremitting ardour mathematics and astronomy
as his favourite studies. He had made very considerable progress in
medical, botanical and chemical science, and he was an excellent
classical scholar, and extensively read in general literature. He was
much indebted to an uncommon memory, which seemed to retain every idea
that was conveyed to it, either from reading or meditation. He could
repeat the _Aeneid_ of Virgil from the beginning to the end without
hesitation, and indicate the first and last line of every page of the
edition which he used. Euler's constitution was uncommonly vigorous, and
his general health was always good. He was enabled to continue his
labours to the very close of his life. His last subject of investigation
was the motion of balloons, and the last subject on which he conversed
was the newly discovered planet Herschel (Uranus). He died of apoplexy
on the 18th of September 1783, whilst he was amusing himself at tea with
one of his grandchildren.

Euler's genius was great and his industry still greater. His works, if
printed in their completeness, would occupy from 60 to 80 quarto
volumes. He was simple and upright in his character, and had a strong
religious faith. He was twice married, his second wife being a
half-sister of his first, and he had a numerous family, several of whom
attained to distinction. His _éloge_ was written for the French Academy
by the marquis de Condorcet, and an account of his life, with a list of
his works, was written by Von Fuss, the secretary to the Imperial
Academy of St Petersburg.

  The works which Euler published separately are: _Dissertatio physica
  de sono_ (Basel, 1727, in 4to); _Mechanica, sive motus scientia
  analytice exposita_ (St Petersburg, 1736, in 2 vols. 4to); _Einleitung
  in die Arithmetik_ (ibid., 1738, in 2 vols. 8vo), in German and
  Russian; _Tentamen novae theoriae musicae_ (ibid. 1739, in 4to);
  _Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas, maximi minimive proprietate
  gaudentes_ (Lausanne, 1744, in 4to); _Theoria motuum planetarum et
  cometarum_ (Berlin, 1744, in 4to); _Beantwortung_, &c., or Answers to
  Different Questions respecting Comets (ibid., 1744, in 8vo); _Neue
  Grundsatze_, &c., or New Principles of Artillery, translated from the
  English of Benjamin Robins, with notes and illustrations (ibid., 1745,
  in 8vo); _Opuscula varii argumenti_ (ibid., 1746-1751, in 3 vols.
  4to); _Novae et correctae tabulae ad loca lunae computanda_ (ibid.,
  1746, in 4to); _Tabulae astronomicae solis et lunae_ (ibid., 4to);
  _Gedanken_, &c., or Thoughts on the Elements of Bodies (ibid. 4to);
  _Rettung der gottlichen Offenbarung_, &c., Defence of Divine
  Revelation against Free-thinkers (ibid., 1747, in 4to); _Introductio
  in analysin infinitorum_ (Lausanne, 1748, in 2 vols. 4to); _Scientia
  navalis, seu tractatus de construendis ac dirigendis navibus_ (St
  Petersburg, 1749, in 2 vols. 4to); Theoria motus lunae (Berlin, 1753,
  in 4to); _Dissertatio de principio minimae actionis, una cum examine
  objectionum cl. prof. Koenigii_ (ibid., 1753, in 8vo); _Institutiones
  calculi differentialis, cum ejus usu in analysi Infinitorum ac
  doctrina serierum_ (ibid., 1755, in 4to); _Constructio lentium
  objectivarum_, &c. (St Petersburg, 1762, in 4to); _Theoria motus
  corporum solidorum seu rigidorum_ (Rostock, 1765, in 4to);
  _Institutiones calculi integralis_ (St Petersburg, 1768-1770, in 3
  vols. 4to); _Lettres à une Princesse d'Allemagne sur quelques sujets
  de physique et de philosophie_ (St Petersburg, 1768-1772, in 3 vols.
  8vo); _Anleitung zur Algebra_, or Introduction to Algebra (ibid.,
  1770, in 8vo); _Dioptrica_ (ibid., 1767-1771, in 3 vols. 4to);
  _Theoria motuum lunae nova methodo pertractata_ (ibid., 1772, in 4to);
  _Novae tabulae lunares_ (ibid., in 8vo); _Théorie complète de la
  construction et de la manoeuvre des vaisseaux_ (ibid., 1773, in 8vo);
  _Éclaircissements sur établissements en faveur tant des veuves que
  des morts_, without a date; _Opuscula analytica_ (St Petersburg,
  1783-1785, in 2 vols. 4to).

  See Rudio, _Leonhard Euler_ (Basel, 1884); M. Cantor, _Geschichte der
  Mathematik_.




EUMENES, the name of two rulers of Pergamum.

1. EUMENES I. succeeded his uncle Philetaerus in 263 B.C. The only
important event in his reign was his victory near Sardis over Antiochus
Soter, which enabled him to secure possession of the districts round his
capital. (See PERGAMUM.)

2. EUMENES II., son of Attalus I., was king of Pergamum from 197-159
B.C. During the greater part of his reign he was a loyal ally of the
Romans, who bestowed upon him signal marks of favour. He materially
contributed to the defeat of Antiochus of Syria at the battle of
Magnesia (190), and as a reward for his services the Thracian Chersonese
and all Antiochus's possessions as far as the Taurus were bestowed upon
him, including a protectorate of such Greek cities as had not been
declared free. In his quarrels with his neighbours the Romans intervened
on his behalf, and on the occasion of his visit to Rome to complain of
the conduct of Perseus, king of Macedonia, he was received with the
greatest distinction. On his return journey he narrowly escaped
assassination by the emissaries of Perseus. Although he supported the
Romans in the war against Macedonia, he displayed so little energy and
interest (even recalling his auxiliaries) that he was suspected of
intriguing with the enemy. According to Polybius there was some
foundation for the suspicion, but Eumenes declared that he had merely
been negotiating for an exchange of prisoners. Nothing, however, came of
these negotiations, whatever may have been their real object; and
Eumenes, in order to avert suspicion, sent his congratulations to Rome
by his brother Attalus after the defeat of Perseus (168). Attalus was
received courteously but coldly; and Eumenes in alarm set out to visit
Rome in person, but on his arrival at Brundusium was ordered to leave
Italy at once. Eumenes never regained the good graces of the Romans, who
showed especial favour to Attalus on his second visit to Rome, probably
with the object of setting him against Eumenes; but the ties of kinship
proved too strong. The last years of his reign were disturbed by renewed
hostilities against Prusias of Bithynia and the Celts of Galatia, and
probably only his death prevented a war with Rome. Eumenes, although
physically weak, was a shrewd and vigorous ruler and politician, who
raised his little state from insignificance to a powerful monarchy.
During his reign Pergamum became a flourishing city, where men of
learning were always welcome, among them Crates of Mallus, the founder
of the Pergamene school of criticism. Eumenes adorned the city with
splendid buildings, amongst them the great altar with the frieze
representing the Battle of the Giants; but the greatest monument of his
liberality was the foundation of the library, which was second only to
that of Alexandria.

  See Livy xxxix. 51, xlii. 11-16; Polybius xxi.-xxxii.; Appian,
  _Syriaca_; Livy, _Epit_. 46; Cornelius Nepos, _Hannibal_, 10; A.G. van
  Cappelle, _Commentatio de regibus et antiquitatibus Pergamenis_
  (Amsterdam, 1841). For the altar of Zeus, see PERGAMUM; for treaty
  with Cretan cities (183 B.C.) see _Monumenti antichi_, xviii. 177.




EUMENES (c. 360-316 B.C.), Macedonian general, was a native of Cardia in
the Thracian Chersonesus. At a very early age he was employed as private
secretary by Philip II. of Macedon, and on the death of that prince, by
Alexander, whom he accompanied into Asia. In the division of the empire
on Alexander's death, Cappadocia and Paphlagonia were assigned to
Eumenes; but as they were not yet subdued, Leonnatus and Antigonus were
charged by Perdiccas to put him in possession. Antigonus, however,
disregarded the order, and Leonnatus in vain attempted to induce Eumenes
to accompany him to Europe and share in his far-reaching designs.
Eumenes joined Perdiccas, who installed him in Cappadocia. When Craterus
and Antipater, having reduced Greece, determined to pass into Asia and
overthrow the power of Perdiccas, their first blow was aimed at
Cappadocia. Craterus and Neoptolemus, satrap of Armenia, were completely
defeated by Eumenes (321); Neoptolemus was killed, and Craterus died of
his wounds. After the murder of Perdiccas in Egypt by his own soldiers,
the Macedonian generals condemned Eumenes to death, and charged
Antipater and Antigonus with the execution of their order. Eumenes,
being defeated through the treachery of one of his officers, fled to
Nora, a strong fortress on the confines of Cappadocia and Lycaonia,
where he defended himself for more than a year. The death of Antipater
(319) produced complications. He left the regency to his friend
Polyperchon over the head of his son Cassander, who entered into an
alliance with Antigonus and Ptolemy against Polyperchon, supported by
Eumenes, who, having escaped from Nora, was threatening Syria and
Phoenicia. In 318 Antigonus marched against him, and Eumenes withdrew
east to join the satraps of the provinces beyond the Tigris. After two
indecisive battles in Iran, Eumenes was betrayed by his own soldiers to
Antigonus and put to death. He was an able soldier, who did his utmost
to maintain the unity of Alexander's empire in Asia; but his efforts
were frustrated by the generals and satraps, who hated and despised the
"secretary" and "foreigner."

  See Plutarch, _Eumenes_; Cornelius Nepos, _Eumenes_; Diod. Sic.
  xviii., xix.; Arrian, _Anabasis_, vii.; Quintus Curtius x. 4. 10;
  Justin xiii. 8; A. Vezin, _Eumenes von Kardia. Ein Beitrag zur
  Geschichte der Diadochenzeit_ (Münster i. W., 1907). Also MACEDONIAN
  EMPIRE.




EUMENIDES (from Gr. [Greek: eumenês], kindly; [Greek: eu], well, and
[Greek: menos], disposition), the "kindly ones," a euphemism for the
Furies or Erinyes (q.v.). They give their name to a famous play by
Aeschylus (q.v.), written in glorification of the old religion and
aristocratic government of Athens, in opposition to the new democracy of
the Periclean period.




EUMENIUS (c. A.D. 260-311), one of the Roman panegyrists, was born at
Augustodunum (_Autun_) in Gallia Lugdunensis. He was of Greek descent;
his grandfather, who had migrated from Athens to Rome, finally settled
at Autun as a teacher of rhetoric. Eumenius probably took his place, for
it was from Autun that he went to be _magister memoriae_ (private
secretary) to Constantius Chlorus, whom he accompanied on several of his
campaigns. In 296 Chlorus determined to restore the famous schools
(_scholae Maenianae_) of Autun, which had been greatly damaged by the
inroads of the Bagaudae (peasant banditti), and appointed Eumenius to
the management of them, allowing him to retain his offices at court and
doubling his salary. Eumenius generously gave up a considerable portion
of his emoluments to the improvement of the schools. There is no doubt
that Eumenius was a heathen, not even a nominal follower of
Christianity, like Ausonius and other writers from Gaul. Nothing is
known of his later years; but he must have lived at least till 311, if
the _Gratiarum Actio_ to Constantine is by him. Of the twelve discourses
included in the collection of _Panegyrici Latini_ (ed. E. Bährens,
1874), the following are probably by Eumenius. (1) _Pro restaurandis_
(or _instaurandis_) _scholis_, delivered (297) in the forum at Autun
before the governor of the province. Its chief object is to set forth
the steps necessary to restore the schools to their former state of
efficiency, and the author lays stress upon the fact that he intends to
assist the good work out of his own pocket. (2) An address (297) to the
Caesar Constantius Chlorus, congratulating him on his victories over
Allectus and Carausius in Britain, and containing information of some
value as to the British methods of fighting. (3) A panegyric on
Constantine (310). (4) An address of thanks (311) from the inhabitants
of Autun (whose name had been changed from Augustodunum to Flavia) to
Constantine for the remission of taxes and other benefits. (5) A festal
address (307) on the marriage of Constantine and Fausta, the daughter of
Maximian. All these speeches, with the exception of (1), were delivered
at Augusta Trevirorum (Trèves), whose birthday is celebrated in (3).
Eumenius is far the best of the orators of his time, and superior to the
majority of the writers of imperial panegyrics. He shows greater
self-restraint and moderation in his language, which is simple and pure,
and on the whole is free from the gross flattery which characterizes
such productions. This fault is most conspicuous in (3), which led Heyne
(_Opuscula_, vi. 80) to deny the authorship of Eumenius on the ground
that it was unworthy of him.

  There are treatises on Eumenius by B. Kilian (Würzburg, 1869), S.
  Brandt (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1882), and H. Sachs (Halle, 1885); see
  also Gaston Boissier, "Les Rhéteurs gaulois du IV^e siècle," in
  _Journal des savants_ (1884).




EUMOLPUS ("sweet singer"), in Greek mythology, son of Poseidon and
Chione, the daughter of Boreas, legendary priest, poet and warrior. He
finally settled in Thrace, where he became king. During a war between
the Eleusinians and Athenians under Erechtheus, he went to the
assistance of the former, who on a previous occasion had shown him
hospitality, but was slain with his two sons, Phorbas and Immaradus.
According to another tradition, Erechtheus and Immaradus lost their
lives; the Eleusinians then submitted to Athens on condition that they
alone should celebrate the mysteries, and that Eumolpus and the
daughters of Celeus should perform the sacrifices. It is asserted by
others that Eumolpus with a colony of Thracians laid claim to Attica as
having belonged to his father Poseidon (Isocrates, _Panath_. 193). The
Eleusinian mysteries were generally considered to have been founded by
Eumolpus, the first priest of Demeter, but, according to some, by
Eumolpus the son of Musaeus, Eumolpus the Thracian being the father of
Keryx, the ancestor of the priestly family of the Kerykes. As priest,
Eumolpus purifies Heracles from the murder of the Centaurs; as musician,
he instructs him (as well as Linus and Orpheus) in playing the lyre, and
is the reputed inventor of vocal accompaniments to the flute. Suidas
reckons him one of the early poets and a writer of hymns of
consecration, and Diodorus Siculus quotes a line from a Dionysiac hymn
attributed to Eumolpus. He is also said to have been the first priest of
Dionysus, and to have introduced the cultivation of the vine and fruit
trees (Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ vii. 199). His grave was shown at Athens and
Eleusis. His descendants, called Eumolpidae, together with the Kerykes,
were the hereditary guardians of the mysteries (q.v.).

  See Apollodorus ii. 5, iii. 15; Pausanias i. 38. 2; Hyginus, _Fab._
  273; Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_, 476; Strabo vii. p. 321; Diod. Sic. i.
  11; article "Eumolpidai," by J.A. Hild in Daremberg and Saglio's
  _Dictionnaire des antiquités_.




EUNAPIUS, Greek sophist and historian, was born at Sardis, A.D. 347. In
his native city he studied under his relative the sophist Chrysanthius,
and while still a youth went to Athens, where he became a favourite
pupil of Proaeresius the rhetorician. He possessed a considerable
knowledge of medicine. In his later years he seems to have resided at
Athens, teaching rhetoric. Initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries, he
was admitted into the college of the Eumolpidae and became hierophant.
There is evidence that he was still living in the reign of the younger
Theodosius (408-450). Eunapius was the author of two works, one entitled
_Lives of the Sophists_ ([Greek: Bioi philosophôn kai sophistôn]), and
the other consisting of a continuation of the history of Dexippus
(q.v.). The former work is still extant; of the latter only excerpts
remain, but the facts are largely incorporated in the work of Zosimus.
It embraced the history of events from A.D. 270-404. The _Lives of the
Sophists_, which deals chiefly with the contemporaries of the author, is
valuable as the only source for the history of the neo-Platonism of that
period. The style of both works is bad, and they are marked by a spirit
of bitter hostility to Christianity. Photius (cod. 77) had before him a
"new edition" of the history in which the passages most offensive to the
Christians were omitted.

  Edition of the _Lives_ by J.F. Boissonade (1822), with notes by D.
  Wyttenbach; history fragments in C.W. Müller, _Fragmenta Hist.
  Graecorum_, iv.; V. Cousin, _Fragments philosophiques_ (1865).




EUNOMIUS (d. c. 393), one of the leaders of the extreme or "anomoean"
Arians, who are sometimes accordingly called Eunomians, was born at
Dacora in Cappadocia early in the 4th century. He studied theology at
Alexandria under Aetius, and afterwards came under the influence of
Eudoxius of Antioch, where he was ordained deacon. On the recommendation
of Eudoxius he was appointed bishop of Cyzicus in 360. Here his free
utterance of extreme Arian views led to popular complaints, and Eudoxius
was compelled, by command of the emperor, Constantius II., to depose him
from the bishopric within a year of his elevation to it. During the
reigns of Julian and Jovian, Eunomius resided in Constantinople in
close intercourse with Aetius, consolidating an heretical party and
consecrating schismatical bishops. He then went to live at Chalcedon,
whence in 367 he was banished to Mauretania for harbouring the rebel
Procopius. He was recalled, however, before he reached his destination.
In 383 the emperor Theodosius, who had demanded a declaration of faith
from all party leaders, punished Eunomius for continuing to teach his
distinctive doctrines, by banishing him to Halmyris in Moesia. He
afterwards resided at Chalcedon and at Caesarea in Cappadocia, from
which he was expelled by the inhabitants for writing against their
bishop Basil. His last days were spent at Dacora his birthplace, where
he died about 393. His writings were held in high reputation by his
party, and their influence was so much dreaded by the orthodox, that
more than one imperial edict was issued for their destruction (_Cod.
Theod_. xvi. 34). Consequently his commentary on the epistle to the
Romans, mentioned by the historian Socrates, and his epistles, mentioned
by Philostorgius and Photius, are no longer extant. His first
apologetical work ([Greek: Apologêtikos]), written probably about 360 or
365, has been entirely recovered from the celebrated refutation of it by
Basil, and may be found in J.A. Fabricius, _Bibl. Gr_. viii. pp.
262-305. A second apology, written before 379 ([Greek: Hyper apologias
apologia]), exists only in the quotations given from it in a refutation
by Gregory of Nyssa. The exposition of faith ([Greek: Ekthesis tês
pisteôs]), called forth by the demand of Theodosius, is still extant,
and has been edited by Valesius in his notes to Socrates, and by Ch.
H.G. Rettberg in his _Marcelliana_.

The teaching of the Anomoean school, led by Aetius and Eunomius,
starting from the conception of God as [Greek: ho agennêtos], argued
that between the [Greek: agennêtos] and [Greek: gennêtos] there could be
no _essential_, but at best only a _moral_, resemblance. "As the
Unbegotten, God is an absolutely simple being; an act of generation
would involve a contradiction of His essence by introducing duality into
the Godhead." According to Socrates (v. 24), Eunomius carried his views
to a practical issue by altering the baptismal formula. Instead of
baptizing in the name of the Trinity, he baptized in the name of the
Creator and into the death of Christ. This alteration was regarded by
the orthodox as so serious that Eunomians on returning to the church
were rebaptized, though the Arians were not. The Eunomian heresy was
formally condemned by the council of Constantinople in 381. The sect
maintained a separate existence for some time, but gradually fell away
owing to internal divisions.

  See C.R.W. Klose, _Geschichte und Lehre des Eumonius_ (Kiel, 1833); F.
  Loofs in Hauck-Herzog, _Realencyk. für prot. Theol_.; Whiston's
  _Eunomianismus redivivus_ contains an English translation of the first
  apology. See also ARIUS.




EUNUCH (Gr.[Greek: eunouchos]), an emasculated male. From remote
antiquity among the Orientals, as also at a later period in Greece,
eunuchs were employed to take charge of the women, or generally as
chamberlains--whence the name [Greek: oi tên eunên echontes], i.e. those
who have charge of the bed-chamber. Their confidential position in the
harems of princes frequently enabled them to exercise an important
influence over their royal masters, and even to raise themselves to
stations of great trust and power (see HAREM). Hence the term eunuch
came to be applied in Egypt to any court officer, whether a _castratus_
or not. The common idea that eunuchs are necessarily deficient in
courage and in intellectual vigour is amply refuted by history. We are
told, for example, by Herodotus that in Persia they were especially
prized for their fidelity; and they were frequently promoted to the
highest offices. Narses, the famous general under Justinian, was a
eunuch, as was also Hermias, governor of Atarnea in Mysia, to whose
manes the great Aristotle offered sacrifices, besides celebrating the
praises of his patron and friend in a poem (still extant) addressed to
_Virtue_ (see Lucian's dialogue entitled _Eunuchus_). The capacity of
eunuchs for public affairs is strikingly illustrated by the histories of
Persia, India and China; and considerable power was exercised by the
eunuchs under the later Roman emperors. The hideous trade of castrating
boys to be sold as eunuchs for Moslem harems has continued to modern
times, the principal district whence they are taken being north-central
Africa (Bagirmi, &c.). As the larger proportion of children die after
the operation (generally total removal) owing to unskilful surgery, such
as recover fetch at least three or four times the ordinary price of
slaves. Even more vile, as being practised by a civilized European
nation, was the Italian practice of castrating boys to prevent the
natural development of the voice, in order to train them as adult
soprano singers, such as might formerly be heard in the Sistine chapel.
Though such mutilation is a crime punishable with severity, the supply
of "soprani" never failed so long as their musical powers were in demand
in high quarters. Driven long ago from the Italian stage by public
opinion, they remained the musical glory and moral shame of the papal
choir till the accession of Pope Leo XIII., one of whose first acts was
to get rid of them. Mention must here also be made of the class of
voluntary eunuchs, who have emasculated themselves, or caused the
operation to be performed on them, for the avoidance of sexual sin or
temptation. This unnatural development of asceticism appears in early
Christian ages, its votaries acting on the texts Matt. xix. 12, v.
28-30. Origen's case is the most celebrated example, and by the 3rd
century there had arisen a sect of eunuchs, of whom Augustine says (_De
haeres_. c. 37), "Valesii et seipsos castrant et hospites suos, hoc modo
existimantes Deo se debere servire" (see Neander, _History of Chr.
Church_, vol. ii. p. 462; Bingham, _Antiq. Chr. Church_, book iv. chap.
3.) Such practices have been always opposed by the general body of the
Christian churches, but have not even now ceased. A secret sect of the
kind exists in Russia, whose practice of castration is expressed in
their name of Skopzi.     (E. B. T.)




EUNUCH FLUTE, or ONION FLUTE (Fr. _flûte eunuque, flûte à l'onion,
mirliton_; Ger. _Zwiebelflöte_), a wind instrument in use during the
16th and 17th centuries, producing music akin to the comb-music of the
nursery, and still manufactured as a toy (_mirliton_). The onion flute
consists of a wooden tube widening out slightly to form a bell. The
upper end of the tube is closed by means of a very fine membrane similar
to an onion skin stretched across the aperture like the vellum of a
drum. The mouthpiece, a simple round hole, is pierced a couple of inches
below the membrane; into this hole the performer sings, his voice
setting up vibrations in the membrane, which thus intensifies the sound
and changes its timbre to a bleating quality. A movable cap fits over
the membrane to protect it. Mersenne[1] has given a drawing of the
eunuch flute together with a description; he states that the vibrations
of the membrane improve the sound of the voice, and by reflecting it,
give it an added charm. There were concerts of these flutes in four or
five parts in France, adds Mersenne, and they had the advantage over
other kinds of reproducing more nearly the sound of the voice.


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] _L'Harmonie universelle_ (Paris, 1636), livre v. prop. iv. pp.
    228-229.




EUONYMUS, in botany, a genus of deciduous or evergreen shrubs or small
trees, widely distributed in the north temperate zone, and represented
in Britain by _E. europaeus_, the spindle tree, so called from its hard
tough wood being formerly used for spindles. It is a shrub or small tree
growing in copses or hedges, with a grey smooth bark, four-angled green
twigs, opposite leaves and loose clusters of small greenish-white
flowers. The ripe fruit is a pale crimson colour and splits into four
lobes exposing the bright orange-coloured seed. _E. japonicus_ is a
hardy evergreen shrub, often variegated and well known in gardens. The
Greek name [Greek: euônymos], of good name, lucky, is probably a
euphemism; the flowering was said to foretell plague.




EUPALINUS, of Megara, a Greek architect, who constructed for the tyrant
Polycrates of Samos a remarkable tunnel to bring water to the city,
passing under a hill. This aqueduct still exists, and is one of the most
remarkable constructions in Greece (see AQUEDUCT: _Greek_).




EUPATORIA (Russ. _Evpatoria_; also known as _Kozlov_ and to the Turks as
_Gezlev_), a seaport of Russia, in the government of Taurida, on the W.
coast of the Crimea, 20 m. N.W. of Simferopol, on a sandy promontory on
the north of Kalamita Bay, in 45° 12' N. and 33° 40' E. Pop. (1871)
8294; (1897) 17,915. This number includes many Jews, the Karaite sect
having here their principal synagogue. Here too resides the spiritual
head (_gakhan_) of the sect. Of its numerous ecclesiastical buildings
three are of interest--the synagogue of the Karaite Jews; one of the
mosques, which has fourteen cupolas and is built (1552) after the plan
of St Sophia in Constantinople; and the Greek Catholic cathedral (1898).
The port or rather roadstead has a sandy bottom, and is exposed to
violent storms from the N.E. The trade is principally in cereals, skins,
cow-hair, felt, tallow and salt. Eupatoria has some repute as a
sea-bathing resort.

According to some authorities it was near this spot that a military
post, _Eupatorium_, was established in the 1st century A.D. by
Diophantus, the general of Mithradates the Great, king of Pontus.
Towards the end of the 15th century the Turks built the fortress of
Gezleveh on the present site, and it became the capital of a khanate. It
was occupied by the Russians under Marshal Münnich in 1736, and in 1771
by Prince Dolgorukov. Its annexation to Russia took place in 1783. In
1854 the Anglo-French troops were landed in the neighbourhood of
Eupatoria, and in February 1855 the town was occupied by the Turkish
forces.




EUPATRIDAE (Gr. [Greek: eu], well; [Greek: patêr], father, i.e. "Sons of
noble fathers"), the ancient nobility of Attica. Tradition ascribes to
Theseus, whom it also regards as the author of the union (_synoecism_)
of Attica round Athens as a political centre, the division of the Attic
population into three classes, Eupatridae, Geomori and Demiurgi. The
lexicographers mention as characteristics of the Eupatridae that they
are the autochthonous population, the dwellers in the city, the
descendants of the royal stock. It is probable that after the time of
the _synoecism_ the nobles who had hitherto governed the various
independent communities were obliged to reside in Athens, now the seat
of government; and at the beginning of Athenian history the noble clans
form a class which has the monopoly of political privilege. It is
possible that in very early times the Eupatridae were the only full
citizens of Athens; for the evidence suggests that they alone belonged
to the phratries, and the division into phratries must have covered the
whole citizen body. It is indeed just possible that the term may
originally have signified "true member of a clan," since membership of a
phratry was a characteristic of each clan ([Greek: genos]). It is not
probable that the Eupatrid families were all autochthonous, even in the
loose sense of that term. Some had no doubt immigrated to Attica when
the rest had long been settled there. Traces of this union of immigrants
with older inhabitants have been detected in the combination of Zeus
Herkeios with Apollo Patroös as the ancient gods of the phratry.

The exact relation of the Eupatridae to the other two classes has been a
matter of dispute. It seems probable that the Eupatridae were the
governing class, the only recognized nobility, the Geomori the country
inhabitants of all ranks, and the Demiurgi the commercial and artisan
population. The division attributed to Theseus is always spoken of by
ancient authorities as a division of the entire population; but Busolt
has recently maintained the view that the three classes represent three
elements in the Attic nobility, namely, the city nobility, the landed
nobility and the commercial nobility, and exclude altogether the mass of
the population. At any rate it seems certain from the little we know of
the early constitutional history of Athens, that the Eupatridae
represent the only nobility that had any political recognition in early
times. The political history of the Eupatridae is that of a gradual
curtailment of privilege. They were at the height of their power in the
period during the limitation of the monarchy. They alone held the two
offices, those of polemarch and archon, which were instituted during the
8th century B.C. to restrict the powers of the kings. In 712 B.C. the
office of king ([Greek: basileus]) was itself thrown open to all
Eupatrids (see ARCHON). They thus had the entire control of the
administration, and were the sole dispensers of justice in the state. At
this latter privilege, which perhaps formed the strongest bulwark of the
authority of the Eupatridae, a severe blow was struck (c. 621 B.C.) by
the publication of a criminal code by Draco (q.v.), which was followed
by the more detailed and permanent code of Solon (c. 594 B.C.), who
further threw open the highest offices to any citizen possessed of a
certain amount of landed property (see SOLON), thus putting the claims
of the Eupatridae to political influence on a level with those of the
wealthier citizens of all classes. The most highly coveted office at
this time was not that of [Greek: Basileus], which, like that of the
_rex sacrorum_ in Rome, had been stripped of all save its religious
authority, but that of the Archon; soon after the legislation of Solon
repeated struggles for this office between the Eupatridae and leading
members of the other two classes resulted in a temporary change. Ten
archons[1] were appointed, five of whom were to be Eupatridae, three
Agroeci (i.e. Geomori), and two Demiurgi (Arist. _Ath. Pol_. xiii. 2).
This arrangement, though short-lived, is significant of the decay of the
political influence of the Eupatridae, and it is not likely that they
recovered, even in practice, any real control of the government. By the
middle of the 6th century the political influence of birth was at an
end.

The name Eupatridae survived in historical times, but the Eupatridae
were then excluded from the cult of the "Semnae" at Athens, and also
held the hereditary office of "expounder of the law" ([Greek: exêgêtês])
in connexion with purification from the guilt of murder. The combination
of these two characteristics suggests some connexion with the legend of
Orestes. Again, Isocrates (xvi. 25) says of Alcibiades that his
grandfather was a Eupatrid and his grandmother an Alcmaeonid, which
suggests that in the 5th century the Eupatrids were a single clan, like
the Alcmaeonids, and that the name had acquired a new signification. A
pursuit of these two suggestions has established the probability that
this "Eupatrid" clan traced its origin to Orestes, and derived its name
from the hero, who was above all a benefactor of his father. The word
will well bear this sense in the two passages in which Sophocles
(_Electra_, 162, 859) applies it to Orestes; and it is likely enough
that after the disappearance of the old Eupatridae as a political
corporation, the name was adopted in a different sense, but not without
a claim to the distinction inherent in the older sense, by one of the
oldest of the clans.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--G. Busolt, _Die griechischen Staats- und
  Rechts-altertümer_ (Müller, _Handbuch der klassischen
  Altertumswissenschaft_, iv. I), pp. 127 et seq., 155 et seq., 248
  (Munich, 1892); G. Gilbert, _Greek Constitutional Antiquities_, p. 101
  et seq. (Eng. trans., London, 1895); for Eupatridae in historical
  times, J. Töpffer, _Attische Genealogie_, p. 175 et seq. (Berlin,
  1889). See also the articles AREOPAGUS, ARCHON.     (A. M. Cl.)


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] For a discussion of this see ARCHON.




EUPEN (Fr. _Néau_), a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province,
in a beautiful valley at the confluence of the Helle and Vesdre, 9 m. S.
of Aix-la-Chapelle by rail. Pop. (1905) 14,297. It is a flourishing
commercial place, and besides cloth and buckskin mills it has net and
glove manufactories, soapworks, dyeworks, tanneries and breweries, and
also carries on a considerable trade in cattle and dairy produce. It has
a Protestant and four Roman Catholic churches, a Franciscan monastery, a
progymnasium, an orphanage, a hospital, and a chamber of commerce. As
part of the duchy of Limburg, Eupen was under the government of Austria
until the peace of Lunéville in 1801, when it passed to France. In 1814
it came into the possession of Prussia.




EUPHEMISM (from Gr. [Greek: euphêmos], having a sound of good omen;
[Greek: eu], well, and [Greek: phêmê], sound or voice), a figure of
speech in which an unpleasant or coarse phrase is replaced by a softer
or less offensive expression. A euphemism has sometimes a metaphorical
sense, as in the substitution of the word "sleep" for "death."




EUPHONIUM (Fr. _baryton_; Ger. _Tenor Tube_), a modern brass wind
instrument, known in military bands as euphonium and in the orchestra as
tuba. The euphonium consists of a brass tube with a conical bore of wide
calibre ending in a wide-mouthed bell; it is played by means of a
cup-shaped mouthpiece. The sound is produced as in the bombardon, which
is the bass of the euphonium, by the varied tension of the lips across
the mouthpiece, whereby the natural open notes or harmonics, consisting
of the series here shown, are obtained.

[Illustration]

The intervening notes of the chromatic scale are obtained by means of
valves or pistons usually four in number, which by opening a passage
into additional lengths of tubing lower the pitch one, half,
one-and-a-half, two-and-a-half tones (see BOMBARDON; TUBA; VALVES). The
euphonium gives out the fundamental, or first note of the harmonic
series, readily, but no harmonic above the eighth. Euphoniums are made
in C and in B[flat], the latter being more generally used. By means of
all the valves used at once, the B[flat], an octave below the
fundamental, can be reached, giving a compass of four octaves, with
chromatic intervals. The bass clef is used in notation. The euphonium is
treated by French and German composers as a transposing instrument; in
England the real notes are usually written, except when the treble clef
is used. The quality of tone is rich and full, harmonizing well with
that of the trombone. The euphonium speaks readily in the lower
register, but slowly, of course, owing to the long dip of the pistons.
Messrs Rudall Carte have removed this difficulty by their patent _short
action_ pistons, which have but half the dip of the old pistons. On
these instruments it is easy to execute rapid passages.

The euphonium is frequently said to be a saxhorn, corresponding to the
baryton member of that family, but the statement is misleading. The
bombardon and euphonium, like the saxhorns, are the outcome of the
application of valves to the bugle family, but there is a radical
difference in construction; the tubas (bombardon and euphonium) have a
conical bore of sufficiently wide calibre to allow of the production of
the fundamental harmonic, which is absent in the saxhorns. The Germans
classify brass wind instruments as _whole_ and _half_[1] according to
whether, having the wide bore of the bugle, the _whole_ length of the
tube is available and gives the fundamental proper to an organ pipe of
the same length or whether by reason of the narrow bore in proportion to
the length, only _half_ the length of the instrument is of practical
utility, the harmonic series beginning with the second harmonic. (See
BOMBARDON.)     (K. S.)


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] See Dr Schafhäutl's article on "Musical Instruments" in sect. iv.
    of _Bericht der Beurtheilungs- Commission bei der Allg. deutschen
    Industrie Ausstellung_ (Munich, 1854), pp. 169-170; also Fried.
    Zamminer, _Die Musik und die Musikinstrumente in ihrer Beziehung zu
    den Gesetzen der Akustik_ (Giessen, 1855).




EUPHORBIA, in botany, a large genus of plants from which the order
Euphorbiaceae takes its name. It includes more than 600 species and is
of almost world-wide distribution. It is represented in Britain by the
spurges--small, generally smooth, herbaceous plants with simple leaves
and inconspicuous flowers arranged in small cup-like heads (_cyathia_).
The cyathium is a characteristic feature of the genus, and consists of a
number of male flowers, each reduced to a single stamen, surrounding a
central female flower which consists only of a stalked pistil; the group
of flowers is enveloped in a cup formed by the union of four or five
bracts, the upper part of which bears thick, conspicuous, gland-like
structures, which in exotic species are often brilliantly coloured,
giving the cyathium the appearance of a single flower. Another
characteristic is the presence of a milky juice, or latex, in the
tissues of the plant. In one section of the genus the plants resemble
cacti, having a thick succulent stem and branches with the leaves either
very small or completely reduced to a small wart-like excrescence, with
which is generally associated a tuft of spines (a reduced shoot). These
occur in the warmer parts of the world as a type of dry country or
desert vegetation. The only species of note are _E. fulgens_ and _E.
jacquiniaeflora_, for the warm greenhouse; _E. Cyparissias_ (the Cypress
spurge), _E. Wulfeni_, _E. Lathyris_ and _E. Myrsinites_, for the open
air.




EUPHORBIACEAE, in botany, a large natural order of flowering plants,
containing more than 220 genera with about 4000 species, chiefly
tropical, but spreading over the whole earth with the exception of the
arctic and cold alpine zones. They are represented in Britain by the
spurges (_Euphorbia_, q.v.) (fig. 1) and dog's mercury (_Mercurialis_)
(fig. 2), which are herbaceous plants, but the greater number are woody
plants and often trees. The large genus _Euphorbia_ shows great variety
in habit; many species, like the English spurges, are annual herbs,
others form bushes, while in the desert regions of tropical Africa and
the Canary Islands species occur resembling cacti, having thick fleshy
stems and leaves reduced to spines. Another large genus, _Phyllanthus_,
contains small annual herbs as well as trees, while in some species the
leaves are reduced to scales, and the branches are flattened, forming
phylloclades. The leaves also show great variety in form and
arrangement, being simple and entire as in the English spurges, or
deeply cut as in _Ricinus_ (castor-oil) (fig. 3), and _Manihot_ or
sometimes palmately compound (_Hevea_). The majority contain a milky
juice or latex in their tissues which exudes on cutting or bruising. In
_Hevea_, _Manihot_ and others the latex yields caoutchouc. The flowers
are unisexual; male and female flowers are borne on the same, as in the
spurges (fig. 1), or on different plants, as in dog's mercury (fig. 2).
Their arrangement shows considerable variation, but the flowers are
generally grouped in crowded definite partial inflorescences, which are
themselves arranged in spikes or stand in the axils of the upper leaves.
These partial inflorescences are generally unisexual, the male often
containing numerous flowers while the female flowers are solitary. The
partial inflorescence (_cyathium_) of _Euphorbia_ (fig. 1) resembles
superficially a hermaphrodite flower. It contains a central terminal
flower, consisting of a naked pistil; below this are borne four or five
bracts which unite to form a cup-shaped involucre resembling a calyx;
each of these bracts subtends a small cyme of male flowers each
consisting only of one stamen. Between the segments of the cup are large
oval or crescent-shaped glands which are often brightly coloured,
forming petal-like structures.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.

  1. Shoot of _Euphorbia hypericifolia_, about ½ nat. size.
  2. A partial inflorescence, _cyathium_, bearing the petaloid glands.
  3. A similar one at a later stage, cut open to show the
    single-stamened (monandrous) male flowers and the central
    long-stalked female flower.
  4. A cyathium without petaloid glandular appendages.
  5. A similar one at a later stage with nearly ripe fruit.
  6. An anther dehiscing.
  7. Fruit dehiscing and exposing one of the three seeds.
  8. Seed.
  9. Seed cut lengthwise exposing the embryo.
  10. Diagram of the inflorescence of _Euphorbia_, illustrating the
    dichasial cymose arrangement of the ultimate branches.
  b, Bract subtending the central terminal cyathium I.
  a'b', Bracteoles of the first order subtending the secondary cyathia
    II.
  a"b", Bracteoles of the second order subtending the tertiary cyathia
    III.
  In the central cyathium I. are shown the details of the arrangement of
    the male flowers in monochasial cymes, m, and the central female
    flower, f.]

[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Dog's Mercury (_Mercurialis perennis_).

  1. Male plant.
  2. Female plant; 1/3 nat. size.
  3. Female flower.
  4. Male flower.
  5. Fruit beginning to split open.
  6. Seed cut lengthwise showing the embryo.]

The form of the flower shows great variety. The most complete type
occurs in _Wielandia_, a shrub from the Seychelles Islands, in which the
flowers have their parts in fives, a calyx and corolla being succeeded
in the male flower by 5 stamens, in the female by 5 carpels. Generally,
however, only 3 carpels are present, as in _Euphorbia_; _Mercurialis_
(fig. 2) has minute apetalous flowers with 3 sepals, followed in the
male by 8 to 20 stamens, in the female by a bicarpellary pistil. In the
large tropical genus _Croton_ a pentamerous calyx and corolla are
generally present, the stamens are often very numerous, and the female
flower has three carpels. In _Manihot_, a large tropical American genus
to which belongs the manioc or cassava (_M. utilissima_), the calyx is
often large and petaloid. In a great many genera the corolla is absent.
The most reduced type of flower is that described in EUPHORBIA, where
the male consists of one stamen separated from its pedicel by a joint,
and the female of a naked tricarpellary pistil. The stamens are
sometimes more or less united (monadelphous), and in castor-oil
(_Ricinus_) (fig. 3) are much branched. The ovary generally contains
three chambers, and bears three simple or more often bipartite styles;
each chamber contains one or two pendulous ovules, which generally bear
a cap-like outgrowth or _caruncle_, which persists in the seed (well
shown in castor oil, fig. 3).

As the stamens and pistil are borne by different flowers,
cross-fertilization is necessary. In _Mercurialis_ and others with
inconspicuous flowers pollination is effected by the wind, but in many
cases insects are attracted to the flower by the highly-coloured bracts,
as in many _Euphorbias_ and _Dalechampia_, or by the coloured calyx as
in _Manihot_; the presence of honey is also frequently an attraction, as
in the honey-glands on the bracts of the cyathium of _Euphorbia_. The
fruit is generally a capsule which splits into three divisions
(_cocci_), separating from the central column, and splitting lengthwise
into two valves. In the mancinil (_Hippomane mancinella_) of Central
America the fruit is a drupe like a plum, and in some genera berries
occur. In the sandbox tree (_Hura crepitans_) of tropical America the
ovary consists of numerous carpels, and forms when mature a capsule
which splits with great violence and a loud report into a number of
woody cocci. The seeds contain abundant endosperm and a large straight
or bent embryo.

[Illustration: From Bentley and Trimen's _Medicinal Plants_, by
permission of J. & A. Churchill.

FIG. 3.--Castor Oil (_Ricinus communis_). End of shoot with
flower-spike; about 1/3 nat. size.

  1. Section of male flower, about nat. size.
  2. Group of stamens.
  3. Fruit.
  4. Seed.
  5 and 6. Vertical and transverse sections of seed showing embryo in
    position.]

Several members of the order are of economic importance. _Manihot
utilissima_, manioc or cassava (q.v.), is one of the most important
tropical food-plants, its thick tuberous root being rich in starch; it
is the source of Brazilian arrowroot. Caoutchouc or india-rubber is
obtained from species of _Hevea_, _Mabea_, _Manihot_ and _Sapium_.
Castor oil (q.v.) is obtained from the seeds of _Ricinus communis_. The
seeds of _Aleurites moluccana_ and _Sapium sebiferum_ also yield oil.
Resin is obtained from species of _Croton_ and _Euphorbia_. Many of the
species are poisonous; e.g. the South African _Toxicodendron_ is one of
the most poisonous plants known. Many, such as _Euphorbia_,
_Mercurialis_, _Croton_, _Jatropha_, _Tragia_, have been, or still are,
used as medicines. Species of _Codiaeum_ (q.v.), _Croton_, _Euphorbia_,
_Phyllanthus_, _Jatropha_ and others are used as ornamental plants in
gardens.

The box (_Buxus_) and a few allied genera which were formerly included
in Euphorbiaceae are now generally regarded as forming a distinct
order--Buxaceae, differing from Euphorbiaceae in the position of the
ovule in the ovary-chamber and in the manner of splitting of the fruit.




EUPHORBIUM, an acrid dull-yellow or brown resin, consisting of the
concreted milky juice of several species of _Euphorbia_, cactus-like
perennial plants indigenous to Morocco. It dissolves in alcohol, ether
and turpentine; in water it is only slightly soluble. It consists of two
or more resins and a substance euphorbone, C20H36O or C15H24O. Pliny
states that the name of the drug was given to it in honour of Euphorbus,
the physician of Juba II., king of Mauretania. In former times
euphorbium was valued in medicine for its drastic, purgative and emetic
properties.




EUPHORBUS, son of Panthoüs, one of the bravest of the Trojan heroes,
slain by Menelaus (_Iliad_, xvii. 1-60). Pythagoras, in support of his
doctrine of the transmigration of souls, declared that he had once been
this Euphorbus, whose shield, hung up in the temple of Argos by
Menelaus, he claimed as his own (Horace, _Odes_, i. 28. 11; Diog. Laërt.
viii. 1).




EUPHORION, Greek poet and grammarian, born at Chalcis in Euboea about
275 B.C. He spent much of his life in Athens, where he amassed great
wealth. About 221 he was invited by Antiochus the Great to the court of
Syria. He assisted in the formation of the royal library at Antioch, of
which he held the post of librarian till his death. He wrote
mythological epics, amatory elegies, epigrams and a satirical poem
([Greek: Arai], "curses") after the manner of the _Ibis_ of Callimachus.
Prose works on antiquities and history are also attributed to him. Like
Lycophron, he was fond of using archaic and obsolete expressions, and
the erudite character of his allusions rendered his language very
obscure. His elegies were highly esteemed by the Romans; they were
imitated or translated by Cornelius Gallus and also by the emperor
Tiberius.

  Fragments in Meineke, "De Euphorionis Chalcidensis vita et scriptis,"
  in his _Analecta Alexandrina_ (1843); for a recently discovered
  fragment of about 30 lines see _Berliner Klassikertexte_, v. 1 (1907).




EUPHRANOR, of Corinth (middle of the 4th century B.C.), the only Greek
artist who excelled both as a sculptor and as a painter. In Pliny we
have lists of his works; among the paintings, a cavalry battle, a
Theseus, and the feigned madness of Odysseus; among the statues, Paris,
Leto with her children Apollo and Artemis, Philip and Alexander in
chariots. Unfortunately we are unable among existing statues to identify
any which are copies from works of Euphranor (but see a series of
attributions by Six in _Jahrbuch_, 1909, 7 foll.). He appears to have
resembled his contemporary Lysippus, notably in the attention he paid to
symmetry, in his preference for bodily forms slighter than those usual
in earlier art, and in his love of heroic subjects. He wrote a treatise
on proportions.




EUPHRATES (Babylon. _Purattu_, Heb. _Perath_, Arab. _Frat_ or _Furat_,
Old Pers. _Ufratu_, Gr. [Greek: Euphratês]), the largest river of
western Asia. It may be divided into three divisions, upper, lower and
middle, each of which is distinguished by special physical features, and
has played a conspicuous part in the world's history, retaining to the
present day monumental evidence of the races who have lined its banks.

_Upper Division_.--The upper Euphrates consists of two arms, which,
rising on the Armenian plateau, and flowing west in long shallow valleys
parallel to Mount Taurus, eventually unite and force their way southward
through that range to the level of Mesopotamia. The northern or western
and shorter arm, called by the Turks Kara Su, "black water," or Frat Su
(Armenian, _Ephrat_ or _Yephrat_; Arab. _Nahr el-Furat_ or _Frat_), well
known to occidentalists as the Euphrates, from its having been the
boundary of the Roman empire, is regarded also by Orientals as the main
stream. It rises in the Dumlu Dagh, N.N.W. of Erzerum, in a large
circular pool (altitude, 8625 ft.), which is venerated by Armenians and
Moslems, and flows south-east to the plain of Erzerum (5750 ft.). Thence
it continues through a narrow valley W.S.W. to Erzingan (3900 ft.),
receiving on its way the Ovajik Su (right), the Tuzla Su (left), and the
Merjan and Chanduklu (right). Below Erzingan the Frat flows south-west
through a rocky gorge to Kemakh (_Kamacha_; Armenian, _Gamukh_), where
it is crossed by a bridge and receives the Kumur Su (right). At Avshin
it enters a cañon, with walls over 1000 ft. high, which extends to the
bridge at Pingan, and lower down it is joined from the west by the
Chalta Irmak (_Lycus_; Arab. _Lukiya_), on which stands Divrik
(Tephrike). Then, entering a deep gorge with lofty rock walls and
magnificent scenery, it runs south-east to its junction with the Murad
Su. The Frat, separated by the easy pass of Deve-boyun from the valley
of the Araxes (Aras), marks the natural line of communication between
northern Persia and the West--a route followed by the nomad Turks,
Mongols and Tatars on their way to the rich lands of Asia Minor. It is a
rapid river of considerable volume, and below Erzingan is navigable,
down stream, for rafts. The southern or eastern and longer arm, called
by the Turks Murad Su (_Arsanias Fl_.; Armenian, _Aradzani_; Arab. _Nahr
Arsanas_), rises south-west of Diadin, in the northern flank of the Ala
Dagh (11,500 ft.), and flows west to the Alashgerd plain. Here it is
joined by the Sharian Su from the west, and the two valleys form a great
trough through which the caravan road from Erzerum to Persia runs. The
united stream breaks through the mountains to the south, and, receiving
on its way the Patnotz Su (left) and the Khinis Su (right), flows
south-west, west and south, through the rich plain of Bulanik to the
plain of Mush. Here it is joined by the Kara Su (_Teleboas_), which,
rising near Lake Van, runs past Mush and waters the plain. The river now
runs W.S.W. through a deep rocky gorge, in which it receives the Gunig
Su (right), to Palu (where there are cuneiform inscriptions); and
continues through more open country to its junction with the Frat Su.
About 10 m. E.N.E. of Kharput the Murad is joined by its principal
tributary, the Peri Su, which drains the wild mountain district, Dersim,
that lies in the loop between the two arms. The Murad Su is of greater
volume than the Frat, but its valley below Mush is contracted and
followed by no great road. Below the junction of the two arms the
Euphrates flows south-west past the lead mines of Keban Maden, where it
is 120 yds. wide, and is crossed by a ferry (altitude, 2425 ft.), on the
Sivas-Kharput road. It then runs west, south and east round the
rock-mass of Musher Dagh, and receives (right) the Kuru Chai, down which
the Sivas-Malatia road runs, and the Tokhma Su, from Gorun (_Gauraina_)
and Darende. At the ferry on the Malatia-Kharput road (cuneiform
inscription) it flows eastwards in a valley about a quarter of a mile
wide, but soon afterwards enters a remarkable gorge, and forces its way
through Mount Taurus in a succession of rapids and cataracts. After
running south-east through the grandest scenery, and closely approaching
the source of the western Tigris, it turns south-west and leaves the
mountains a few miles above Samsat (_Samosata_; altitude, 1500 ft.). The
general direction of the great gorges of the Euphrates, Pyramus (Jihun)
and Sarus (Sihun) seems to indicate that their formation was primarily
due to the same terrestrial movements that produced the Jordan-'Araba
depression to the south. The length of the Frat is about 275 m.; of the
Murad, 415 m.; and of the Euphrates from the junction to Samsat, 115 m.

_Middle Division_.--The middle division, which extends from Samsat to
Hit, is about 720 m. long. In this part of its course the Euphrates runs
through an open, treeless and sparsely peopled country, in a valley a
few miles wide, which it has eroded in the rocky surface. The valley bed
is more or less covered with alluvial soil, and cultivated in places by
artificial irrigation. The method of this irrigation is peculiar. Three
or four piers or sometimes bridges of masonry are run out into the bed
of the river, frequently from both sides at once, raising the level of
the stream and thus giving a water power sufficient to turn the gigantic
wheel or wheels, sometimes almost 40 ft. in diameter, which lift the
water to a trough at the top of the dam, whence it is distributed among
the gardens and melon patches, rice, cotton, tobacco, liquorice and
durra fields, between the immediate bed of the river and the rocky banks
which shut it out from the desert. The wheels, called _naoura_, are of
the most primitive construction, made of rough branches of trees, with
palm leaf paddles, rude clay vessels being slung on the outer edge to
catch the water, of which they raise a prodigious amount, only a
comparatively small part of which, however, is poured into the aqueducts
on top of the dams. These latter are exceedingly picturesque, often
consisting of a series of well-built Gothic arches, and give a peculiar
character to the scenery; but they are also great impediments to
navigation. In some parts of the river 300 _naouras_ have been counted
within a space of 130 m., but of late years many have fallen into decay.
By far the larger part of the valley is quite uncultivated, and much of
it is occupied by tamarisk jungles, the home of countless wild pigs.
Where the valley is still cultivated, the _jerd_, a skin raised by oxen,
is gradually being substituted for the _naoura_, no more of the latter
being constructed to take the place of those which fall into decay.

In this part of its course the rocky sides of the valley, which
sometimes closely approach the river, are composed of marls and gypsum,
with occasional selenite, overlaid with sandstone, with a topping of
breccia or conglomerate, and rise at places to a height of 200 ft. or
more. At one point, however, 26 m. above Deir, where lie the ruins of
Halebiya, the river breaks through a basaltic dike, el-Hamme, some 300
to 500 ft. high. On either side of the river valley a steppe-like
desert, covered in the spring with verdure, the rest of the year barren
and brown, stretches away as far as the eye can see. Anciently the
country on both sides of the Euphrates was habitable as far as the river
Khabur; at the present time it is all desert from Birejik downward, the
camping ground of Bedouin Arabs, the great tribe of Anazeh occupying
_esh-Sham_, the right bank, and the Shammar the left bank, Mesopotamia
of the Romans, now called el-Jezireh or the island. To these the
semi-sedentary Arabs who sparsely cultivate the river valley, dwelling
sometimes in huts, sometimes in caves, pay a tribute, called _kubbe_, or
brotherhood, as do also the riverain towns and villages, except perhaps
the very largest. The Turkish government also levies taxes on the
inhabitants of the river valley, and for this purpose, and to maintain a
caravan route from the Mediterranean coast to Bagdad, maintains stations
of a few _zaptiehs_ or _gens d'armes_, at intervals of about 8 hours
(caravan time), occupying in general the stations of the old Persian
post road. The only riverain towns of any importance on this stretch of
the river to-day are Samsat, Birejik, Deir, 'Ana and Hit.

In early times the Euphrates was important as a boundary. It was the
theoretical eastern limit of the Jewish kingdom; for a long time it
separated Assyria from the Khita or Hittites; it divided the eastern
from the western satrapies of Persia (Ezra iv. 17; Neh. ii. 7); and it
was at several periods the boundary of the Roman empire. Until the
advent of the nomads from central Asia, and the devastation of
Mesopotamia and the opposite Syrian shore of the river, there were many
flourishing cities along its course, the ruins of which, representing
all periods, still dot its banks. Samsat itself represents the ancient
Samosata, the capital of the Seleucid kings of Commagene (_Kumukh_ of
the Assyrian inscriptions), and here the Persian Royal Road from Sardis
to Susa is supposed to have crossed the river. Below Samsat the river
runs S.W. to Rum-Kaleh, or "castle of the Romans" (Armenian,
_Hrhomgla_). At this point was another passage of the river, defended by
the castle which gives its name to the spot, and which stands on a high
hill overhanging the right bank, its base washed by an abundant stream,
the Sanjeh (Gr. [Greek: Singas]), which enters the Euphrates on the
west. From this point the river runs rather east of south for about 25
m. past Khalfat (ferry) to Birejik or Bir, the ancient Birtha, where it
is only 110 m. from the Mediterranean, the bed of the river being 628½
ft. above that sea. This was the Apamea-Zeugma, where the high road from
east to west crossed the river, and it is still one of the most
frequented of all the passages into Mesopotamia, being the regular
caravan route from Iskanderun and Aleppo to Urfa, Diarbekr and Mosul.
From Birejik the river runs sluggishly, first a little to the east, then
a little to the west of south, over a sandy or pebbly bed, past Jerablus
(? _Europus, Carchemish_, the ancient Hittite capital), near which the
Sajur (_Sagura_; _Sangar_ of the Assyrian inscriptions) enters from the
west, to Meskene, 2 m. southward of which are the ruins of Barbalissus
(Arab. _Balis_), the former port of Aleppo, now, owing to changes in the
bed, some distance from the water. Six miles below this the ruins of
Kal'at Dibse mark the site of the ancient Thapsacus (_Tiphsah_ of 1
Kings iv. 24), the most important passage of the middle Euphrates, where
both Cyrus, on his expedition against his brother, and Alexander the
Great crossed that river, and the ancient port of Syria. Here the river
turns quite sharply eastward. A day's journey beyond Meskene are the
remains of Siffin (Roman _Sephe_), where Moawiya defeated the caliph Ali
in 657 (see CALIPHATE), and opposite this, on the west bank, a
picturesque ruin called Kal'at Ja'ber (_Dausara_). A day's journey
beyond this, on the Syrian side, stand the remains of ancient Sura, a
frontier fortress of the Romans against the Parthians; 20 m. S. of
which, inland, lie the well-preserved ruins of Reseph (Assyrian,
_Resafa_ or _Rosafa_). Half a day's journey beyond Sura, on the
Mesopotamian side of the river, are the extensive ruins of Haragla
(_Heraclea_) and Rakka, once the capital of Harun al-Rashid
(_Nicephorium_ of Alexander; _Callinicus_ of the Seleucids and Romans).
Here the Belikh (_Bilechas_) joins the Euphrates, flowing southward
through the biblical Aram Naharaim from Urfa (_Edessa_) and Harran
(_Carrhae_); and from this point to el-Kaim four days' below Deir, the
course of the river is south-easterly. Two days' journey beyond Rakka,
where the Euphrates breaks through the basalt dike of el-Hamme, are two
admirably preserved ruins, built of gypsum and basalt, that on the
Mesopotamian side called Zelebiya (Chanuga), and that on the Syrian,
much the finer of the two, Halebiya or Zenobiya, the ancient Zenobia.
Twenty-six miles farther down lies the town of Deir (q.v.), where the
river divides into two channels and the river valley opens out into
quite extensive plains. Here the roads from Damascus, by way of Palmyra,
and from Mosul, by way of the Khabur, reach the Euphrates, and here
there must always have been a town of considerable commercial and
strategic importance. The region is to-day covered with ruins and ruin
mounds. A little below Deir the river is joined by the Khabur
(_Khaboras_, Biblical _Khabor_), the frontier of the Roman empire from
Diocletian's time, which rises in the Karaja Dagh, and, with its
tributary, the Jaghijagh (_Mygdonius_; Arab. _Hirmas_) flows south
through the land of Gozan in which Sargon settled the deported
Israelites in 721 B.C. At the mouth of the Khabur stood the Roman
frontier fortress of _Circesium_ (Assyrian, _Sirki_; Arab. _Kirkessie_)
now el-Buseira. The corresponding border town on the Syrian side is
represented by the picturesque and finely preserved ruins called
Salahiya, the Ad-dalie or Dalie (_Adalia_) of Arabic times, two days
below Deir, whose more ancient name is as yet unknown. Between Salahiya
and Deir, on an old canal, known in Arabic times as Said, leaving the
Euphrates a little below Deir and rejoining it above Salahiya, stand the
almost more picturesque ruins of the once important Arabic fortress of
Rahba.

As far as the Khabur Mesopotamia seems to have been a well-inhabited
country from at least the 15th century B.C., when it constituted the
Hittite kingdom of Mitanni, down to about the 12th century A.D., and the
same is true of the country on the Syrian side of the Euphrates as far
as the eastern limit of the Palmyrene. Below this point the back country
on the Syrian side has always been a complete desert. On the
Mesopotamian side there would seem, from the accounts of Xenophon and
Ptolemy, to have been an affluent which joined the Euphrates between
Deir and 'Ana, called Araxes by the former, Saocoras by the latter; but
no trace of such a stream has been found by modern explorers and the
country in general has always been uninhabited. Below Salahiya the
river-bed narrows and becomes more rocky. A day's journey beyond
Salahiya, on a bluff on the Mesopotamian side of the river, are the
conspicuous ruins Of el-'Irsi (_Corsote_?). Half a day's journey beyond,
at a point where two great wadis enter the Euphrates, on the Syrian
side, stands Jabriya, an unidentified ruined town of Babylonian type,
with walls of unbaked brick, instead of the stone heretofore
encountered. At this point the river turns sharply a little north of
east, continuing on that course somewhat over 40 m. to 'Ana, where it
bends again to the south-east. Just above 'Ana are rapids, and from this
point to Hit the river is full of islands, while the bed is for the most
part narrow, leaving little cultivable land between it and the bluffs.
'Ana itself, a very ancient town, of Babylonian origin, once sacred
probably to the goddess of the same name, lay originally on several
islands in the stream, where ruins, principally of the Arabic and late
Persian period, are visible. Here palm trees, which had begun to appear
singly at Deir, grow in large groves, the olive disappears entirely, and
we have definitely passed over from the Syrian to the Babylonian flora
and climate. Between 'Ana and Hit there were anciently at least four
island cities or fortresses, and at the present time three such towns,
insignificant relics of former greatness, Haditha, Alus or el-'Uzz and
Jibba still occupy the old sites. Of these Alus is evidently the ancient
Auzara or Uzzanesopolis, the city of the old Arabic goddess 'Uzza;
Haditha, an important town under the Abbasids, was earlier known as Baia
Malcha; while Jibba has not been identified. The fourth city, Thilutha
or Olabus, once occupied the present deserted island of Telbeis, half a
day's journey below 'Ana. About half-way between 'Ana and Hit, in the
neighbourhood of Haditha, the river has a breadth of 300 yds., with a
depth of 18 ft., and a flood speed of 4 knots. At this point we begin to
encounter sulphur springs and bitter streams redolent with bitumen, a
formation which reaches its climax at Hit (q.v.), where a small stream
(the "river of Ahava" of Ezra viii. 21) enters the Euphrates from the
Syrian side, on which, about 8 m. from its mouth, stands the small town
of Kubeitha.

The middle Euphrates, from Samsat to Hit, is to-day an avenue of ruins,
of which only the more conspicuous or important have been indicated
here. It was from a remote period, antedating certainly 3000 B.C., the
highway of empire and of commerce between east and west, more
specifically between Babylonia or Irak and Syria, and numerous empires,
peoples and civilizations have left their records on its shores. Its
time of greatest prosperity and importance was the period of the Abbasid
caliphate, and Arabic geographers as late as A.D. 1200 mention an
astonishingly large number of important cities situated on its shores or
islands. The Mongol invasion, in the latter part of that century,
wrought their ruin, however, and from that time to the present there has
been a steady decline in the commercial importance of the Euphrates
route, and consequently also of the towns along its course, until at the
present time it is only an avenue of ruins.

_Lower Division_.--Hit stands almost at the head of the alluvial
deposit, about 550 m. from the Persian Gulf, separated from it by a
couple of small spurs of the Syrian plateau, and may be said to mark the
beginning of the lower Euphrates. Thence the river flows S.E. and S.S.E.
to its junction with the Tigris below Korna, through an unbroken plain,
with no natural hills, except a few sand (or sandstone?) hills in the
neighbourhood of Warka, and no trace of rock, except at el-Haswa, above
Hillah. At Hit the river is from 30 to 35 ft. in depth, with a breadth
of 250 yds., and a current of 4 m. an hour, but from this point it
diminishes in volume, receiving no new affluents but dissipating itself
in canals and lagoons. At Feluja, in the latitude of Bagdad, the
Euphrates and Tigris closely approach each other, and then, widening
out, enclose the plain of Babylonia (Arab. _Sawad_). Through this part
of its course the current of the river, except where restricted by
floating bridges--at Feluja, Mussaib, Hillah, Diwanieh and Samawa--does
not normally exceed a mile an hour, and both on the main stream and on
its canals the _jerd_ or ox-bucket takes the place of the _naoura_ or
water-wheel for purposes of irrigation.

In early times irrigating canals distributed the waters over the plain,
and made it one of the richest countries of the East, so that historians
report three crops of wheat to have been raised in Babylonia annually.
As main arteries for this circulation of water through its system great
canals, constituting in reality so many branches of the river, connected
all parts of Babylonia, and formed a natural means both of defence and
also of transportation from one part of the country to another. The
first of these canals, taken off on the right bank of the river a little
below Hit, followed the extreme skirt of the alluvium the whole way to
the Persian Gulf near Basra, and thus formed an outer barrier,
strengthened at intervals with watch-towers and fortified posts, to
protect the cultivated land of the _Sawad_ against the incursions of the
desert Arabs. This gigantic work, the line of which may still be traced
throughout its course, was formerly called the _Khandak Sabur_ or
"Sapor's trench," being ascribed to the Sassanian king, Shapur I.
Dholahtaf, but is now known as the Cherra-Saadeh, and is in the popular
tradition said to have been excavated by a man from Basra at the behest
of a woman of Hit whom he desired to make his wife. How early this work
was begun is not clear, but it would appear to have been at least
largely reconstructed in the time of the great Nebuchadrezzar. The next
important canal, the Dujayl (Dojail), left the Euphrates on the left,
about a league above Ramadiya (_Ar-Rabb_), and flowed into the Tigris
between Ukbara and Bagdad. The 'Isa, which is largely identical with the
modern Sakhlawiya, left the Euphrates a little below Anbar
(_Perisabora_) and joined the Tigris at Bagdad. This canal still carries
water and was navigable for steamboats until about 1875. Sarsar, the
modern Abu-Ghurayb, leaves the Euphrates three leagues lower down and
enters the Tigris between Bagdad and Ctesiphon. The Nahr Malk or royal
river, modern Radhwaniya, leaves the Euphrates five leagues below this
and joins the Tigris three leagues below Ctesiphon; while the Kutha,
modern Habl-Ibrahim, leaving the Euphrates three leagues below the Malk
joins the Tigris ten leagues below Ctesiphon. In the time of the Arabs
these were the chief canals, and the cuts from the main channels of the
Nahr 'Isa, Nahr Sarsar, Nahr Malk (or Nahr Malcha), and Nahr Kutha,
reticulating the entire country between the rivers, converted it into a
continuous and luxuriant garden.

Just below Mussaib there has been for all ages a great bifurcation of
the river. The right arm was the original bed, and the left arm, on
which Babylon was built, the artificial deviation, as is clear from the
cuneiform inscriptions. In the time of Alexander the nomenclature was
reversed, the right arm being known as Pallacopas. Under the Arabs the
old designation again prevailed and the Euphrates is always described by
the Arabian geographers as the river which flows direct to Kufa, while
the present stream, passing along the ruins of Babylon to Hillah and
Diwanieh, has been universally known as the Nahr Sura. Occidental
geographers, however, have followed the Greek use, and so to-day we call
the river of Babylon or Nahr Sura the Euphrates and the older westerly
channel the Hindieh canal. At the present time the preservation of the
embankments about the point of bifurcation demands the constant care of
the Bagdad government. The object is to allow sufficient water to drain
off to the westward for the due irrigation of the land, while the Hillah
bed still retains the main volume of the stream, and is navigable to the
sea. But it frequently happens that the dam at the head of the Hindieh
is carried away, and, a free channel being thus opened for the waters of
the river to the westward, the Hillah bed shoals to 2 or 3 ft., or even
dries up altogether, while the country to the west of the river is
turned into lakes and swamps. Below the bifurcation the river of Babylon
was again divided into several streams, and indeed the most famous of
all the ancient canals was the Arakhat (_Archous_ of the Greeks and
_Serrat_ and _Nil_ of the Arabs), which left that river just above
Babylon and ran due east to the Tigris, irrigating all the central part
of the Jezireh, and sending down a branch through Nippur and Erech to
rejoin the Euphrates a little above the modern Nasrieh. The Narss, also,
the modern Daghara, which is still navigable to Nippur and beyond, left
the Sura a little below Hillah; and at the present day another large
canal, the Kehr, branches off near Diwanieh. It is easy to distinguish
the great primitive watercourses from the lateral ducts which they fed,
the latter being almost without banks and merely traceable by the
winding curves of the layers of alluvium in the bed, while the former
are hedged in by high banks of mud, heaped up during centuries of
dredging.

Not a hundredth part of the old irrigation system is now in working
order. A few of the mouths of the smaller canals are kept open so as to
receive a limited supply of water at the rise of the river in May, which
then distributes itself over the lower lying lands in the interior,
almost without labour on the part of the cultivators, giving birth in
such localities to the most abundant crops, but by far the larger
portion of the region between the rivers is at present an arid howling
wilderness dotted with _tels_ or ruin-heaps, strewn in the most part
with broken pottery, the evidence of former habitation, and bearing
nothing but the camel-thorn, the wild caper, the colocynth-apple,
wormwood and other weeds of the desert. The swamps are full of huge
reeds, bordered with tamarisk jungles, and in its lower reaches, where
the water stretches out into great marshes, the river is clogged with a
growth of agrostis. To obtain a correct idea of this region it must be
borne in mind also that the course of the river and the features of the
country on both banks are subject to constant fluctuation. The Hindieh
canal and the main stream, the ancient Sura, rejoin one another at
Samawa. Down to this point, the bed of the Euphrates being higher than
that of the Tigris, the canals run from the former to the latter, but
below this the situation is reversed. At Nasrieh the Shatt-el-Haï, at
one time the bed of the Tigris, and still navigable during the greater
part of the year, joins the Euphrates. From this point downward, and to
some extent above this as far as Samawa, the river forms a succession of
reedy lagoons of the most hopeless character, the Paludes Chaldaici of
antiquity, el Batihat of the Arabs. Along this part of its course the
river is apt to be choked with reeds and, except where bordered by lines
of palm trees, the channel loses itself in lakes and swamps. The
inhabitants of this region are wild and inhospitable and utterly beyond
the control of the Turkish authorities, and navigation of the river
between Korna and Suk-esh-Sheiukh is unsafe owing to the attacks of
armed pirates. From Garmat Ali, where the Tigris and Euphrates at
present unite,[1] under the title of Shatt-el-Arab, the river sweeps on
to Basra, 1000 yds. in width and from 3 to 5 fathoms deep, navigable for
steamers of good size. From Korna to Basra the banks of the river are
well cultivated and the date groves almost continuous; indeed this is
the greatest date-producing region of the world. Twenty-five miles below
Basra the river Karun from Shushter and Dizful throws off an arm, which
seems to be artificial, into the Euphrates. This arm is named the
Haffar, and at the confluence is situated the Persian town of Muhamrah,
a place most conveniently located for trade. In this vicinity was
situated, at the time of the Christian era, the Parthian city of
Spasini-Charax, which was succeeded by Bahman Ardashir (_Bamishir_)
under the Sassanians, and by Moharzi under the Arabs. The left bank of
the river from this point belongs to Persia. It consists of an island
named Abbadan, about 45 m. long, formed by alluvial deposits during the
last fifteen centuries. (For the character of this alluvium and its rate
of deposit see IRAK.)

Even more than the upper and middle Euphrates the lower Euphrates, from
Hit downward, abounds in ruins of ancient towns and cities, from the
earliest prehistoric period onward to the close of the Caliphate (see
IRAK). The fact also that many of the most ancient of these ruins, like
Ur, Lagash (Sirpurla), Larsa, Erech, Nippur, Sippara and Babylon, were
situated on the banks of the great canals would indicate that the
control of the waters of the rivers by a system of canalization and
irrigation was one of the first achievements of civilization. This
ancient system of canalization was inherited from the Persians (who, in
turn, inherited it from their predecessors), by the Arabs, who long
maintained it in working order, and the astonishing fertility and
consequent prosperity of the country watered by the Euphrates, its
tributaries and its canals, is noticed by all ancient writers. The land
itself, an alluvial deposit, is very fruitful. Wheat and the date palm
seem to have been indigenous, and the latter is still one of the chief
productions of the country, but in later years rice has taken the place
of wheat as the staff of life. The decline of the country dates from the
appearance of Turkish nomads in the 11th century; its ruin was completed
by the Shammar Arabs in the 17th century; but, if the ancient system of
irrigation were restored, sufficient grain could be grown to alter the
conditions of the wheat supply of the world. At the present time,
instead of the innumerable cities of former days, there is a succession
of small towns along the course of the river--Ramadiya, Feluja, Mussaïb,
Hillah, Diwanieh, Samawa, el-Khudr (an ancient daphne or sacred grove,
31° 11' 58" N., 76° 6' 9" E., the only one anywhere which preserves to
this day its ancient charter of the inviolability of all life within its
precincts), Nasrieh and Suk-esh-Sheiukh--by means of which the Turkish
government controls the river and levies taxes on a small part of the
adjacent territory. At such settlements the river is lined with gardens
and plantations of palms. The greater part of the region, however, even
along the river shores, is inhabited only by roaming Bedouin or
half-savage Ma'dan Arabs (see IRAK).

_Navigation_.--The length of the Euphrates from its source at Diadin to
the sea is about 1800 m., and its fall during the last 1200 m. about 10
ins. per mile. The river begins to rise in the end of March and attains
its greatest height between the 21st and the 28th of May. It is lowest
in November, and rocks, shallows, and the remains of old dams then
render it almost unnavigable. In antiquity, however, it was evidently in
use for the transportation of merchandise and even of armies. Boats
built in Syrian ports were placed on the Euphrates by Sennacherib and
Alexander, and Herodotus states (i. 185) that in his day the river was a
frequented route followed by merchants on their way from the
Mediterranean to Babylon. As the most direct line of transit between the
Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, offering an alternative means of
communication with India not greatly inferior to the Egyptian route, the
Euphrates route early attracted the attention of the British government.
During the Napoleonic wars, indeed, and up to the time when the
introduction of steam navigation rendered the Red Sea accessible at all
seasons of the year, the political correspondence of the home and Indian
governments usually passed by the Euphrates route. Various plans were
suggested for the development of this route as a means of goods as well
as postal conveyance, and in 1835 Colonel F.R. Chesney was sent out at
the head of an expedition with instructions to transport two steamers
from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and, after putting them
together at Birejik, to attempt the descent of the river to the sea. One
of these steamers was lost in a squall during the passage down the river
near el-'Irsi, but the other performed the voyage in safety and thus
demonstrated the practicability of the downward navigation. Following on
this first experiment, the East India Company, in 1841, proposed to
maintain a permanent flotilla on the Tigris and Euphrates, and set two
vessels, the "Nitocris" and the "Nimrod," under the command of Captain
Campbell of the Indian navy, to attempt the ascent of the latter river.
The experiment was so far successful that, with incredible difficulty,
the two vessels did actually reach Meskene, but the result of the
expedition was to show that practically the river could not be used as a
high-road of commerce, the continuous rapids and falls during the low
season, caused mainly by the artificial obstructions of the irrigating
dams, being insurmountable by ordinary steam power, and the aid of
hundreds of hands being thus required to drag the vessels up the stream
at those points by main force. Under Midhat Pasha, governor-general of
Bagdad from 1866 to 1871, an attempt was made by the Turkish authorities
to establish regular steam navigation on the Euphrates. Midhat caused
many of the dams to be destroyed and for some years occasional steamers
were run between Meskene and Hillah in flood time, from April to August.
But with the transfer of Midhat this feeble attempt at navigation was
abandoned. At the present time the river is navigated by sailing craft
of some size from Hit downward. Above that point there is no navigation
except by the native rafts (_kellek_), which descend the river and are
broken up on arrival at their point of destination. There is, however,
little travel of this sort on the Euphrates in comparison with the
amount on the Tigris.

When it became evident that, under present conditions at least, the
navigation of the middle Euphrates was impracticable, attention was
turned, owing to the peculiarly advantageous geographical position of
its valley, to schemes for connecting the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf
by railway as an alternative means of communication with India, and
various surveys were made for this purpose and various routes laid out.
All these schemes, however, fell through either on the financial
question, or on the unwillingness of the Turkish government to sanction
any line not connected directly with Constantinople. With the
acquisition of the Suez Canal, moreover, the value of this route from
the British standpoint was so greatly diminished that the scheme, so far
as England was concerned, was quite abandoned. (For further notice of
the railway question see BAGDAD.)

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Gen. F.R. Chesney, _Euphrates Expedition_ (1850); W.F.
  Ainsworth, _Researches in Assyria and Babylonia_ (1838), and _Personal
  Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition_ (1888); A.H. Layard, _Nineveh
  and Babylon_ (1853); W.K. Loftus, _Chaldaea and Susiana_ (1857); Geo.
  Rawlinson, _Herodotus_, bk. 1, essay ix. (1862); A. Blunt, _Bedouin
  Tribes of the Euphrates_ (1873); Josef Cernik, _Studien-Expedition_
  (1873); H. Kiepert, _Ruinenfelder Babyloniens_ (1883); Ed. Sachau,
  _Reise in Syrien u. Mesopotamien_ (1883), and _Am Euphrat u. Tigris_
  (1900); Guy Le Strange, "Description of Mesopotamia," in _Journal of
  the Royal Asiatic Society_ (1895), and _Baghdad under the Abbasid
  Caliphate_ (1901); J.P. Peters, _Nippur_ (1897); M. v. Oppenheim, _Vom
  Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf_ (1900); H.V. Geere, _By Nile and
  Euphrates_ (1904); Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria_ (1906); Murray,
  _Handbook to Asia Minor_, &c., section iii.
       (H. C. R.; C. W. W.; J. P. Pe.)


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] The confluence for about 500 years was at Korna, over 30 m.
    higher up. Sir W. Willcocks discovered (1909) that from
    Suk-esh-Sheiukh the Euphrates had formed a new channel through the
    marshes. (See _Geog. Journal_, Jan. 1910).




EUPHRONIUS, the most noted of the group of great vase-painters, who
lived in Athens in the time of the Persian wars, and worked upon
red-figured vases (see GREEK ART and CERAMICS). There is a monograph by
W. Klein dealing with the artist. As all the great paintings of Greece
have disappeared, we are obliged to trust to the designs on vases for
our knowledge of Greek drawing and composition. Euphronius is stiff and
archaic in style, but his subjects are varied, his groupings original
and striking, and his mastery of the line decided. In their way, the
vases which he painted will hold their own in comparison with those of
any nation; for simplicity, truthfulness and charm they can scarcely be
matched.




EUPHROSYNE, the name of two Byzantine empresses.

1. EUPHROSYNE, a daughter of Constantine VI. Although she had taken a
monastic vow she became the second wife of Michael II. (q.v.), a
marriage which was practically forced upon her by Michael, who was
anxious to strengthen his claims to the throne by an alliance with the
last representative of the Isaurian dynasty, and secured the compliance
of senate and patriarch with his desire. No issue was born of this
union, and after the death of her husband and accession of her stepson
Theophilus Euphrosyne again retired into a convent.

2. EUPHROSYNE, the wife of Alexius III. (q.v.). After securing the
election of her husband to the throne by wholesale bribery she virtually
took the government into her hands and restored the waning influence of
the monarchy over the nobles. In spite of her talent for government she
went far to hasten the empire's downfall by her unbounded extravagance,
and made the dynasty unpopular by her open profligacy, which went
unpunished but for one short term of banishment. She followed her
husband into exile in 1203 and died seven years later in Epirus.




EUPHUISM, the peculiar mode of speaking and writing brought into fashion
in England towards the end of the reign of Elizabeth by the vogue of the
fashionable romance of _Euphues_, published in 1578 by John Lyly. As
early as 1570 Ascham in his _Schoolmaster_ had said that "Euphues" (that
is, a man well-endowed by nature, from the Gr. [Greek: eu, phyê], well,
growth) is "he that is apt by goodness of wit, and appliable by
readiness of will, to learning, having all other qualities of the mind
and parts of the body that must another day serve learning." Lyly
adopted this word as the name of the hero of his romance, and it is with
him that the vogue of Euphuism began. John Lyly, "always averse to the
crabbed studies of logic and philosophy, and his genie being naturally
bent to the pleasant paths of poetry," devoted himself exclusively to
the service of the ladies, a thing absolutely unprecedented in English
literature. He addressed himself to "the gentlewomen of England," and he
had the audacity, in that grave age, to say that he would rather see his
books "lie shut in a lady's casket than open in a scholar's study." In
order to attain this object, he set himself to create a superfine style
in writing, and to illustrate this in his compositions. He undertook to
produce a pleasurable literature for the boudoir and the bower. Lyly was
twenty-six when he published in 1579 the first part of _Euphues: the
Anatomy of Wit_: a second part, entitled _Euphues and his England_,
appeared in 1580. His object was diametrically opposed to that of
writers who had striven to instruct, reprove or edify their
contemporaries. Lyly, assuming that women only will read his book,
says:--"After dinner, you may overlook it to keep you from sleep, or if
you be heavy to bring you asleep, for to work upon a full stomach is
against physic, and therefore better were it to hold _Euphues_ in your
hands, though you let him fall when you be willing to wink, than to sew
in a closet and prick your fingers when you begin to read."

For a comprehension of the nature of Euphuism it is necessary to
remember that the object of its invention was to attract and to disarm
the ladies by means of an ingenious and playful style, of high
artificiality, which should give them the idea that they were being
entertained by an enthusiastic adorer, not instructed by a solemn
pedagogue, For fifty years the romance of _Euphues_ retained its
astonishing popularity. As late as 1632 the publisher Edward Blount
(1560?-1632), recalling the earliest enthusiasm of the public, wrote of
John Lyly, "Oblivion shall not so trample on a son of the Muses, and
such a son as they called their darling. Our nation are in his debt for
a new English which he taught them. _Euphues and his England_ began
first that language. All our ladies were then his scholars, and that
beauty in Court, which could not parley Euphuism, was as little
regarded, as she which, now there, speaks not French." Among those who
applied themselves to this "new English," one of the most ardent was
Queen Elizabeth herself, who has been styled by J.R. Green "the most
affected and destestable of euphuists." At the height of the popularity
of this strange dialect, it was said by William Webbe, in his _Discourse
of English Poetry_ (1586), to consist in a combination of "singular
eloquence and brave composition of apt words and sentences, in fit
phrases, in pithy sentences, in gallant tropes, in flowing speech,"
while a French poet of the same age calls Lyly a "raffineur" of the
English speech; another panegyrist describes him as "_alter Tullius_,"
meaning that, in inventing Euphuism, he had introduced into English the
refinements of a Ciceronian style.

When we put aside these excessive compliments, and no less the attacks
from which the style suffered as soon as it began to go out of fashion,
we are able to observe merits as well as faults in this very curious
experiment. Euphuism did not attempt to render the simplicity of nature.
On the contrary, in order to secure refinement, it sought to be as
affected, as artificial, as high-pitched as possible. Its most prominent
feature was an incessant balancing of phrases in chains of antitheses,
thus:--"Though the tears of the hart be salt, yet the tears of the boar
be sweet, and though the tears of some women be counterfeit to deceive,
yet the tears of many be current to try their love"; or this:--"Reject
it not because it proceedeth from one which hath been lewd, no more than
ye would neglect the gold because it lieth in the dirty earth, or the
pure wine for that it cometh out of a homely presse, or the precious
stone _aetites_ which is found in the filthy nests of the eagle, or the
precious gem _draconites_, that is ever taken out of the poisoned
dragon." This second excerpt, moreover, suggests another of the main
characteristics of Euphuism, the incessant use, for purposes of
ornament, of similes taken from fabulous records of zoology, or relating
to mythical birds, fishes or minerals. This was a feature of the "new
English" which was excessively admired, and copied with a senseless
extravagance. Instances of it are found on every page of Lyly's books,
thus:--"Although the worm entereth almost into every wood, yet he eateth
not the cedar-tree; though the stone _cylindrus_ at every thunder-clap
roll from the hill, yet the pure sleek stone mounteth at the noise;
though the rust fret the hardest steel, yet doth it not eat into the
emerald; though polypus change his hue, yet the salamander keepeth his
colour"; and so on, _ad infinitum_. That lady was considered most
proficient in euphuism who could keep up longest these chains of
similes taken out of fabulous natural history. Alliteration was also a
particular ornament of the euphuistic style, as: "The bavin, though it
burn bright, is but a blaze," but the use of this artifice by Lyly
himself was rarely exaggerated; for instances of its excess we have
rather to turn to his imitators. In the following passage the typical
forms of Euphuism, in its pure and original conditions, are so combined
and illustrated as to require no further commentary: "Do we not commonly
see that in painted pots is hidden the deadliest poison? that in the
greenest grass is the greatest serpent? in the clearest water the
ugliest toad? Doth not experience teach us that in the most curious
sepulchre are enclosed rotten bones? that the cypress tree beareth a
fair leaf, but no fruit? that the ostrich carrieth fair feathers, but
rank flesh?"--and so forth. It will be noticed that these
characteristics differ in many respects from the specimens of euphuism
which are most familiar to a modern reader, namely the extravagant
speech placed in the mouth of Sir Piercie Shafton in Sir Walter Scott's
romance of _The Monastery_. Scott modelled this character on what he
called that "forgotten and obsolete model of folly, once fashionable,"
Lyly's novel of _Euphues_, but he had not studied the original to
sufficient purpose, and the bombastic ravings of Sir Piercie, who simply
talks like a lunatic, have deceived many readers as to the real
characteristics of Euphuism. Scott betrays his own error when he says
that "the extravagance of Euphuism ... predominates in the romances of
Calprenède and Scuderi," in which it is true that a tone of preposterous
gallantry finds a language of its own, but that is not the language of
Euphues. What Sir Piercie Shafton talks is a mixture of the style of
these French romances, with the ostentation of Sir Fopling Flutter and
the extravagances of the Scotch translator of Rabelais. But these
various sorts of pretentious eloquence have little or nothing in common
with the balanced and conceited style of Euphues.

We find that the genuine sort of this kind of superfine conversation was
originally called "Euphues," simply, as Overbury speaks of a man "who
speaks Euphues, not so gracefully as heartily." The earliest instance of
the word "Euphuism" which has been traced occurs in a letter, written by
Gabriel Harvey in 1592, when he speaks of a man, who would be smart, as
talking "a little Euphuism." Dekker, in the _Gull's Hornbook_ of 1609,
uses the word as an adjective, and denounces "Euphuised gentlewomen."
When the practice was going out of fashion we find it thus severely
stigmatized by Michael Drayton, a poet who had little sympathy with the
artificial refinement of Lyly. In an elegy, printed in 1627, Drayton
refers to the merit of Sir Philip Sidney, who recalled English prose to
sanity, and

                        "did first reduce
  Our tongue from Lyly's writings then in use,
  Talking of stones, stars, plants, of fishes, flies,
  Playing with words and idle similes,
  As th' English apes and very zanies be
  Of everything that they do hear and see,
  So imitating his ridiculous tricks
  They spake and writ, all like mere lunatics."

This severe censure of Euphuism may serve to remind us that hasty
critics have committed an error in supposing the _Arcadia_. of Sidney to
be composed in the fashionable jargon. That was certainly not the
intention of the author, and in fact the publication of the _Arcadia_,
eleven years after that of _Euphues_, marks the beginning of the
downfall of the popularity of the latter. Sidney's prose, it is true,
was extremely ornamented, but it was instinct with romantic fancy, and
it affected a chivalrous and florid fulness which was artificial enough,
but wholly distinct from the more homely elegance of Euphuism as we have
defined it. The publication of the _Arcadia_ was a severe blow to the
Euphuists. Immediately the ladies began to desert their former
favourite, and the object at court became, as Ben Jonson noted, to
"observe as pure a phrase and use as choice figures in ordinary
conference as any be in the Arcadia." But, in the meantime, Lyly had
found in Greene, Lodge, Dickenson, Nicholas Breton and others
enthusiastic disciples who had learned all the formulas of Euphuism, and
could bring them forth as fluently and elegantly as he could himself.
Nevertheless the trick wore out, with the taste that it had created, and
by the close of the reign of James I. Euphuism had become a dead
language.

Critics have not failed to insist, on the other hand, that a species of
Euphuism existed before Euphues was thought of. It has been supposed
that a translation of the familiar epistles, or, as they were called,
the "Golden Letters," of a Spanish monk, Antonio de Guevara, led Lyly to
conceive the extraordinary style which bears the name of his hero.
Between 1574 and 1578 Edward Hellowes (fl. 1550-1600) translated into a
very extravagant English prose three of the works of Guevara. Earlier
than this, in 1557, Sir Thomas North had published a version of the same
Spanish writer's _Reloj de Principes_ (The Dial of Princes), a moral and
philosophical romance which is not without a certain likeness in plan
and language to _Euphues_. It is extremely difficult to know to what
extent these translations, which were not strikingly unlike many other
specimens of the ornamented English prose of their period, can be said
to be responsible for the production of Euphuism. At all events no one
can doubt that it was Lyly who concentrated the peculiarities of
mannerism, and who gave to it the stamp of his own remarkable talent.

  See Landmann, _Der Euphuismus_ (1881); Arber's edition of _Euphues_
  (1869); R.W. Bond's _Complete Works of Lyly_ (1902); Hallam,
  Jusserand, S. Lee, _passim_.     (E. G.)




EUPION (Gr. [Greek: eu], well, [Greek: piôn], fat), a hydrocarbon of the
paraffin series, probably a pentane, C5H12, discovered by K. Reichenbach
in wood-tar. It is also formed in the destructive distillation of many
substances, as wood, coal, caoutchouc, bones, resin and the fixed oils.
It is a colourless highly volatile and inflammable liquid, having at 20°
C. a specific gravity of 0.65.




EUPOLIS (c. 446-411 B.C.), Athenian poet of the Old Comedy, flourished
in the time of the Peloponnesian War. Nothing whatever is known of his
personal history. With regard to his death, he is said to have been
thrown into the sea by Alcibiades, whom he had attacked in one of his
plays, but it is more likely that he died fighting for his country. He
is ranked by Horace (_Sat_. i. 4, 1), along with Cratinus and
Aristophanes, as the greatest writer of his school. With a lively and
fertile fancy Eupolis combined a sound practical judgment; he was
reputed to equal Aristophanes in the elegance and purity of his diction,
and Cratinus in his command of irony and sarcasm. Although he was at
first on good terms with Aristophanes, their relations subsequently
became strained, and they accused each other, in most virulent terms, of
imitation and plagiarism. Of the 17 plays attributed to Eupolis, with
which he obtained the first prize seven times, only fragments remain. Of
these the best known were: the _Kolakes_, in which he pilloried the
spendthrift Callias, who wasted his substance on sophists and parasites;
_Maricas_, an attack on Hyperbolus, the successor of Cleon, under a
fictitious name; the _Baptae_, against Alcibiades and his clubs, at
which profligate foreign rites were practised. Other objects of his
attack were Socrates and Cimon. The _Demoi_ and _Poleis_ were political,
dealing with the desperate condition of the state and with the allied
(or tributary) cities.

  Fragments in T. Kock, _Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta_, i. (1880).




EUPOMPUS, the founder of the great school of painting which flourished
in the 4th century at Sicyon in Greece. He was eclipsed by his
successors, and is chiefly remembered for the advice which he is said to
have given to Lysippus to follow nature rather than any master.




EURASIAN, a term originally confined to India, where for upwards of half
a century it was used to denote children born of Hindu mothers and
European (especially Portuguese) fathers. Following the geographical
employment of the word _Eurasia_ to describe the whole of the great land
mass which is divided into the continents of Europe and Asia, Eurasian
has come to be descriptive of any half-castes born of parents
representing the races of the two continents. It has further an
ethnological sense, A.H. Keane (_Ethnology_, 1896) proposing to find in
the Eurasian Steppe the true home of the primitive Aryan groups. Joseph
Deniker (_Anthropology_, 1900) makes a Eurasian group to include such
peoples (Ugrians, Turko-Tatars, &c.) as are represented in both
continents. Giuseppe Sergi, in his _Mediterranean Race_ (London, 1901),
uses Eurasiatic to denote that variety of man which "brought with it
into Europe (from Asia in the later Neolithic period) flexional
languages of Aryan or Indo-European type."




EURE, a department of north-western France, formed in 1790 from a
portion of the old province of Normandy, together with the countship of
Évreux and part of Perche. Pop. (1906) 330,140. Area, 2330 sq. m. It is
bounded N. by the department of Seine Inférieure, W. by Calvados, S.W.
by Orne, S. by Eure-et-Loir, and E. by Seine-et-Oise and Oise. The
territory of Eure, which nowhere exceeds 800 ft. in altitude, is broken
up by its rivers into well-wooded plateaus with a general inclination
from south to north. Forests cover about one-fifth of the department.
The Seine flows from S.E. to N.W. through the E. of the department, and
after touching the frontier at two or three points forms near its mouth
part of the northern boundary. All the rivers of the department flow
into the Seine,--on the right bank the Andelle and the Epte, and on the
left the Eure with its tributaries the Avre and the Iton, and the Risle
with its tributary the Charentonne. The Eure, from which the department
takes its name, rises in Orne, and flowing through Eure-et-Loir, falls
into the Seine above Pont de l'Arche, after a course of 44 m. in the
department. The Risle likewise rises in Orne, and flows generally
northward to its mouth in the estuary of the Seine. The climate is mild,
but moist and variable. The soil is for the most part clayey, resting on
a bed of chalk, and is, in general, fertile and well tilled. The chief
cereal cultivated is wheat; oats, colza, flax and beetroot are also
grown. There is a wide extent of pasturage, on which are reared a
considerable number of cattle and sheep, and especially those horses of
pure Norman breed for which the department has long been celebrated.
Fruit is very abundant, especially apples and pears, from which much
cider and perry are made. The mineral products of Eure include
freestone, marl, lime and brick-clay. The chief industries are the
spinning of cotton and wool, and the weaving, dyeing and printing of
fabrics of different kinds. Brewing, flour-milling, distilling, turnery,
cotton-bleaching, cider-making, metal-founding, tanning, and the
manufacture of glass, paper, iron ware, nails, pins, wind-instruments,
bricks and sugar are also carried on. Coal and raw materials for its
industries are the chief imports of Eure; its exports include cattle,
poultry, eggs, butter, grain and manufactured goods. The department is
served chiefly by the Western railway; the Seine, Eure and Risle provide
87 m. of navigable waterway. Eure is divided into the following
arrondissements (containing 36 cantons, 700 communes):--Évreux,
Louviers, Les Andelys, Bernay, and Pont-Audemer. Its capital is Évreux,
which is the seat of a bishopric of the ecclesiastical province of
Rouen. The department belongs to the III. Army Corps and to the académie
(educational division) of Caen. Its court of appeal is at Rouen.

Évreux, Les Andelys, Bernay, Louviers, Pont-Audemer, Verneuil, Vernon and
Gisors are the principal towns of the department. At Gaillon there are
remains of a celebrated château of the archbishops of Rouen (see
LOUVIERS). Pont de l'Arche has a fine Gothic church, with stained-glass
windows of the 16th and 17th centuries; the church of Tillières-sur-Arvre
is a graceful specimen of the Renaissance style. The churches of Conches
(15th or 16th century) and of Rugles (13th, 15th and 16th centuries), and
the château of Beaumesnil (16th century) are also of architectural
interest.




EURE-ET-LOIR, an inland department of north-western France, formed in
1790 of portions of Orléanais and Normandy. Pop. (1906) 273,823. Area,
2293 sq. m. It is bounded N. by the department of Eure, W. by Orne and
Sarthe, S. by Loir-et-Cher, S.E. by Loiret, and E. by Seine-et-Oise. The
Perche in the south-west and the Thimerais in the north-west are
districts of hills and valleys, woods, lakes and streams. The region of
the east and south is a level and uniform expanse, consisting for the
most part of the riverless but fertile plain of Beauce, sometimes called
the "granary of France." The northern part of Eure-et-Loir is watered
by the Eure, with its tributaries the Vègre, Blaise and Avre, a small
western portion by the Huisne, and the south by the Loir with its
tributaries the Conie and the Ozanne. The air is pure, the climate mild,
dry and not subject to sudden changes. The soil consists, for the most
part, either of clay intermixed with sand or of calcareous earth, and is
on the whole fruitful. Agriculture is better conducted than in most of
the departments of France, and the average yield per acre is greater.
Cereals occupy half the surface, wheat and oats being chiefly
cultivated. Among the other agricultural products are barley, hemp, flax
and various vegetables, including good asparagus. Wine is not
extensively produced, nor is it of the best quality; but in some parts,
especially in the Perche, there is an abundant supply of apples, from
which cider is made as the common drink of the inhabitants. The
extensive meadows supply pasturage for a large number of cattle and
sheep, and the horses raised in the Perche have a wide reputation as
draught animals. Bee-farming is commonly prosecuted. The department
produces lime, grindstones and brick-clay. The manufactures are not
extensive; but there are flour- and saw-mills, tanneries and
leather-works, copper and iron foundries, starch-works, dyeworks,
distilleries, breweries and potteries; and agricultural implements,
cotton and woollen goods, and yarn, hosiery, boots and shoes, sugar,
felt hats and paper are made. Eure-et-Loir exports the products of its
soil and live-stock; its imports include coal, wine and wearing apparel.
It is served by the railways of the Western and the Orléans Companies
and by those of the state, but it has no navigable waterways. The
department has Chartres for its capital, and is divided into the
arrondissements of Chartres, Châteaudun, Dreux and Nogent-le-Rotrou (24
cantons and 426 communes). It forms the diocese of Chartres (province of
Paris), and belongs to the académie (educational division) of Paris and
the region of the IV. Army Corps. Its court of appeal is at Paris.

Chartres, Dreux, Châteaudun, Nogent-le-Rotrou and Anet are the more
noteworthy places in the department (q.v.). At Bonneval the lunatic
asylum occupies the 18th-century buildings of a former Benedictine
abbey. The abbey church belonged to the 13th century, but only a gateway
flanked by two massive towers is left. The chateau of Maintenon dating
from the 16th and 17th centuries was presented by Louis XIV. to Madame
de Maintenon, by whom additions were made; the aqueduct (17th century)
in the park was designed to carry the water of the Eure to Versailles,
but was not completed. There is a fine château of the late 15th century,
restored in modern tunes, at Montigny-le-Gannelon, and another of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries, at one time the property of Sully, at
Villebon. St Lubin-des-Joncherets has a handsome church of the 11th
century, in which there are stained-glass windows dating from the 16th
century.




EUREKA, a city, port of entry, and the county seat of Humboldt county,
California, U.S.A., on the E. shore of Humboldt Bay. Pop. (1880) 2639;
(1890) 4858; (1900) 7327 (2035 foreign-born); (1910) 11,845. It has a
good harbour, greatly improved by the National government, and is
connected with San Francisco, Portland and other coast ports by
steamship lines. In 1909 a railway (the Northwestern Pacific), to
connect Eureka with San Francisco, was under construction. The district
owes its reputation as a health resort to its equable climate and to the
protection afforded by the wide coast timber belt. Eureka is the
principal point for the shipment of redwood lumber, and saw-milling is
carried on here on an enormous scale. Several short railways run from
Eureka and Arcata (pop. in 1900, 952) across the bay, into the forests,
and bring lumber to the mills, most of which are in or near Eureka.
Humboldt county was organized in 1853. Eureka was then already the
centre of an important lumber trade, principally in spars. It was
incorporated in 1856, displacing Union (now Arcata) as the county-seat
in the same year.




EUREKA SPRINGS, a city and health resort, one of the
county-seats--Berryville being the other--of Carroll county, in the
extreme north-western part of Arkansas, U.S.A., in the Ozark uplift,
1800 ft. above the sea-level. Pop. (1890) 3706; (1900) 3572 (142 of
negro descent); (1910) 3228. There is a transient population of
thousands of visitors during the year. The city is built picturesquely
on the sides of a gulch, down which runs the Missouri & North Arkansas
railway. A creek running through the city empties into the White river,
only a few miles distant. The surrounding country varies in character
from mountains to rolling prairie. The encircling hills are laden with a
covering of pine. The normal mean temperature for the year is about 59°
F. (42° F. in winter, 61° F. in spring, 75° F. in summer, and 58° F. in
autumn); the average rainfall, about 33 in. The atmosphere is dry and
clear. Apart from its share in the agricultural interests of the
surrounding region,--devoted mainly to Indian corn, small grains and
fruits,--the entire economy of Eureka Springs centres in its medicinal
springs, more than forty of which, lying within the corporate limits,
are held in trust by the city for the free use of the public. The
temperature of the springs varies from about 57° F. to 64° F. Each
gallon of their waters contains about 28.5 cub. in. of gaseous matter
and from 6 to 9 grains of solids held in solution. The city waterworks
are owned by the municipality. The springs have been exploited since
1879, when the first settlement was made. The city was chartered in
1880.




EURIPIDES (480-406 B.C.), the great Greek dramatic poet, was born in 480
B.C., on the very day, according to the legend, of the Greek victory at
Salamis, where his Athenian parents had taken refuge; and a whimsical
fancy has even suggested that his name--_son of Euripus_--was meant to
commemorate the first check of the Persian fleet at Artemisium. His
father Mnesarchus was at least able to give him a liberal education; it
was a favourite taunt with the comic poets that his mother Clito had
been a herb-seller--a quaint instance of the tone which public satire
could then adopt with plausible effect. At first he was intended, we are
told, for the profession of an athlete,--a calling of which he has
recorded his opinion with something like the courage of Xenophanes. He
seems also to have essayed painting; but at five-and-twenty he brought
out his first play, the _Peliades_, and thenceforth he was a tragic
poet. At thirty-nine he gained the first prize, and in his career of
about fifty years he gained it only five times in all. This fact is
perfectly consistent with his unquestionably great and growing
popularity in his own day. Throughout life he had to compete with
Sophocles, and with other poets who represented tragedy of the type
consecrated by tradition. The hostile criticism of Aristophanes was
witty; and, moreover, it was true, granting the premise from which
Aristophanes starts, that the tragedy of Aeschylus and Sophocles is the
only right model. Its unfairness, often extreme, consists in ignoring
the changing conditions of public feeling and taste, and the
possibilities, changed accordingly, of an art which could exist only by
continuing to please large audiences. It has usually been supposed that
the unsparing derision of the comic poets contributed not a little to
make the life of Euripides at Athens uncomfortable; and there is
certainly one passage in a fragment of the _Melanippe_ (Nauck, Frag.,
495), which would apply well enough to his persecutors:--

  [Greek: andrôn de polloi tou gelôtos houneka
  askousi charitas kertomous egô de pôs
  misô geloious, hoitines sophôn peri
  achalin echousi stomata.]

  (To raise vain laughter, many exercise
  The arts of satire; but my spirit loathes
  These mockers whose unbridled mockery
  Invades grave themes.)

The infidelity of two wives in succession is alleged to explain the
poet's tone in reference to the majority of their sex, and to complete
the picture of an uneasy private life. He appears to have been repelled
by the Athenian democracy, as it tended to become less the rule of the
people than of the mob. Thoroughly the son of his day in intellectual
matters, he shrank from the coarser aspects of its political and social
life. His best word is for the small farmer ([Greek: autourgos]), who
does not often come to town, or soil his rustic honesty by contact with
the crowd of the market-place.

About 409 B.C. Euripides left Athens, and after a residence in the
Thessalian Magnesia repaired, on the invitation of King Archelaus, to
the Macedonian court, where Greeks of distinction were always welcome.
In his _Archelaus_ Euripides celebrated that legendary son of Temenus,
and head of the Temenid dynasty, who bad founded Aegae; and in one of
the meagre fragments he evidently alludes to the beneficent energy of
his royal host in opening up the wild land of the North. It was at
Pella, too, that Euripides composed or completed, and perhaps produced,
the _Bacchae_. Jealous courtiers, we are told, contrived to have him
attacked and killed by savage dogs. It is odd that the fate of Actaeon
should be ascribed, by legend, to two distinguished Greek writers,
Euripides and Lucian; though in the former case at least the fate has
not such appropriateness as the Byzantine biographer discovers in the
latter, on the ground that its victim "had waxed rabid against the
truth." The death of Euripides, whatever its manner, occurred in 406
B.C., when he was seventy-four. Sophocles followed him in a few months,
but not before he had been able to honour the memory of his younger
rival by causing his actors to appear with less than the full costume of
the Dionysiac festival. Soon afterwards, in the _Frogs_, Aristophanes
pronounced the epitaph of Attic comedy on Attic tragedy.

The historical interest of such a life as that of Euripides consists in
the very fact that its external record is so scanty--that, unlike
Aeschylus or Sophocles, he had no place in the public action of his
time, but dwelt apart as a student and a thinker. He has made his
_Medea_ speak of those who, through following quiet paths, have incurred
the reproach of apathy ([Greek: rhathumian]). Undoubtedly enough of the
old feeling for civic life remained to create a prejudice against one
who held aloof from the affairs of the city. Quietness ([Greek:
apragmosunê]), in this sense, was still regarded as akin to indolence
([Greek: argia]). Yet here we see how truly Euripides was the precursor
of that near future which, at Athens, saw the more complete divergence
of society from the state.

In an age which is not yet ripe for reflection or for the subtle
analysis of character, people are content to express in general types
those primary facts of human nature which strike every one. Achilles
will stand well enough for the young chivalrous warrior, Odysseus for
the man of resource and endurance. In the case of the Greeks, these
types had not merely an artistic and a moral interest; they had,
further, a religious interest, because the Greeks believed that the epic
heroes, sprung from the gods, were their own ancestors. Greek tragedy
arose when the choral worship of Dionysus, the god of physical rapture,
had engrafted upon it a dialogue between actors who represented some
persons of the legends consecrated by this faith. The dramatist was
accordingly obliged to refrain from multiplying those minute touches
which, by individualizing the characters too highly, would detract from
their general value as types in which all Hellenic humanity could
recognize its own image glorified and raised a step nearer to the
immortal gods. This necessity was further enforced by the existence of
the chorus, the original element of the drama, and the very essence of
its nature as an act of Dionysiac worship. Those utterances of the
chorus, which to the modern sense are so often platitudes, were not so
to the Greeks, just because the moral issues of tragedy were felt to
have the same typical generality as these comments themselves.

An unerring instinct keeps both Aeschylus and Sophocles within the
limits imposed by this law. Euripides was only fifteen years younger
than Sophocles. But, when Euripides began to write, it must have been
clear to any man of his genius and culture that, though an established
prestige might be maintained, a new poet who sought to construct tragedy
on the old basis would be building on sand. For, first, the popular
religion itself--the very foundation of tragedy--had been undermined.
Secondly, scepticism had begun to be busy with the legends which that
religion consecrated. Neither gods nor heroes commanded all the old
unquestioning faith. Lastly, an increasing number of the audience in the
theatre began to be destitute of the training, musical and poetical,
which had prepared an earlier generation to enjoy the chaste and placid
grandeur of ideal tragedy.

Euripides made a splendid effort to maintain the place of tragedy in the
spiritual life of Athens by modifying its interests in the sense which
his own generation required. Could not the heroic persons still excite
interest if they were made more real,--if, in them, the passions and
sorrows of every-day life were portrayed with greater vividness and
directness? And might not the less cultivated part of the audience at
least enjoy a thrilling plot, especially if taken from the home-legends
of Attica? Euripides became the virtual founder of the romantic drama.
In so far as his work fails, the failure is one which probably no
artistic tact could then have wholly avoided. The frame within which he
had to work was one which could not be stretched to his plan. The
chorus, the masks, the narrow stage, the conventional costumes, the
slender opportunities for change of scenery, were so many fixed
obstacles to the free development of tragedy in the new direction. But
no man of his time could have broken free from these traditions; in
attempting to do so he must have wrecked either his fame or his art. It
is not the fault of Euripides if in so much of his work we feel the want
of harmony between matter and form. Art abhors compromise; and it was
the misfortune of Attic tragedy in his generation that nothing but a
compromise could save it. Two devices have become common phrases of
reproach against him--the prologue and the _deus ex machina_. Doubtless
the prologue is a slipshod and sometimes ludicrous expedient. But the
audiences of his days were far from being so well versed as their
fathers in the mythic lore, and, on the other hand, a dramatist who
wished to avoid trite themes had now to go into the byways of mythology.
A prologue was often perhaps desirable or necessary for the instruction
of the audience. As regards the _deus ex machina_, a distinction should
be observed between those cases in which the solution is really
mechanical, as in the _Andromache_ and perhaps the _Orestes_, and those
in which it is warranted or required by the plot, as in the _Hippolytus_
and the _Bacchae_. The choral songs in Euripides, it may be granted,
have often nothing to do with the action. But the chorus was the
greatest of difficulties for a poet who was seeking to present drama of
romantic tendency in the plastic form consecrated by tradition. So far
from censuring Euripides on this score, we should be disposed to regard
his management of the chorus as a signal proof of his genius,
originality and skill.


    Works.

  Euripides is said to have written 92 dramas, including 8 satyr-plays.
  The best critics of antiquity allowed 75 as genuine. Nauck has
  collected 1117 Euripidean fragments. Among these, numbers 1092-1117
  are doubtful or spurious; numbers 842-1091 are from plays of uncertain
  title; numbers 1-841 represent fifty-five lost pieces, among which
  some of the best known are the _Andromeda, Antiope,[1] Bellerophon,
  Cresphontes, Erechtheus, Oedipus, Phaëthon_, and _Telephus_.

  1. The _Alcestis_, as the didascaliae tell us, was brought out in Ol.
  85. 2, i.e. at the Dionysia in the spring of 438 B.C., as the fourth
  play of a tetralogy comprising the _Cretan Women_, the _Alcmaeon at
  Psophis_, and the _Telephus_. The _Alcestis_ is altogether removed
  from the character, essentially grotesque, of a mere satyric drama. On
  the other hand, it has features which distinctly separate it from a
  Greek tragedy of the normal type. First, the subject belongs to none
  of the great cycles, but to a byway of mythology, and involves such
  strange elements as the servitude of Apollo in a mortal household, the
  decree of the fates that Admetus must die on a fixed day, and the
  restoration of the dead Alcestis to life. Secondly, the treatment of
  the subject is romantic and even fantastic,--strikingly so in the
  passage where Apollo is directly confronted with the daemonic figure
  of Thanatos. Lastly, the boisterous, remorseful, and generous Heracles
  makes, not, indeed, a satyric drama, but a distinctly satyric scene--a
  scene which, in the frank original, hardly bears the subtle
  interpretation which in _Balaustion_ is hinted by the genius of
  Browning, that Heracles got drunk in order to keep up other people's
  spirits. When the happy ending is taken into account, it is not
  surprising that some should have called the _Alcestis_ a tragi-comedy.
  But we cannot so regard it. The slight and purely incidental strain of
  comedy is but a moment of relief between the tragic sorrow and terror
  of the opening and the joy, no less solemn, of the conclusion. In this
  respect the _Alcestis_ might more truly be compared to such a drama as
  the _Winter's Tale_; the loss and recovery of Hermione by Leontes do
  not form a tragi-comedy because we are amused between-whiles by
  Autolycus and the clown. It does not seem improbable that the
  _Alcestis_--the earliest of the extant plays--may represent an attempt
  to substitute for the old satyric drama an after-piece of a kind
  which, while preserving a satyric element, should stand nearer to
  tragedy. The taste and manners of the day were perhaps tiring of the
  merely grotesque entertainment that old usage appended to the
  tragedies; just as, in the sphere of comedy, we know from Aristophanes
  that they were tiring of broad buffoonery. An original dramatist may
  have seen an opportunity here. However that may be, the _Alcestis_ has
  a peculiar interest for the history of the drama. It marks in the most
  signal manner, and perhaps at the earliest moment, that great movement
  which began with Euripides,--the movement of transition from the
  purely Hellenic drama to the romantic.

  2. The _Medea_ was brought out in 431 B.C. with the _Philoctetes_, the
  _Dictys_, and a lost satyr-play called the _Reapers_ (_Theristae_).
  Euripides gained the third prize, the first falling to Euphorion, the
  son of Aeschylus, and the second to Sophocles. If it is true that
  Euripides modelled his Medea on the work of an obscure predecessor,
  Neophron, at least he made the subject thoroughly his own. Hardly any
  play was more popular in antiquity with readers and spectators, with
  actors, or with sculptors. Ennius is said to have translated and
  adopted it. We do not know how far it may have been used by Ovid in
  his lost tragedy of the same name; but it certainly inspired the
  rhetorical performance of Seneca, which may be regarded as bridging
  the interval between Euripides and modern adaptations. We may grant at
  once that the _Medea_ of Euripides is not a faultless play; that the
  dialogue between the heroine and Aegeus is not happily conceived; that
  the murder of the children lacks an adequate dramatic motive; that
  there is something of a moral anti-climax in the arrangements of
  Medea, before the deed, for her personal safety. But the _Medea_
  remains a tragedy of first-rate power. It is admirable for the
  splendid force with which the character of the strange and
  strong-hearted woman, a barbarian friendless among Hellenes, is thrown
  out against the background of Hellenic life in Corinth.

  3. The extant _Hippolytus_ (429 B.C.)--sometimes called
  _Stephanephoros_, the "wreath-bearer," from the garland of flowers
  which, in the opening scene, the hero offers to Artemis--was not the
  first drama of Euripides on this theme. In an earlier play of the same
  name, we are told, he had shocked both the moral and the aesthetic
  sense of Athens. In this earlier _Hippolytus_, Phaedra herself had
  confessed her love to her step-son, and, when repulsed, had falsely
  accused him to Theseus, who doomed him to death; at the sight of the
  corpse, she had been moved to confess her crime, and had atoned for it
  by a voluntary death. This first _Hippolytus_ is cited as _Hippolytus
  the Veiled_ ([Greek: kaluptomenos]), either, as Toup and Welcker
  thought, from Hippolytus covering his face in horror, or, as Bentley
  with more likelihood suggested, because the youth's shrouded corpse
  was brought upon the scene. It can scarcely be doubted that the chief
  dramatic defect of our _Hippolytus_ is connected with the unfavourable
  reception of its predecessor. Euripides had been warned that limits
  must be observed in the dramatic portrayal of a morally repulsive
  theme. In the later play, accordingly, the whole action is made to
  turn on the jealous feud between Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and
  Artemis, the goddess of chastity. Phaedra not only shrinks from
  breathing her secret to Hippolytus, but destroys herself when she
  learns that she is rejected. But the natural agency of human passion
  is now replaced by a supernatural machinery; the slain son and the
  bereaved father are no longer the martyrs of sin, the tragic witnesses
  of an inexorable law; rather they and Phaedra are alike the puppets of
  a divine caprice, the scapegoats of an Olympian quarrel in which they
  have no concern. But if the dramatic effect of the whole is thus
  weakened, the character of Phaedra is a fine psychological study; and,
  as regards form, the play is one of the most brilliant. Boeckh (_De
  tragoediae Graecae principiis_, p. 180 f.) is perhaps too ingenious in
  finding an allusion to the plague at Athens (430 B.C.) in the [Greek:
  ô kaka thnêtôn stugerai te nosoi] of v. 177, and in v. 209 f.; but it
  can scarcely be doubted that he is right in suggesting that the
  closing words of Theseus (v. 1460)

    [Greek: ô klein' Athênôn Pallados th' orismata, hoiou sterêsesth'
    andros],

  and the reply of the chorus, [Greek: koinon tod' hachos], &c., contain
  a reference to the recent death of Pericles (429 B.C.).

  4. The _Hecuba_ may be placed about 425 B.C. Thucydides (iii. 104)
  notices the purification of Delos by the Athenians, and the
  restoration of the Panionic festival there, in 426 B.C.--an event to
  which the choral passage, v. 462 f., probably refers. It appears more
  hazardous to take v. 650 f. as an allusion to the Spartan mishap at
  Pylos. The subject of the play is the revenge of Hecuba, the widowed
  queen of Priam, on Polymestor, king of Thrace, who had murdered her
  youngest son Polydorus, after her daughter Polyzena had already been
  sacrificed by the Greeks to the shade of Achilles. The two calamities
  which befall Hecuba have no direct connexion with each other. In this
  sense the play lacks unity of design. On the other hand, both events
  serve the same end--viz. to heighten the tragic pathos with which the
  poet seeks to surround the central figure of Hecuba. The drama
  illustrates the skill with which Euripides, while failing to satisfy
  the requirements of artistic drama, could sustain interest by an
  ingeniously woven plot. It is a representative _Intriguenstück_, and
  well exemplifies the peculiar power which recommended Euripides to the
  poets of the New Comedy.

  5. The _Andromache_, according to a notice in the _scholia Veneta_
  (446), was not acted at Athens, at least in the author's life-time;
  though some take the words in the Greek argument ([Greek: to drama tôn
  deuterôn]) to mean that it was among those which gained a second
  prize. The invective on the Spartan character which is put into the
  mouth of Andromache contains the words, [Greek: adikôs eutucheit' an'
  Hellada], and this, with other indications, points to the
  Peloponnesian successes of the years 424-422 B.C. Andromache, the
  widow of Hector, has become the captive and concubine of Neoptolemus,
  son of Achilles. During his absence, her son Molossus is taken from
  her, with the aid of Menelaus, by her jealous rival Hermione. Mother
  and son are rescued from death by Peleus; but meanwhile Neoptolemus is
  slain at Delphi through the intrigues of Orestes. The goddess Thetis
  now appears, ordains that Andromache shall marry Helenus, and declares
  that Molossus shall found a line of Epirote kings, while Peleus shall
  become immortal among the gods of the sea. The _Andromache_ is a poor
  play. The contrasts, though striking, are harsh and coarse, and the
  compensations dealt out by the _deus ex machina_ leave the moral sense
  wholly unsatisfied. Technically the piece is noteworthy as bringing on
  the scene four characters at once--Andromache, Molossus, Peleus and
  Menelaus (v. 545 f.).

  6. The _Ion_ is an admirable drama, the finest of those plays which
  deal with legends specially illustrating the traditional glories of
  Attica. It is also the most perfect example of the poet's skill in the
  structure of dramatic intrigue. For its place in the chronological
  order there are no data except those of style and metre. Judging by
  these, Hermann would place it "neither after Ol. 89, nor much
  before"--i.e. somewhere between 424 and 421 B.C.; and this may be
  taken as approximately correct. The scene is laid throughout at the
  temple of Delphi. The young Ion is a priest in the temple of Delphi
  when Xuthus and his wife Creusa, daughter of Erechtheus, come to
  inquire of the god concerning their childlessness; and it is
  discovered that Ion is the son of Creusa by the god Apollo. Athena
  herself appears, and commands that Ion shall be placed on the throne
  of Athens, foretelling that from him shall spring the four Attic
  tribes, the Teleontes (priests), Hopletes (fighting-men), Argadeis
  (husbandmen) and Aigikoreis (herdsmen). The play must have been
  peculiarly effective on the Athenian stage, not only by its
  situations, but through its appeal to Attic sympathies.

  7. The _Suppliants_ who give their name to the play are Argive women,
  the mothers of Argive warriors slain before the walls of Thebes, who,
  led by Adrastus, king of Argos, come as suppliants to the altar of
  Demeter at Eleusis. Creon, king of Thebes, has refused burial to their
  dead sons. The Athenian king Theseus demands of Creon that he shall
  grant the funeral rites; the refusal is followed by a battle in which
  the Thebans are vanquished, and the bodies of the Argive dead are then
  brought to Eleusis. At the close the goddess Athena appears, and
  ordains that a close alliance shall be formed between Athens and
  Argos. Some refer the play to 417 B.C., when the democratic party at
  Athens rose against the oligarchs. But a more probable date is 420
  B.C., when, through the agency of Alcibiades, Athens and Argos
  concluded a defensive alliance. The play has a strongly marked
  rhetorical character, and is, in fact, a panegyric, with an immediate
  political aim, on Athens as the champion of humanity against Thebes.

  8. The _Heracleidae_--a companion piece to the _Suppliants_, and of
  the same period--is decidedly inferior in merit. Here, too, there are
  direct references to contemporary history. The defeat of Argos by the
  Spartans in 418 B.C. strengthened the Argive party who were in favour
  of discarding the Athenian for the Spartan alliance (Thuc. v. 76). In
  the _Heracleidae_, the sons of the dead Heracles, persecuted by the
  Argive Eurystheus, are received and sheltered at Athens. Thus, while
  Athens is glorified, Sparta, whose kings are descendants of the
  Heracleidae, is reminded how unnatural would be an alliance between
  herself and Argos.

  9. The _Heracles Mainomenos_[2] (_Hercules Furens_), which, on grounds
  of style, can scarcely be put later than 420-417 B.C., shares with the
  two last plays the purpose of exalting Athens in the person of
  Theseus. Heracles returns from Hades--whither, at the command of
  Eurystheus, he went to bring back Cerberus--just in time to save his
  wife Megara and his children from being put to death by Lycus of
  Thebes, whom he slays. As he is offering lustral sacrifice after the
  deed, he is suddenly stricken with madness by Lyssa (Fury), the
  daemonic agent of his enemy the goddess Hera, and in his frenzy he
  slays his wife and children. Theseus finds him, in his agony of
  despair, about to kill himself, and persuades him to come to Athens,
  there to seek grace and pardon from the gods. The unity of the plot
  may be partly vindicated by observing that the slaughter of Lycus
  entitled Heracles to the gratitude of Thebes, whereas the slaughter of
  his own kinsfolk made it unlawful that he should remain there; thus,
  having found a refuge only to lose it, Heracles has no hope left but
  in Athens, whose praise is the true theme of the entire drama.

  10. _Iphigenia among the Tauri_, which metre and diction mark as one
  of the later plays, is also one of the best--excellent both in the
  management of a romantic plot and in the delineation of character. The
  scene is laid at the temple of Artemis in the Tauric Chersonese (the
  Crimea)--on the site of the modern Balaklava. Iphigenia, who had been
  doomed to die at Aulis for the Greeks, had been snatched from that
  death by Artemis, and had become priestess of the goddess at the
  Tauric shrine, where human victims were immolated. Two strangers, who
  had landed among the Tauri, have been sentenced to die at the altar.
  She discovers in them her brother Orestes and his friend Pylades. They
  plan an escape, are recaptured, and are finally delivered by the
  goddess Athena, who commands Thoas, king of the land, to permit their
  departure. Iphigenia, Orestes and Pylades return to Greece, and
  establish the worship of the Tauric Artemis at Brauron and Halae in
  Attica. The drama of Euripides necessarily suggests a comparison with
  that of Goethe; and many readers will probably also feel that, while
  Goethe is certainly not inferior in fineness of ethical portraiture,
  he has the advantage in his management of the catastrophe. But it is
  only just to Euripides to remember that, while his competitor had free
  scope of treatment, he, a Greek dramatist, was bound to the motive of
  the Greek legend, and was obliged to conclude with the foundation of
  the Attic worship.

  11. The _Troades_ appeared in 415 B.C. along with the _Alexander_, the
  _Palamedes_, and a satyr-play, the _Sisyphus_. It is a picture of the
  miseries endured by noble Trojan dames--Hecuba, Andromache,
  Cassandra--immediately after the capture of Troy. There is hardly a
  plot in the proper sense--only an accumulation of sorrows on the heads
  of the passive sufferers. The piece is less a drama than a pathetic
  spectacle, closing with the crash of the Trojan towers in flame and
  ruin. The _Troades_ is indeed remarkable among Greek tragedies for its
  near approach to the character of melodrama. It must be observed that
  there is no ground for the inference--sometimes made an accusation
  against the poet--that the choral passage, v. 794 f., was intended to
  encourage the Sicilian expedition, sent forth in the same year (415
  B.C.). The mention of the "land of Aetna over against Carthage" (v.
  220) speaks of it as "renowned for the trophies of prowess"--a topic,
  surely, not of encouragement but of warning.

  12. The _Helena_--produced, as we learn from the Aristophanic scholia,
  in 412 B.C., the year of the lost _Andromeda_--is not one of its
  author's happier efforts. It is founded on a strange variation of the
  Trojan myth, first adopted by Stesichorus in his Palinode--that only a
  wraith of Helen passed to Troy, while the real Helen was detained in
  Egypt. In this play she is rescued from the Egyptian king,
  Theoclymenus, by a ruse of her husband Menelaus, who brings her safely
  back to Greece. The romantic element thus engrafted on the Greek myth
  is more than fantastic: it is well-nigh grotesque. The comic
  poets--notably Aristophanes in the _Thesmophoriazusae_--felt this; nor
  can we blame them if they ridiculed a piece in which the mode of
  treatment was so discordant with the spirit of Greek tradition, and so
  irreconcilable with all that constituted the higher meaning of Greek
  tragedy.

  13. The _Phoenissae_ was brought out, with the _Oenomaus_ and the
  _Chrysippus_, in 411 B.C., the year in which the recall of Alcibiades
  was decreed by the army at Samos, and, after the fall of the Four
  Hundred, ratified by the Assembly at Athens (Thuc. viii. 81, 97). The
  dialogue between Iocaste and Polynices on the griefs of banishment
  ([Greek: ti to steresthai patridos], v. 388 f.) has a certain emphasis
  which certainly looks like an allusion to the pardon of the famous
  exile. The subject of the play is the same as that of the Aeschylean
  _Seven against Thebes_--the war of succession in which Argos supported
  Polynices against his brother Eteocles. The Phoenician maidens who
  form the chorus are imagined to have been on their way from Tyre to
  Delphi, where they were destined for service in the temple, when they
  were detained at Thebes by the outbreak of the war--a device which
  affords a contrast to the Aeschylean chorus of Theban elders, and
  which has also a certain fitness in view of the legends connecting
  Thebes with Phoenicia. But Euripides has hardly been successful in the
  rivalry--which he has even pointed by direct allusions--with
  Aeschylus. The _Phoenissae_ is full of brilliant passages, but it is
  rather a series of effective scenes than an impressive drama.

  14. Plutarch (_Lys._ 15) says that, when Athens had surrendered to
  Lysander (404 B.C.) and when the fate of the city was doubtful, a
  Phocian officer happened to sing at a banquet of the leaders the first
  song of the chorus in the Electra of Euripides--

       [Greek: Agamemnonos ô kora,
    êlython, Êlektra, poti san agroteran aulan],

  and that "when they heard it, all were touched, so that it seemed a
  cruel deed to destroy for ever the city so famous once, the mother of
  such men." The character of the _Electra_, in metre and in diction,
  seems to show that it belongs to the poet's latest years. If Müller
  were right in referring to the Sicilian expedition the closing passage
  in which the Dioscuri declare that they haste "to the Sicilian sea, to
  save ships upon the deep" (v. 1347), then the play could not be later
  than 413 B.C. But it may with more probability be placed shortly
  before the _Orestes_, which in some respects it much resembles:
  perhaps in or about the year 410 B.C. No play of Euripides has been
  more severely criticized. The reason is evident. The _Choephori_ of
  Aeschylus and the _Electra_ of Sophocles appear to invite a direct
  comparison with this drama. But, as R.C. Jebb suggested,[3] such
  criticism as that of Schlegel should remember that works of art are
  proper subjects of direct comparison only when the theories of art
  which they represent have a common basis. It is surely unmeaning to
  contrast the elaborate homeliness of the Euripidean _Electra_ with the
  severe grandeur of its rivals. Aeschylus and Sophocles, as different
  exponents of an artistic conception which is fundamentally the same,
  may be profitably compared; Euripides interprets another conception,
  and must be tried by other principles. His _Electra_ is, in truth, a
  daring experiment--daring, because the theme is one which the elder
  school had made peculiarly its own.

  15. The _Orestes_, acted in 408, bears the mark of the age in the
  prominence which Euripides gives to the assembly of Argos--which has
  to decide the fate of Orestes and Electra--and to rhetorical pleading.
  The plot proceeds with sufficient clearness to the point at which
  Orestes and Electra have been condemned to death. But the later
  portion of the play, containing the intrigues for their rescue and the
  final achievement of their deliverance, is both too involved and too
  inconsequent for a really tragic effect. Just as in the _Electra_, the
  heroic persons of the drama are reduced to the level of commonplace.
  There is not a little which borders on the ludicrous, and it can be
  seen how easy would have been the passage from such tragedy as this to
  the restrained parody in which the Middle Comedy delighted. It is,
  however, inconceivable that, as some have supposed, the _Orestes_ can
  have been a deliberate compromise between tragedy and farce. It cannot
  have been meant to be played, as a fourth piece, instead of a regular
  satyric drama. Rather it indicates the level to which the heroic
  tragedy itself had descended under the treatment of a school which was
  at least logical. The celebrity of the play in the ancient world--as
  Paley observes, there are more ancient quotations from the _Orestes_
  than from all the extant plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles together--is
  perhaps partly explained by the unusually frequent combination in this
  piece of striking sentiment with effective situation.

  16. The _Iphigenia at Aulis_, like the _Bacchae_, was brought out only
  after the death of Euripides. It is a very brilliant and beautiful
  play,--probably left by the author in an unfinished state,--and has
  suffered from interpolation more largely, perhaps, than any other of
  his works. As regards its subject, it forms a prelude to the
  _Iphigenia in Tauris_. Iphigenia has been doomed by her father
  Agamemnon to die at Aulis, as Calchas declares that Artemis claims
  such a sacrifice before the adverse winds can fall.

  The genuine play, as we have it, breaks off at v. 1508, when Iphigenia
  has been led to the sacrificial altar. A spurious epilogue, of
  wretched workmanship (v. 1509-1628), relates, in the speech of a
  messenger, how Artemis saved the maiden.

  17. The _Bacchae_, unlike the preceding play, appears to have been
  finished by its author, although it is said not to have been acted, on
  the Athenian stage at least, till after his death. It was composed, or
  completed, during the residence of Euripides with Archelaus, and in
  all probability was originally designed for representation in
  Macedonia--a region with whose traditions of orgiastic worship the
  Dionysus myth was so congenial. The play is sometimes quoted as the
  _Pentheus_. It has been justly observed that Euripides seldom named a
  piece from the chorus, unless the chorus bore an important part in the
  action or the leading action was divided between several persons.
  Possibly, however, in this instance he may designedly have chosen a
  title which would at once interest the Macedonian public. _Pentheus_
  would suggest a Greek legend about which they might know or care
  little. The _Bacchae_ would at once announce a theme connected with
  rites familiar to the northern land.

  It is a magnificent play, alone among extant Greek tragedies in
  picturesque splendour, and in that sustained glow of Dionysiac
  enthusiasm to which the keen irony lends the strength of contrast. If
  Euripides had left nothing else, the _Bacchae_ would place him in the
  first rank of poets, and would prove his possession of a sense rarely
  manifested by Greek poets,--perhaps by no one of his own
  contemporaries in equal measure except Aristophanes,--a feeling for
  natural beauty lit up by the play of fancy. R.Y. Tyrrell, in his
  edition of the _Bacchae_, has given the true answer to the theory that
  the _Bacchae_ is a recantation. Euripides had never rejected the facts
  which formed the basis of the popular religion. He had rather sought
  to interpret them in a manner consistent with belief in a benevolent
  Providence. The really striking thing in the _Bacchae_ is the spirit
  of contentment and of composure which it breathes,--as if the poet had
  ceased to be vexed by the seeming contradictions which had troubled
  him before. Nor should it be forgotten that, for the Greek mind of his
  age, the victory of Dionysus in the _Bacchae_ carried a moral even
  more direct than the victory of Aphrodite in the _Hippolytus_. The
  great nature-powers who give refreshment to mortals cannot be robbed
  of their due tribute without provoking a nemesis. The refusal of such
  a homage is not, so the Greeks deemed, a virtue in itself: in the
  sight of the gods it may be only a cold form of [Greek: hybris],
  overweening self-reliance--the quality personified in Pentheus.

  The _Bacchae_ was always an exceptionally popular play--partly because
  its opportunities as a spectacle fitted it for gorgeous
  representation, and so recommended it for performance at courts and on
  great public occasions. "Demetrius the Cynic" (says Lucian, _Adv.
  Indoctum_, 19) "saw an illiterate person at Corinth reading a very
  beautiful poem--the _Bacchae_ of Euripides, I think it was; he was at
  the place where the messenger narrates the doom of Pentheus and the
  deed of Agave. Demetrius snatched the book from him and tore it up,
  saying, 'It is better for Pentheus to be torn up at once by me than to
  be mangled over and over again by you.'"

  18. The _Cyclops_, of uncertain date, is the only extant example of a
  satyric drama. The plot is taken mainly from the story of Odysseus and
  Polyphemus in the 9th book of the _Odyssey_. In order to be really
  successful in farce of this kind, a poet should have a fresh feeling
  for the nature of the art parodied. It is because Euripides was not in
  accord with the spirit of the heroic myths that he is not strong in
  mythic travesty. His own tragedies--such as the _Helen_, the
  _Electra_, and the _Orestes_--had, in their several ways, contributed
  to destroy the meaning of satyric drama. They had done gravely very
  much what satyric drama aimed at doing grotesquely. They had made the
  heroic persons act and talk like ordinary men and women. The finer
  side of such parody had lost its edge; only broad comedy remained.

  19. The _Rhesus_ is still held by some to be what the didascaliae and
  the grammarians call it--a work of Euripides; and Paley has ably
  supported this view. But the scepticism first declared by Valcknaer
  has gained ground, and the _Rhesus_ is now almost universally
  recognized as spurious. The art and the style, still more evidently
  the feeling and the mind, of Euripides are absent. If it cannot be
  ascribed to a disciple of his matured school, it is still less like
  the work of an Alexandrian. The most probable view seems to be that
  which assigns it to a versifier of small dramatic power in the latest
  days of Attic tragedy. It has this literary interest, that it is the
  only extant play of which the subject is directly taken from our
  _Iliad_, of which the tenth book--the [Greek: Dolôneia]--has been
  followed by the playwright with a closeness which is sometimes
  mechanical.


  Literary history of Euripides.

When the first protests of the comic poets were over, Euripides was
secure of a wide and lasting renown. As the old life of Athens passed
away, as the old faiths lost their meaning and the peculiarly Greek
instincts in art lost their truth and freshness, Aeschylus and Sophocles
might cease to be fully enjoyed save by a few; but Euripides could still
charm by qualities more readily and more universally recognized. The
comparative nearness of his diction to the idiom of ordinary life
rendered him less attractive to the grammarians of Alexandria than
authors whose erudite form, afforded a better scope for the display of
learning or the exercise of ingenuity. But there were two aspects in
which he engaged their attention. They loved to trace the variations
which he had introduced into the standard legends. And they sought to
free his text from the numerous interpolations which even then had
resulted from his popularity on the stage. Philochorus (about 306-260
B.C.), best known for his _Atthis_, dealt, in his treatise on Euripides,
especially with the mythology of the plays. From 300 B.C. to the age of
Augustus a long series of critics busied themselves with this poet. The
first systematic arrangement of his reputed works is ascribed to
Dicaearchus and Callimachus in the early part of the 3rd century B.C.
Among those who furthered the exact study of his text, and of whose work
some traces remain in the extant scholia, were Aristophanes of
Byzantium, Callistratus, Apollodorus of Tarsus, Timachidas, and
pre-eminently Didymus; probably also Crates of Pergamum and Aristarchus.
At Rome Euripides was early made known through the translations of
Ennius and the freer adaptations of Pacuvius. When Hellenic civilization
was spread through the East, the mixed populations of the new
settlements welcomed a dramatic poet whose taste and whose sentiment
were not too severely or exclusively Attic. The Parthian Orodes and his
court were witnessing the _Bacchae_ of Euripides when the Agave of the
hour was suddenly enabled to lend a ghastly reality to the terrible
scene of frenzied triumph by displaying the gory head of the Roman
Crassus. Mommsen has noted the moment as one in which the power of Rome
and the genius of Greece were simultaneously abased in the presence of
sultanism. So far as Euripides is concerned, the incident may suggest
another and a more pleasing reflection; it may remind us how the charm
of his humane genius had penetrated the recesses of the barbarian East,
and had brought to rude and fierce peoples at least some dim and distant
apprehension of that gracious world in which the great spirits of
ancient Hellas had moved. A quaintly significant testimony to the
popularity of Euripides is afforded by the Byzantine [Greek: Christos
paschôn]. This drama, narrating the events which preceded and attended
the Passion, is a cento of no less than 2610 verses, taken from the
plays of Euripides, principally from the _Bacchae_, the _Troades_ and
the _Rhesus_. The traditional ascription of the authorship to Gregory of
Nazianzus is now generally rejected; another conjecture assigns it to
Apollinaris of Laodicea, and places the date of composition at about
A.D. 330.[4] Although the text used by the author of the cento may not
have been a good one, the value of the piece for the diplomatic
criticism of Euripides is necessarily very considerable; and it was
diligently used both by Valcknaer and by Porson.

Dante, who does not mention Aeschylus or Sophocles, places Euripides,
with the tragic poets Antiphon and Agathon, and the lyrist Simonides, in
the first circle of Purgatory (xxii. 106), among those

    "piùe
  Greci, che già di lauro ornar la fronte."

Casaubon, in a letter to Scaliger, salutes that scholar as worthy to
have lived at Athens with Aristophanes and Euripides--a compliment which
certainly implies respect for his correspondent's powers as a
peacemaker. In popular literature, too, where Aeschylus and Sophocles
were as yet little known, the 16th and 17th centuries testify to the
favour bestowed upon Euripides. G. Gascoigne's and Francis Kinwelmersh's
_Jocasta_, played at Gray's Inn in 1566, is a literal translation of
Lodovico Dolce's _Giocasta_, which derives from the _Phoenissae_,
probably through the Latin translation of R. Winter (Basel, 1541). Among
early French translations from Euripides may be mentioned the version of
the _Iphigenia in Tauris_ by Thomas Sibilet in 1549, and that of the
_Hecuba_ by Bouchetel in 1550. About a century later Racine gave the
world his _Andromaque_, his _Iphigénie_ and his _Phèdre_; and many have
held that, at least in the last-named of these, "the disciple of
Euripides" has excelled his master. Bernhardy notices that the
performance of the _Hippolytus_ at Berlin in 1851 seemed to show that,
for the modern stage, the _Phèdre_ has the advantage of its Greek
original. Racine's great English contemporary seems to have known and to
have liked Euripides better than the other Greek tragedians. In the
_Reason of Church Government_ Milton certainly speaks of "those dramatic
constitutions in which Sophocles and Euripides reign"; in the preface to
his own drama, again, he joins the names of Aeschylus, Sophocles and
Euripides,--"the three tragic poets unequalled yet by any." But the
_Samson Agonistes_ itself clearly shows that Milton's chief model in
this kind was the dramatist whom he himself has called--as if to suggest
the skill of Euripides in the delineation of pathetic women--"sad
Electra's poet"; and the work bears a special mark of this preference in
the use of Euripidean monodies. In the second half of the 18th century
such men as J.J. Winckelmann (1717-1768) and G.E. Lessing (1729-1781)
gave a new life to the study of the antique. Hitherto the art of the old
world had been better known through Roman than through Greek
interpreters. The basis of the revived classical taste had been Latin.
But now men gained a finer perception of those characteristics which
belong to the Greek work of the great time, a fuller sense of the
difference between the Greek and the Roman genius where each is at its
best, and generally a clearer recognition of the qualities which
distinguish ancient art in its highest purity from modern romantic
types. Euripides now became the object of criticism from a new point of
view. He was compared with Aeschylus and Sophocles as representatives of
that ideal Greek tragedy which ranges with the purest type of sculpture.
Thus tried, he was found wanting; and he was condemned with all the
rigour of a newly illuminated zeal. B.G. Niebuhr (1776-1831) judged him
harshly; but no critic approached A.W. Schlegel (1767-1845) in severity
of one-sided censure. Schlegel, in fact, will scarcely allow that
Euripides is tolerable except by comparison with Racine. L. Tieck
(1773-1853) showed truer appreciation for a brother artist when he
described the work of Euripides as the dawn of a romantic poetry
haunted by dim yearnings and forebodings. Goethe--who, according to
Bernhardy, knew Euripides only "at a great distance"--certainly admired
him highly, and left an interesting memorial of Euripidean study in his
attempted reconstruction of the lost _Phaëthon_. There are some passages
in Goethe's conversations with Eckermann which form effective quotations
against the Greek poet's real or supposed detractors. "To feel and
respect a great personality, one must be something oneself. All those
who denied the sublime to Euripides were either poor wretches incapable
of comprehending such sublimity or shameless charlatans who, in their
presumption, wished to make more of themselves than they were." "A poet
whom Socrates called his friend, whom Aristotle lauded, whom Alexander
admired, and for whom Sophocles and the city of Athens put on mourning
on hearing of his death, must certainly have been some one. If a modern
man like Schlegel must pick out faults in so great an ancient, he ought
only to do it upon his knees" (J.A. Symonds, _Greek Poets_, i. 230). We
yield to no one in admiration of Goethe; but we cannot think that these
rather bullying utterances are favourable examples of his method in
aesthetic discussion; nor have they any logical force except as against
those--if there be any such--who deny that Euripides is a great poet.
One of the most striking of modern criticisms on Euripides is the sketch
by Mommsen in his history of Rome (bk. iii. ch. 14). It is, in our
opinion, less than just to Euripides as an artist. But it indicates,
with true historical insight, his place in the development of his art,
the operation of those external conditions which made him what he was,
and the nature of his influence on succeeding ages.


    Manuscript tradition of Euripides.

  The manuscript tradition of Euripides has a very curious and
  instructive history. It throws a suggestive light on the capricious
  nature of the process by which some of the greatest literary treasures
  have been saved or lost. Nine plays of Euripides were selected,
  probably in early Byzantine times, for popular and educational use.
  These were--_Alcestis, Andromache, Hecuba, Hippolytus, Medea, Orestes,
  Phoenissae, Rhesus, Troades_. This list includes at least two plays,
  the _Andromache_ and the _Troades_, which, even in the small number of
  the extant dramas, are universally allowed to be of very inferior
  merit--to say nothing of the _Rhesus_, which is generally allowed to
  be spurious. On the other hand, the list omits at least three plays of
  first-rate beauty and excellence, the very flower, indeed, of the
  extant collection--the _Ion_, the _Iphigenia in Tauris_, and the
  _Bacchae_--the last certainly, in its own kind, by far the most
  splendid work of Euripides that we possess. Had these three plays been
  lost, it is not too much to say that the modern estimate of Euripides
  must have been decidedly lower. But all the ten plays not included in
  the select list had a narrow escape of being lost, and, as it is, have
  come to us in a much less satisfactory condition.

  A. Kirchhoff was the first, in his editions, thoroughly to investigate
  the history and the affinities of the Euripidean manuscripts.[5] All
  our MSS. are, he thinks, derived from a lost archetype of the 9th or
  10th century, which contained the nineteen plays (counting the
  _Rhesus_) now extant. From this archetype a copy, also lost, was made
  about A.D. 1100, containing only the nine select plays. This copy
  became the source of all our best MSS. for those plays. They are--(1)
  Marcianus 471, in the library of St Mark at Venice (12th century):
  _Andromache, Hecuba, Hippolytus_ (to v. 1234), _Orestes, Phoenissae_;
  (2) Vaticanus 909, 12th century, nine plays; (3) Parisinus 2712, 13th
  century, 7 plays (all but _Troades_ and _Rhesus_). Of the same stock,
  but inferior, are (4) Marcianus 468, 13th century: _Hecuba, Orestes,
  Medea_ (v. 1-42), _Orestes, Phoenissae_; (5) Havniensis (from
  _Hafnia_, Copenhagen, according to Paley), a late transcript from a
  MS. resembling Vat. 909, nine plays. A second family of MSS. for the
  nine plays, sprung from the same copy, but modified by a Byzantine
  recension of the 13th century, is greatly inferior.

  The other ten plays have come to us only through the preservation of
  two MSS., both of the 14th century, and both ultimately derived, as
  Kirchhoff thinks, from the archetype of the 9th or 10th century. These
  are (1) Palatinus 287, Kirchhoff's B, usually called Rom. C., thirteen
  plays, viz. six of the select plays (_Androm., Med., Rhes., Hipp.,
  Alc., Troad._), and seven others--_Bacchae, Cyclops, Heracleidae,
  Supplices, Ion, Iphigenia in Aulide, Iphigenia in Tauris_; and (2)
  Flor. 2, Elmsley's C., eighteen plays, viz. all but the _Troades_.
  This MS. is thus the only one for the _Helena_, the _Electra_, and the
  _Hercules Furens_. By far the greatest number of Euripidean MSS.
  contain only three plays,--the _Hecuba, Orestes_ and
  _Phoenissae_,--these having been chosen out of the select nine for
  school use--probably in the 14th century.

  It is to be remembered that, as a selection, the nine chosen plays of
  Euripides correspond to those seven of Aeschylus and those seven of
  Sophocles which alone remain to us. If, then, these nine did not
  include the _Iphigenia in Tauris_, the _Ion_ or the _Bacchae_, may we
  not fairly infer that the lost plays of the other two dramatists
  comprised works at least equal to any that have been preserved? May we
  not even reasonably doubt whether we have received those masterpieces
  by which their highest excellence should have been judged?


    Scholia.

  The extant scholia on Euripides are for the nine select plays only.
  The first edition of the scholia on seven of these plays (all but the
  _Troades_ and _Rhesus_) was published by Arsenius--a Cretan whom the
  Venetians had named as bishop of Monemvasia, but whom the Greeks had
  refused to recognize--at Venice in 1534. The scholia on the _Troades_
  and _Rhesus_ were first published by L. Dindorf, from Vat. 909, in
  1821. The best complete edition is that of W. Dindorf (1863).[6] The
  collection, though loaded with rubbish--including worthless analyses
  of the lyric metres by Demetrius Triclinius--includes some invaluable
  comments derived from the Alexandrian critics and their followers.

  EDITIONES PRINCIPES.--1496. J. Lascaris (Florence), _Medea,
  Hippolytus, Alcestis, Andromache_. 1503. M. Musurus (Aldus, Venice),
  _Eur. Tragg._ XVII., to which in vol. ii. the _Hercules Furens_ was
  added as an 18th; i.e. this edition contained all the extant plays
  except the _Electra_, which was first given to the world by P.
  Victorius from Florentinus C. in 1545. The Aldine edition was
  reprinted at Basel in 1537.

  The complete edition of Joshua Barnes (1694) is no longer of any
  critical value. The first thorough work done on Euripides was by L.C.
  Valcknaer in his edition of the _Phoenissae_ (1755), and his _Diatribe
  in Eur. perditorum dramatum relliquias_ (1767), in which he argued
  against the authenticity of the _Rhesus_.

  PRINCIPAL EDITIONS OF SELECTED PLAYS.--J. Markland (1763-1771),
  _Supplices, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T._; Ph. Brunck (1779-1780),
  _Andromache, Medea, Orestes, Hecuba_; R. Porson (1797-1801), _Hecuba,
  Orestes, Phoenissae, Medea_; H. Monk (1811-1818), _Hippolytus,
  Alcestis, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T._; P. Elmsley (1813-1821), _Medea,
  Bacchae, Heraclidae, Supplices_; G. Hermann (1831-1841), _Hecuba_
  (animadv. ad R. Porsoni notas, first in 1800), _Orestes, Alcestis,
  Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T., Helena, Ion, Hercules Furens_; C. Badham
  (1851-1853), _Iphigenia T., Helena, Ion_; H. Weil, _Hipp., Medea,
  Hec., Iph. in T., Iph. in A., Electra, Orestes_ (2nd ed., 1890). It is
  impossible to give a list of the English and foreign editions of
  single plays, but mention may be made of the _Bacchae_, by J.E. Sandys
  (4th ed., 1900) and R.Y. Tyrrell (1892); _Medea_, by A.W. Verrall
  (1883); _Hippolytus_, by J.P. Mahaffy (1881); and of the _Hercules
  Furens_, by Wilamowitz-Möllendorff (2nd ed., 1895), with a
  comprehensive introduction on the literature of Euripides. A selected
  list (up to 1896) will be found in J.B. Mayor's _Guide to the Choice
  of Classical Books_; see also N. Wecklein in C. Bursian's
  _Jahresbericht_, xxviii. (1897), and for the earlier literature W.
  Engelmann, _Scriptores Graeci_ (1881). The little volumes on Euripides
  by J.P. Mahaffy (1879) and W.B. Donne in Blackwood's "Ancient Classics
  for English Readers" will be found generally useful; see also P.
  Decharme, _Euripide et l'esprit de son théâtre_ (1893); A.W. Verrall,
  _Euripides the Rationalist_ (1895), and _Essays on Four Plays of
  Euripides_ (1905); N.J. Patin, _Étude sur Euripide_ (1872); O.
  Ribbeck, _Euripides und seine Zeit_; and (for the life of the poet)
  Wilamowitz's ed. of the _Hercules Furens_ (i. 1-42); P. Masqueray,
  _Euripide et ses idées_ (1908).

  MODERN COMPLETE EDITIONS.--W. Dindorf (1870, in _Poët. Scenici_, ed.
  5); A. Kirchhoff (1855, ed. min. 1867); F.A. Paley (2nd ed.,
  1872-1880), with commentary; A. Nauck (1880-1887, Teubner series);
  G.G. Murray in Oxford _Scriptorum Classicorum bibliotheca_ (1902,
  foll.).

  ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS.--Among these may be noted the complete verse
  translation by A.S. Way (1894-1898); that in prose by E.P. Coleridge
  (1896); and G.G. Murray's verse translations (1902-1906). A literary
  interest attaches to Robert Browning's "Transcript" of the _Alcestis_
  in his _Balaustion_, and to Goethe's reconstruction of Euripides' lost
  _Phaëthon_ in the 1840 edition of his works, vol. xxxiii. pp. 22-43.
       (R. C. J.; X.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] A considerable fragment of the _Antiope_ was discovered in Egypt
    in the latter part of the 19th century; ed. J.P. Mahaffy in vol.
    viii. of the _Cunningham Memoirs_ (Dublin, 1891); and quite recently
    fragments, probably from the _Hypsipyle_, the _Phaëthon_, and the
    _Cretans_ (see _Berliner Klassikertexte_, v. 2, 1907).

  [2] (Originally simply _Heracles_, the addition _Mainomenos_ being
    due to the Aldine ed.)

  [3] Introduction to the _Electra_ of Sophocles, p. xiii., in _Catena
    Classicorum_, 2nd ed.

  [4] (According to Karl Krumbacher, _Gesch. der byz. Lit._, it is an
   11th-century production of unknown authorship.)

  [5] See also a clear account in the preface to vol. iii. of Paley's
    edition.

  [6] New ed. by E. Schwartz (1887-1891).




EUROCLYDON (Gr. [Greek: euros], east wind; [Greek: klydôn], wave), a
stormy wind from the N.E. or N.N.E. in the eastern Mediterranean. Where
the Authorized Version of the Bible (Acts xxvii. 14) mentions
_euroclydon_, the Revised Version, taking the reading [Greek:
eurakylôn], has _euraquilo_, or north-easter. The word is sometimes used
for the Bora (q.v.).




EUROPA (or rather, EUROPE), in Greek mythology, according to Homer
(_Iliad_, xiv. 321), the daughter of Phoenix or, in a later story, of
Agenor, king of Phoenicia. The beauty of Europa fired the love of Zeus,
who approached her in the form of a white bull and carried her away from
her native Phoenicia to Crete, where she became the mother of Minos,
Rhadamanthys and Sarpedon. She was worshipped under the name of Hellotis
in Crete, where the festival Hellotia, at which her bones, wreathed in
myrtle, were carried round, was held in her honour (Athenaeus xv. p.
678). Some consider Europa to be a moon-goddess; others explain the
story by saying that she was carried off by a king of Crete in a ship
decorated with the figure-head of a bull. O. Gruppe (_De Cadmi Fabula_,
1891) endeavours to show that the myth of Europa is only another version
of the myth of Persephone.

  See Apollodorus iii. 1; Ovid, _Metam._ ii. 833; articles by Helbig in
  Roscher's _Lexikon der Mythologie_, and by Hild in Daremberg and
  Saglio's _Dictionnaire des antiquités_. Fig. 26 in the article GREEK
  ART (archaic metope from Palermo) represents the journey of Europa
  over the sea on the back of the bull.




EUROPE, the smallest of those principal divisions of the land-surface of
the globe which are usually distinguished by the conventional name of
continents.


1. GEOGRAPHY AND STATISTICS

  Individuality of the continent.

It has justly become a commonplace of geography to describe Europe as a
mere peninsula of Asia, but while it is necessary to bear this in mind
in some aspects of the geography of the continent, more particularly in
relation to the climate, the individuality of the continent is
established in the clearest manner by the course of history and the
resultant distribution of population. The earliest mention of Europe is
in the Homeric _Hymn to Apollo_, but there Europe is not the name of a
continent, but is opposed to the Peloponnesus and the islands of the
Aegean. The distinction between Europe and Asia is found, however, in
Aeschylus in the 5th century B.C., but there seems to be little doubt
that this opposition was learnt by the Greeks from some Asiatic people.
On Assyrian monuments the contrast between _asu_, "(the land of) the
rising sun," and _ereb_ or _irib_, "(the land of) darkness" or "the
setting sun," is frequent, and these names were probably passed on by
the Phoenicians to the Greeks, and gave rise to the names of Asia and
Europe. Where the names originated the geographical distinction was
clearly marked by the intervention of the sea, and this intervention
marked equally clearly the distinction between Europe and Libya
(Africa). As the knowledge of the world extended, the difficulty, which
still exists, of fixing the boundary between Europe and Asia where there
is land connexion, caused uncertainty in the application of the two
names, but never obscured the necessity for recognizing the distinction.
Even in the 3rd century B.C. Europe was regarded by Eratosthenes as
including all that was then known of northern Asia. But the character of
the physical features and climate finally determined the fact that what
we know as Europe came to be occupied by more or less populous countries
in intimate relation with one another, but separated on the east by
unpeopled or very sparsely peopled areas from the countries of Asia, and
the boundary between the two continents has long been recognized as
running somewhere through this area. Within the limits thus marked out
on the east and on other sides by the sea "the climatic conditions are
such that inhabitants are capable of and require a civilization of
essentially the same type, based upon the cultivation of our European
grains."[1] Those inhabitants have had a common history in a greater
measure than those of any other continent, and hence are more thoroughly
conscious of their dissimilarities from, than of their consanguinity
with, the peoples of the east and the south.


  Boundaries.

On the subject of the boundaries of Europe there is still divergence of
opinion. While some authorities take the line of the Caucasus as the
boundary in the south-east, others take the line of the Manych
depression, between the upper end of the Sea of Azov and the Caspian
Sea, nearly parallel to the Caucasus. Various limits are assigned to the
continent on the east. Officially the crest of the Caucasus and that of
the Urals are regarded in Russia as the boundaries between Europe and
Asia on the south-east and east respectively,[2] although in neither
case does the boundary correspond with the great administrative
divisions, and in the Urals it is impossible to mark out any continuous
crest. Reclus, without attempting to assign any precise position to the
boundary line between the two continents, makes it run through the
relatively low and partly depressed area north of the Caucasus and east
of the Urals. The Manych depression, marking the lowest line of this
area to the north of the Caucasus, has been taken as the boundary of
Europe on the south-east by Wagner in his edition of Guthe's _Lehrbuch
der Geographie_,[3] and the same limit is adopted in Kirchhoff's
_Länderkunde des Erdteils Europa_[4] and Stanford's _Compendium of
Geography and Travel_. In favour of this limit it appears that much
weight ought to be given to the consideration put forward by Wagner,
that from time immemorial the valleys on both sides of the Caucasus have
formed a refuge for Asiatic peoples, especially when it is borne in mind
that this contention is reinforced by the circumstance that the steppes
to the north of the Caucasus must interpose a belt of almost unpeopled
territory between the more condensed populations belonging undoubtedly
to Asia and Europe respectively. Continuity of population would be an
argument in favour of assigning the whole of the Urals to Europe, but
here the absence of any break in such continuity on the east side makes
it more difficult to fix any boundary line outside of that system. Hence
on this side it is perhaps reasonable to attach greater importance to
the fact that the Urals form a boundary not only orographically, but to
some extent also in respect of climate and vegetation,[5] and on that
account to take a line following the crest of the different sections of
that system as the eastern limit between the two continents.[6]
Obviously, however, any eventual agreement among geographers on this
head must be more or less arbitrary and conventional. In any case it
must be borne in mind that, whatever conventional boundary be adopted,
the use of the name Europe as so limited must be confined to statements
of extent or implying extent. The facts as to climate, fauna and flora
have no relation to any such arbitrary boundary, and all statistical
statements referring to the countries of Europe must include the part of
Russia beyond the Urals up to the frontier of Siberia. In such
statements, however, in the present article the whole of the lieutenancy
of the Caucasus will be left out of account. As to extent it is
provisionally advisable to give the area of the continent within
different limits.


  Extent.

The following calculations in English square miles (round numbers) of
the area of Europe, within different limits, are given in Behm and
Wagner's _Bevölkerung der Erde_, No. viii. (Gotha, Justus Perthes,
1891), p. 53:--Europe, within the narrowest physical limits (to the
crest of the Urals and the Manych depression, and including the Sea of
Azov, but excluding the Caspian Steppe, Iceland, Novaya Zemlya,
Spitsbergen and Bear Island) 3,570,000 sq. m. The same, with the
addition of the Caspian Steppe up to the Ural river and the Caspian Sea,
3,687,750 sq. m. The same, with the addition of the area between the
Manych depression and the Caucasus, 3,790,500 sq. m. The same, with the
addition of territories east of the Ural Mountains, the portion of the
Caspian Steppe east of the Ural river as far as the Emba, and the
southern slopes of the Caucasus, 3,988,500 sq. m. The same, with
Iceland, Novaya Zemlya, Spitsbergen and Bear Island, 4,093,000 sq. m. In
all these calculations the islands in the Sea of Marmora, the Canary
Islands, Madeira, and even the Azores, are excluded, but all the Greek
islands of the Aegean Sea and the Turkish islands of Thasos, Lemnos,
Samothrace, Imbros, Hagiostrati or Bozbaba, and even Tenedos, are
included.


    Extreme points.

  The most northern point of the mainland area is Cape Nordkyn in
  Norway, 71° 6' N.; its most southern, Cape Tarifa in Spain, in 36° 0'
  N.; its most western, Cape da Roca in Portugal, 9° 27' W.; and its
  most eastern, a spot near the north end of the Ural Mountains, in 66°
  20' E. A line drawn from Cape St Vincent in Portugal to the Ural
  Mountains near Ekaterinburg has a length of 3293 m., and finds its
  centre in the W. of Russian Poland. From the mouth of the Kara to the
  mouth of the Ural river the direct distance is 1600 m., but the
  boundary line has a length of 2400 m.


    Coastline.

  Two of the most striking features in the general conformation of
  Europe are the great number of its primary and secondary peninsulas,
  and the consequent exceptional development of its coast-line--an
  irregularity and development which have been one of the most potent of
  the physical factors of its history. The total length of coast-line
  was estimated by Reuschle in 1869 at 19,820 m., of which about 3600
  were counted as belonging to the Arctic Ocean, 8390 to the Atlantic,
  and 7830 to the Black Sea and Mediterranean. This estimate, however,
  does not take into account minor indentations. Reclus's estimate,
  including the more important indentations, brings the coast-line up to
  26,700 m., and that of Strelbitsky up to 47,790 m. (smaller islands
  not included), or 1 m. of coast for about 75 sq. m. of area.
  Rohrbach[7] calculated the mean distance of all points in the interior
  of Europe from the sea at 209 m. as compared with 292 m. in the case
  of North America, the continent which ranks next in this respect. It
  must be pointed out, however, that such calculations are apt to be
  very misleading, inasmuch as the commercial value of the relations
  thus determined depends not merely on the existence of natural
  harbours or the presence of facilities for the construction of
  artificial harbours, but also on the presence of natural facilities
  for communication between such harbours and a productive interior.


    Changes of coast-line.

  The consideration just mentioned gives great significance to the fact
  that while the coast-line of Europe is in its general features very
  much the same as it was at the beginning of the true historic period,
  it has undergone a number of important local changes, some at least of
  which are due to causes that are at work over very extensive areas.
  These changes may be conveniently classified under four heads: the
  formation of deltas by the alluvium of rivers; the increase of the
  land-surface due to upheaval; the advance of the sea by reason of its
  own erosive activity; and the advance of the sea through the
  subsidence of the land. The actual form of the coast, however, is
  frequently due to the simultaneous or successive action of several of
  the causes--sea and river and subterranean forces helping or resisting
  each other. That changes in the coast-line on the shores of the Gulf
  of Bothnia have taken place within historical times through elevation
  of the land seems now to be generally admitted. The commune of
  Hvittisbofjärd north of Bjorneborg on the Finland side of that gulf
  gained about 2¼ sq. m. between 1784 and 1894, an amount greater than
  could be accounted for by the most liberal estimates of alluvial
  deposit, and the most careful investigation seems to show that on the
  Swedish coast of that gulf a rise has taken place in recent years on
  the east coast of Sweden from about 57° 20' N. increasing in amount
  towards the north up to 62° 20' N., where it reaches an average of
  about two-fifths of an inch annually.[8] Our information is naturally
  most complete in regard to the Mediterranean coasts, as these were the
  best known to the first book-writing nations. There we find that all
  the great rivers have been successfully at work--more especially the
  Rhone, the Ebro and the Po. The activity of the Rhone, indeed, as a
  maker of new land, is astonishing. The tower of St Louis, erected on
  the coast in 1737, is now upwards of four miles inland; the city of
  Arles is said to be nearly twice as far from the sea as it was in the
  Roman period. The present St Gilles was probably a harbour when the
  Greeks founded Marseilles, and Aigues Mortes, which took its place in
  the middle ages, was no longer on the coast in the time of St Louis
  (13th century), but Narbonne continued to be a seaport till the 14th
  century. At the mouth of the Hérault, according to Fischer,[9] the
  coast advances at least two metres or about 7 ft. annually; and it
  requires great labour to keep the harbour of Cette from being silted
  up. The Po is even more efficient than the Rhone, if the size of its
  basin be taken into account. Ravenna, which was at one time an insular
  city like Venice, has now a wide stretch of downs partly covered with
  pine forest between it and the sea. Aquileia, one of the greatest
  seaports of the Mediterranean in the early centuries of the Christian
  era, is now 7 m. from the coast, and Adria, which gives its name to
  the sea, is 13. The islands on which Venice is built have sunk about 3
  ft. since the 16th century: the pavement of the square of St Mark's
  has frequently required to be raised, and the boring of a well has
  shown that a layer of vegetable remains, indicating a flora identical
  with that observed at present on the neighbouring mainland, exists at
  a depth of 400 ft. below the alluvial deposits. A little to the south
  of Rovigno on the Istrian coast on the opposite side of the Adriatic a
  diver found at the depth of about 85 ft. the remains of a town, which
  has been identified with the island town of Cissa, of which nothing
  had been known after the year 679.[10] At Zara ancient pavements and
  mosaics are found below the sea-level, and the district at the mouth
  of the Narenta has been changed into a swamp by the advance of the
  sea. A process of elevation, on the other hand, is indicated along
  nearly all the coasts of Sicily, at the southern end of Sardinia, the
  east of Corsica, and perhaps in the neighbourhood of Nice, while the
  west coast of Italy from the latitude of Rome to the southern shores
  of the Gulf of Salerno has undergone considerable oscillations of
  level within historical times. About the time of the settlement of the
  Greeks the coast stood at least 20 ft. above the level of the present
  day. Depression began in Roman times, though then the land was still
  16 ft. higher than now. A more rapid depression began in the middle
  ages, so that the sea-level rose from 18 to 20 ft. above the present
  zero, and the coast began gradually to rise again at the close of the
  15th century.[11] Passing eastward to the Balkan peninsula, we find
  considerable changes on the coast-line of Greece; but as they are only
  repetitions on a smaller scale of the phenomena already described, it
  is sufficient to indicate the Gulf of Arta and the mouth of the
  Spercheios as two of the more important localities. The latter
  especially is interesting to the historian as well as to the
  geologist, as the river has greatly altered the physical features of
  one of the world's most famous scenes--the battlefield of Thermopylae.

  If we proceed to the Atlantic seaboard we observe, as we might expect,
  great modifications in the embouchures of the Garonne and the Loire,
  but by far the most remarkable variations of sea and land have taken
  place in the region extending from the south of Belgium in the
  neighbourhood of the Straits of Dover to the mouth of the Elbe and the
  west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Here there has been a prolonged
  struggle between man and nature, in which on the whole nature has
  hitherto had the best of the battle. While, as is well known, much
  land below sea-level in the Low Countries has been protected against
  the sea by dikes and reclaimed, and the coast-line has been, on the
  whole, advanced between the Elbe and the Eider,[12] there has been a
  great loss of land in the interior of Holland since the beginning of
  the Christian era, and on the balance a large loss of land north of
  the Eider since the first half of the 13th century.[13] In the 1st
  century A.D. the Zuider Zee appears to have been represented only by a
  comparatively small inland lake, the dimensions of which were
  increased by different inroads of the sea, the last and greatest of
  which occurred in 1395. Among the local changes of European
  significance within this area may be mentioned the silting up towards
  the end of the 15th century of the channel known as the Zwin running
  north-eastwards from Bruges, which through that cause lost its
  shipping and in the end all its former renown as a seat of commerce.

  The Baltic shores of Germany display the same phenomena of local gain
  and loss. In the western section inroads of the sea have been
  extensive: the island of Rügen would no longer serve for the
  disembarkation of an army like that of Gustavus Adolphus; Wollin and
  Usedom are growing gradually less; large stretches of the mainland are
  fringed with submerged forests; and at intervals the sites of
  well-known villages are occupied by the sea. Towards the east the
  great rivers are successfully working in the opposite direction. In
  the Gulf of Danzig the alluvial deposits of the Vistula cover an area
  of 615 sq. m.; in the 13th century the knights of Marienburg enclosed
  with dikes about 350 sq. m.; and an area of about 70 sq. m. was added
  in the course of the 14th. The Memel is silting up the Kurisches Haff,
  which, like the Frisches Haff, is separated from the open sea by a
  line of dunes comparable with those of the Landes in France. The
  so-called strand or coast-lines at various altitudes round the
  Scandinavian peninsula, though belonging for the most part to glacial
  times, speak also of relative changes of level in the post-glacial
  period.

  [Illustration: Map of Europe.]


    Volcanoes and earthquakes.

  The changes briefly indicated above take place so gradually for the
  most part that it requires careful observation and comparison of data
  to establish their reality. It is very different with those changes
  which we usually ascribe to volcanic agency. Besides the great
  outlying "hearth" of Iceland, there are four centres of volcanic
  activity in Europe--all of them, however, situated in the
  Mediterranean. Vesuvius on the western coast of Italy, Etna in the
  island of Sicily, and Stromboli in the Lipari group, have been
  familiarly known from the earliest historic times; but the fourth has
  only attracted particular attention since the 18th century. It lies in
  the Archipelago, on the southern edge of the Cyclades, near the little
  group of islets called Santorin. The region was evidently highly
  volcanic at an earlier period, for Milo, one of the nearest of the
  islands, is simply a ruined crater still presenting smoking solfataras
  and other traces of former activity. The devastations produced by the
  eruptions of the European volcanoes are usually confined within very
  narrow limits; and it is only at long intervals that any part of the
  continent is visited by a really formidable earthquake. The only part
  of Europe, however, for which there are no recorded earthquakes is
  central and northern Russia; and the Alps and Carpathians, especially
  the intra-Carpathian area of depression, Greece, Italy, especially
  Calabria and the adjoining part of Sicily, the Sierra Nevada and the
  Pyrenees, the Lisbon district and the rift valley of the upper Rhine
  (between the Vosges and the Black Forest) are all regions specially
  liable to earthquake shocks and occasionally to shocks of considerable
  intensity. One well-marked seismic line extends along the south side
  of the Alps from Lake Garda by Udine and Görz to Fiume, and another
  forms a curve convex towards the south-east passing first through
  Calabria, then through the north-east of Sicily to the south of the
  Peloritan Mountains.[14] Of all European earthquakes in modern times,
  the most destructive are that of Lisbon in 1755, and that of Calabria
  in 1783; the devastation produced by the former has become a classical
  instance of such disasters in popular literature, and by the latter
  100,000 people are said to have lost their lives. Calabria again
  suffered severely in 1865, 1870, 1894, 1905 and 1908.


    Relief.

  If the European mountains are arranged according to their greatest
  elevations, they rank as follows:--(1) the Swiss Alps, with their
  highest peaks above 15,000 ft.; (2) the Sierra Nevada, the Pyrenees,
  and Etna, about 11,000 ft.; (3) the Apennines, the Corsican Mountains,
  the Carpathians, the Balkans, and the Despoto Dagh, from 8000 to 9000;
  (4) the Guadarrama, the Scandinavian Alps, the Dinaric Alps, the Greek
  Mountains, and the Cevennes, between 6000 and 8000; (5) the mountains
  of Auvergne, the Jura, the Riesengebirge, the mountains of Sardinia,
  Majorca, Minorca, and the Crimea, the Black Forest, the Vosges, and
  the Scottish Highlands, from 4000 to 6000.

  The following estimates are based on those contained in the fifth
  edition, by Dr Hermann Wagner, of Guthe's _Lehrbuch der Geographie_.
  In the original the figures are given in German sq. m. and in sq.
  kilometres in round numbers, and the equivalents here given in English
  sq. m. are similarly treated:--

                                                     Sq. m.
    The great European plain in its widest sense  2,660,000
    The same exclusive of inland seas             2,300,000
    The same exclusive of the Scandinavian and
      British lowlands                            2,125,000
    All other European lowlands                     385,000
      _The Hungarian plain_                          38,000
      _The Po plain_                                 21,000
    The Scandinavian highlands                      190,000
    The Ural Mountains                              127,000
    The Alps                                         85,000
    The Carpathians                                  72,000
    The Apennines                                    42,500
    The Pyrenees                                     21,500

  Several estimates have been made of the average elevation of the
  continent, but it is enough to give here the main results. In the
  following list, where a conversion from metres into feet has been
  necessary, the nearest multiple of 5 ft. has been given:--Humboldt,
  675 ft.; Leipoldt,[15] 975 ft.; De Lapparent,[16] 960 ft.; Murray,[17]
  939 ft.; Supan,[18] 950 ft.; von Tillo,[19] 1040 ft.; Heiderich,[20]
  1230 ft.; Penck,[21] 1085 ft. The exceptionally high estimate of
  Heiderich is due to the fact that by him Transcaucasia and the islands
  of Novaya Zemlya, Spitsbergen and Iceland are reckoned as included in
  Europe.


    Arrangement of the highlands.

  Of more geographical significance than these estimates are the facts
  with regard to the arrangement of the highlands of the continent. It
  is indeed this arrangement combined with the form of the coast-line
  which has indirectly given to Europe its individuality. Three points
  have to be noted under this head:--(1) the fact that the highlands of
  Europe are so distributed as to allow of the penetration of westerly
  winds far to the east; (2) the fact that the principal series of
  highlands has a direction from east to west, Europe in this point
  resembling Asia but differing from North America; and (3) that in
  Europe the mountain systems belonging to the series of highlands
  referred to not only have more or less well-marked breaks between
  them, but are themselves so notched by passes and cut by transverse
  valleys as to present great facilities for crossing in proportion to
  their average altitude. The first and second of these points have
  special importance with reference to the climate and will accordingly
  be considered more fully under that head. The second is also of
  importance with reference to the means of communication, to which the
  third also refers, and detailed consideration of these points in that
  relation will be reserved for that heading. Here, however, it may be
  noted that in Europe the distribution of the natural resources for the
  maintenance of the inhabitants is such that, if we leave out of
  account Russia, which is almost entirely outside of the series of
  highlands running east and west, the population north of the mountains
  is roughly about 50% greater than that south of the mountains, whereas
  in Asia the population north of the east and west highland barrier is
  utterly insignificant as compared with that to the south.

    +--------------------+-------------------------+-------------+
    |                    | Length in English Miles.|Area of Basin|
    |                    |                         | in sq. m.   |
    |   Name of River.   +------------+------------+-------------+
    |                    |Strelbitsky.|   Other    | Strelbitsky.|
    |                    |            |Authorities.|             |
    +--------------------+------------+------------+-------------+
    | Volga              |   1977[22] |  2107[23]  |  563,300    |
    | Danube             |   1644     |    ..      |  315,435    |
    | Ural               |   1446     |  1477[23]  |   96,350    |
    | Dnieper (Dnyepr)   |   1064     |  1328[23]  |  203,460    |
    | Kama               |    984     |  1115[23]  |  202,615    |
    | Don (Russia)       |    980     |  1123[23]  |  166,125    |
    | Pechora            |    915     |  1024[23]  |  127,225    |
    | Rhine              |    709     |    ..      |   63,265    |
    | Oka                |    706     |   914[23]  |   93,205    |
    | Dniester (Dnyestr) |    646     |   835[23]  |   29,675    |
    | Elbe               |    612     |    ..      |   55,340    |
    | Vistula            |    596     |   646[23]  |   73,905    |
    | Vyatka             |    596     |   680[23]  |   50,555    |
    | Tagus              |    566     |    ..      |   31,865[24]|
    | Theiss (Tisza)     |    550     |    ..      |   59,350    |
    | Loire              |    543     |    ..      |   46,755    |
    | Save               |    535     |    ..      |   37,595    |
    | Meuse              |    530     |    ..      |   12,740    |
    | Mezen              |    496     |   507[23]  |   30,410    |
    | Donets             |    487     |   613[23]  |   37,890    |
    | Douro              |    485     |    ..      |   36,705    |
    | Düna (S. Dvina)    |    470     |   576[23]  |   32,975    |
    | Ebro               |    470     |    ..      |   38,580[24]|
    | Rhone              |    447     |    ..      |   38,180    |
    | Desna              |    438     |   590[23]  |   33,535    |
    | Niemen (Nyeman)    |    437     |   537[23]  |   34,965    |
    | Drave              |    434     |    ..      |   15,745    |
    | Bug (Southern)     |    428     |   477[23]  |   26,225    |
    | Seine              |    425     |    ..      |   30,030    |
    | Oder               |    424     |    ..      |   17,150    |
    | Kuban              |    405     |   509[23]  |   21,490    |
    | Khoper             |    387     |   563[23]  |   23,120    |
    | Maros              |    390     |    ..      |   16,975    |
    | Pripet             |    378     |   404[23]  |   46,805    |
    | Guadalquivir       |    374     |    ..      |   21,580[24]|
    | Pruth (Prut[)u]    |    368     |   503[23]  |   10,330    |
    | Northern Dvina     |    358     |   447[23]  |  141,075    |
    | Weser-Werra        |    355     |    ..      |   19,925    |
    | Po                 |    354     |    ..      |   28,920[24]|
    | Garonne-Gironde    |    342     |    ..      |   32,745    |
    | Vetluga            |    328     |   464[23]  |   14,325    |
    | Pinega             |    328     |   407[23]  |   17,425    |
    | Glommen            |    326     |   352[25]  |   15,930    |
    | Bug (Western)      |    318     |   450[23]  |   22,460    |
    | Guadiana           |    316     |    ..      |   25,300[24]|
    | Aluta (Alt, Oltu)  |    308     |    ..      |    9,095    |
    | Mosel              |    300     |    ..      |   10,950    |
    | Main               |    300     |    ..      |   10,600    |
    | Maritsa            |    272     |    ..      |   20,790    |
    | Jucar              |    270     |    ..      |    7,620[24]|
    | Mologa             |    268     |   338[23]  |   15,005    |
    | Tornea             |    268     |    ..      |   13,045    |
    | Inn                |    268     |    ..      |    9,825    |
    | Saône              |    268     |    ..      |    8,295    |
    | Moldau             |    255     |   267[25]  |   10,860    |
    | Moksha             |    249     |   371[23]  |   19,090    |
    | Ljusna             |    243     |    ..      |    7,700    |
    | Mur                |    242     |    ..      |    5,200    |
    | Morava, Servian    |    235     |    ..      |   15,715    |
    | Klar               |    224     |    ..      |    4,520    |
    | Voronezh           |    218     |   305[23]  |    7,760    |
    | Berezina           |    218     |   285[23]  |    9,295    |
    | Saale              |    215     |    ..      |    8,970    |
    | Onega              |    212     |   245[23]  |   22,910    |
    | Vág (Waag)         |    212     |    ..      |    6,245    |
    | Dema               |    209     |   275[23]  |    4,830    |
    | San                |    203     |   444[23]  |    6,135    |
    | Moskva             |    189     |   305[23]  |    5,910    |
    | Western Manych     |    176     |   295[23]  |   37,820    |
    | Klyazma            |    159     |   394[23]  |   15,200    |
    +--------------------+------------+------------+-------------+

  From the table given on p. 909 (col. 1) it will be seen that the most
  extensive of the highland areas of Europe is that of Scandinavia,
  which has a general trend from south-south-west to north-north-east,
  and is completely detached by seas and plains from the highland area
  to the south. There are other completely detached highland areas in
  Iceland, the British Isles, the Ural Mountains, the small Yaila range
  in the south of the Crimea, and the Mediterranean islands. The
  connected series of highlands is that which extends from the Iberian
  peninsula to the Black Sea stretching in the middle of Germany
  northwards to about 52° N. In the Iberian peninsula we have the most
  marked example of the tableland form in Europe, and these tablelands
  are bounded on the north by the Cantabrian Mountains, which descend to
  the sea, and the Pyrenees, which, except at their extremities, cut off
  the Iberian peninsula from the adjoining country more extensively than
  any other chain in the continent. Between the foot-hills of the
  Pyrenees, however, and those of the central plateau of France the
  ground sinks in the Passage of Naurouse or Gap of Carcassonne to a
  well-marked gap establishing easy communication between the valley of
  the Garonne and the lower part of that of the Rhone. The highlands in
  the north spread northwards and then north-eastwards till they join
  the Vosges, but sink in elevation towards the north-east so as to
  allow of several easy crossings. East of the Vosges the Rhine valley
  forms an important trough running north and south through the
  highlands of western Germany. To the south of the Vosges again
  undulating country of less than 1500 ft. in elevation, the well-known
  Burgundy Gate or Gap of Belfort, constitutes a well-marked break
  between those mountains and the Jura, and establishes easy
  communication between the Rhine and the Saône-Rhone valleys. The
  latter valley divides in the clearest manner the highlands of central
  France from both the Alps and the Jura, while between these last two
  systems there lies the wedge of the Swiss midlands contracting
  south-westwards to a narrow but important gap at the outlet of the
  Lake of Geneva. Between the Alps and the mountains of the Italian and
  Balkan peninsulas the orographical lines of demarcation are less
  distinct, but on the north the valley of the Danube mostly forms a
  wide separation between the Alps and the mountains of the Balkan
  peninsula on the south and the highlands of Bohemia and Moravia, the
  Carpathians and the Transylvanian Alps on the north. The valleys of
  the Eger and the Elbe form distinct breaks in the environment of
  Bohemia, and the Sudetes on the north-east of Bohemia and Moravia are
  even more clearly divided from the Carpathians by the valley of the
  upper Oder, the Moravian Gate, as it is called, which forms the
  natural line of communication between the south-east of Prussia and
  Vienna.


    Rivers.

  An estimate has been made by Strelbitsky of the length and of the area
  of the basins of all the principal rivers of Europe. In the table on
  p. 909 all the estimates given without any special authority are based
  on Strelbitsky's figures, but it should be mentioned that the
  estimates of length made by him evidently do not take into account
  minor windings, and are therefore generally less than those given by
  others. The authorities are separately cited for the originals of all
  other figures given in the table.[26]

  The observations on the temperature of European rivers have been
  collected and discussed by Dr Adolf E. Forster.[27] He finds that the
  dominant factor in determining that temperature is the temperature of
  the air above, but that rivers are divisible into four groups with
  respect to the relation between these temperatures at different
  seasons of the year. These groups are rivers flowing from glaciers, in
  which the temperature is warmer than the air in winter, colder in
  summer; rivers flowing from lakes, characterized by peculiarly high
  winter temperatures, in consequence of which the mean temperature for
  the year is always above that of the air; rivers flowing from springs,
  which, at least near their source, are more rapidly cooled by low than
  warmed by high air temperatures; and rivers of the plains, which have
  a higher mean temperature than the air in all months of the year.

  In various parts of Europe, more particularly in calcareous regions,
  such as the Jura, the Causses in the south-east of France, and the
  Karst in the north-west of the Balkan peninsula, there are numerous
  subterranean or partly subterranean rivers. Several of the more
  important rivers are of very irregular flow, and some are subject to
  really formidable floods. This is particularly the case with rivers a
  large part of whose basin is made up of crystalline or other
  impervious rocks with steep slopes, like those of the Loire in France
  and the Ebro in Spain. The Danube and its tributaries, the great
  rivers of Germany, above all eastern Germany, and those of Italy, are
  also notorious for their inundations. In southern Europe, where the
  summers are nearly rainless, most of the rivers disappear altogether
  in that season.

    +--------------------------------+--------+---------+----------+-------+-----------+
    |                                | Height |         |          |       |  Volume.  |
    |    Name of Lake and Country.   | above  |  Area.  | Greatest | Mean  | Millions  |
    |                                |  Sea.  |         |  Depth.  | Depth.|of Cub. Ft.|
    |--------------------------------+--------+---------+----------+-------+-----------+                              |
    |                                |   Ft.  | Sq. m.  |    Ft.   |  Ft.  |           |
    | Ladoga, Russia                 |    15  |  7004   |    730   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Onega,    "                    |   115  |  3765   |About 1200|  ..   |    ..     |
    | Vener, Sweden                  |   145  |  2149   |    280   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Chudskoye or Peipus, Russia    |   100  | 1357[28]|     90   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Vetter, Sweden                 |   290  |   733   |    415   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Saima, Russia                  |   255  |   680   |    185   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Päjäne,  "                     |   255  |   608   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Enare,   "                     |   490  |   549   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Segozero,"                     |   481  |   140   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Mälar, Sweden                  |   1.6  |   449   |    170   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Byelo-Ozero, Russia            |   400  |   434   |     35   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Pielis, Russia                 |   305  |   422   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Topozero, Russia               |   ..   |   411   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Uleå,       "                  |   375  |   380   |     60   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Ilmen,      "                  |   107  |   358   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Vigozero,   "                  |   ..   |   332   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Imandra,    "                  |   ..   |   329   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Balaton, Hungary               |   350  |   266   |     13   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Geneva, France and Switzerland |  1220  |   225   |   1015   |  500  | 3,140,000 |
    | Kovdozero, Russia              |   ..   |   225   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Constance, Germany and         |        |         |          |       |           |
    |  Switzerland                   |  1295  |   208   |    825   |  295  | 1,711,000 |
    | Hjelmar, Sweden                |    79  |   187   |     60   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Neagh, Ireland                 |    48  |   153   |    113   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Kubinskoye, Russia             |   ..   |   152   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Mjösen, Norway                 |   395  |   152   |   1485   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Garda, Italy and Austria       |   215  |   143   |   1135   |  445  | 1,757,000 |
    | Torne-träsk, Sweden            |  1140  |   139   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Neusiedler-see, Hungary        |   370  |   137   |     13   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Scutari, Turkey                |    20  |About 130|     33   |  12½  |    45,900 |
    | Siljan, Sweden                 |   ..   |   123   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Virzjärvi, Russia              |   115  |   107   |     24   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Seliger,     "                 |   825  |   100   |    105   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Stor Afvan, Sweden             |  1370  |    92   |    925   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Yalpukh, Russia                |   ..   |    89   |    ..    |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Neuchâtel, Switzerland         |  1415  |    85   |    500   |  210  |   500,000 |
    | Ylikitkakärvi, Russia          |   680  |    85   |     30   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Maggiore, Italy and Switzerland|   645  |    82   |   1220   |  575  | 1,316,000 |
    | Corrib, Ireland                |    30  |    71   |    152   |  ..   |    ..     |
    | Como, Italy                    |   655  |    56   |   1360   |  ..   |    ..     |
    +--------------------------------+--------+---------+----------+-------+-----------+


    Lakes and marshes.

  For many European lakes, especially the smaller ones, estimates have
  been made of the mean depth and the volume. A list of all the European
  lakes for which the altitude, extent, and greatest depth could be
  ascertained, compiled by Dr K. Peucker, is published in the _Geog.
  Zeitschrift_ (1896), pp. 606-616, where estimates of the mean depth
  and the volume are also given where procurable. The table given above,
  comprising only the larger lakes, is mainly based on this list, where
  the original authorities are mentioned. The figures entered in the
  table not taken from this list are after Strelbitsky, the _Géog.
  Universelle_ of V. de St Martin, or, in the case of Swedish lakes,
  from the official handbook of Sweden.[29]

  The Alpine lakes break up into a southern and northern
  subdivision--the former consisting of the Lago Maggiore, and the lakes
  of Lugano and Como, Lago d'Iseo, and Lago di Garda, all connected by
  affluents with the system of the Po; and the latter the Lake of Geneva
  threaded by the Rhone, Lakes Constance, Zürich, Neuchâtel, Biel and
  other Swiss lakes belonging to the basin of the Rhine, and a few of
  minor importance belonging to the Danube. The north Russian lakes,
  Ladoga, Onega, &c., are mainly noticeable as the largest members of
  what in some respects is the most remarkable system of lakes in the
  continent--the Finno-Russian, which consists of an almost countless
  number of comparatively small irregular basins formed in the surface
  of a granitic plateau. In Finland proper they occupy no less than a
  twelfth of the total area.

  A few of the number are very shallow. The Neusiedler See, for example
  (the Peiso Lacus of the Latins and Fertö-tava of the Hungarians),
  completely dried up in 1693, 1738 and 1864, and left its bed covered
  for the most part with a deposit of salt.[30] Lakes Copais in Boeotia
  and Fucino Celano in Italy have been entirely turned into dry land.
  The progress of agriculture has greatly diminished the extent of marsh
  land in Europe. The Minsk marshes in Russia form the largest area of
  this character still left, and on these large encroachments are
  gradually being made. Extensive marshes in northern Italy have been
  completely drained. The partial draining of the Pomptine marshes in
  Italy made Pope Pius VII. famous in the 18th century, and further
  reclamation works are still in progress there and elsewhere in the
  same country.     (G. G. C.)


    Geology.

  The geological history of Europe[31] is, to a large extent, a history
  of the formation and destruction of successive mountain chains. Four
  times a great mountain range has been raised across the area which now
  is Europe. Three times the mountain range has given way; portions have
  sunk beneath the sea, and have been covered by more recent sediments,
  while other portions remained standing and now rise as isolated blocks
  above the later beds which surround them. The last of the mountain
  ranges still stands, and is known under the names of the Alps, the
  Carpathians, the Balkans, the Caucasus, &c., but the work of
  destruction has already begun, and gaps have been formed by the
  collapse of parts of the chain. The Carpathians were once continuous
  with the Alps, and the Caucasus was probably connected with the
  Balkans across the site of the Black Sea.

  These mountain chains were not raised by direct uplift. They consist
  of crumpled and folded strata, and are, in fact, wrinkles in the
  earth's outer crust, formed by lateral compression, like the puckers
  which appear in a tablecloth when we push it forward against a book or
  other heavy object lying upon it. How the lateral or tangential
  pressures originated is still matter of controversy, but the usually
  accepted explanation is as follows. The interior of the earth in
  cooling contracts more rapidly than the exterior, and, if no other
  change took place, the outer crust would be left as a hollow sphere
  without any internal support. But the materials of which it is
  composed are not strong enough to bear its enormous weight, and, like
  an arch which is too weak in its abutments, it collapses upon the
  interior core. Where the crust is rigid it fractures, as an ordinary
  arch would fracture; and some portions fall inward, while other parts
  may even be wedged a little outward. Where, on the other hand, the
  crust is made of softer rock, it crumples and folds, and a mountain
  chain is produced. Such a mountain chain, for want of a better term,
  is called a folded mountain chain. The folding is most intense where a
  flexible portion of the crust lies next to a more rigid part. Where
  the folding has occurred, the rocks which were once comparatively soft
  become hard and rigid, and the next series of wrinkles will usually be
  formed beyond the limits of the old one. This is what has happened in
  the European area.

  The oldest mountain chain lay in the extreme north-west of Europe, and
  its relics are seen in the outer Hebrides, the Lofoten Islands and the
  north of Norway. The rocks of this ancient chain have since been
  converted into gneiss, and they were folded and denuded before the
  deposition of the oldest known fossiliferous sediments. The mountain
  system must therefore have been formed in Pre-Cambrian times, and it
  has been called by Marcel Bertrand the Huronian chain. It is probable
  that a great land-mass lay towards the north-west; but in the sea
  which certainly existed south-east of the chain, the Cambrian,
  Ordovician and Silurian beds were deposited. In Russia and South
  Sweden these beds still lie flat and undisturbed; but in Norway,
  Scotland, the Lake District, North Wales and the north of Ireland they
  were crushed against the north-western continent and were not only
  intensely folded but were pushed forward over the old rocks of the
  Huronian chain. Thus was formed the Caledonian mountain system of Ed.
  Suess, in which the folds run from south-west to north-east. It was
  raised at the close of the Silurian period.

  Then followed, in northern Europe, a continental period. By the
  elevation of the Caledonian chain the northern land-mass had grown
  southward and now extended as far as the Bristol Channel. Upon it the
  Old Red Sandstone was laid down in inland seas or lakes, while farther
  south contemporaneous deposits were formed in the open sea.

  During the earlier part of the Carboniferous period the sea spread
  over the southern shores of the northern continent; but later the
  whole area again became land and the Coal Measures of northern Europe
  were laid down. Towards the close of the Carboniferous period the
  third great mountain chain was formed. It lay to the south of the
  Caledonian chain, and its northern margin stretched from the south of
  Ireland through South Wales, the north of France and the south of
  Belgium, and was continued round the Harz and the ancient rocks of
  Bohemia, and possibly into the south of Russia. It is along this
  northern margin, where the folded beds have been thrust over the rocks
  which lay to the north, that the coalfields of Dover and of Belgium
  occur. The general direction of the folds is approximately from west
  to east; but the chain consisted of two arcs, the western of which is
  called by Suess the Armorican chain and the eastern the Variscian. The
  two arcs together, which were undoubtedly formed at the same period,
  have been named by Bertrand the Hercynian chain. Everywhere the chief
  folding seems to have occurred before the deposition of the highest
  beds of the Upper Carboniferous, which lie unconformably upon the
  folded older beds. The Hercynian chain appears to have been of
  considerable breadth, at least in western Europe, for the Palaeozoic
  rocks of Spain and Portugal are thrown into folds which have the same
  general direction and which were formed at approximately the same
  period. In eastern Europe the evidence is less complete, because the
  Hercynian folds are buried beneath more recent deposits and have in
  some cases been masked by the superposition of a later series of
  folds.

  The formation of this Carboniferous range was followed in northern
  Europe by a second continental period somewhat similar to that of the
  Old Red Sandstone, but the continent extended still farther to the
  south. The Permian and Triassic deposits of England and Germany were
  laid down in inland seas or upon the surface of the land itself. But
  southern Europe was covered by the open sea, and here, accordingly,
  the contemporaneous deposits were marine.

  The Jurassic and Cretaceous periods were free from any violent folding
  or mountain building, and the sea again spread over a large part of
  the northern continent. There were indeed several oscillations, but in
  general the greater part of southern and central Europe lay beneath
  the waters of the ocean. Some of the fragments of the Hercynian chain
  still rose as islands above the waves, and at certain periods there
  seems to have been a more or less complete barrier between the waters
  which covered northern Europe and those which lay over the
  Mediterranean region. Thus, while the estuarine deposits of the Upper
  Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous were laid down in England and Germany,
  the purely marine Tithonian formation, with its peculiar fauna, was
  deposited in the south; and while the Chalk was formed in northern
  Europe, the Hippurite limestone was laid down in the south.

  The Tertiary period saw fundamental changes in the geography of
  Europe. The formation of the great mountain ranges of the south, the
  Alpine system of Suess, perhaps began at an earlier date, but it was
  in the Eocene and Miocene periods that the chief part of the elevation
  took place. Arms of the sea extended up the valley of the Rhone and
  around the northern margin of the Alps, and also spread over the
  plains of Hungary and of southern Russia. Towards the middle of the
  Miocene period some of these arms were completely cut off from the
  ocean and large deposits of salt were formed, as at Wieliczka. At a
  later period south-eastern Europe was covered by a series of extensive
  lagoons, and the waters of these lagoons gradually became brackish,
  and then fresh, before the area was finally converted into dry land.
  Great changes also took place in the Mediterranean region. The Black
  Sea, the Aegean, the Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian Sea were all formed
  at various times during the Tertiary period, and the depression of
  these areas seems to be closely connected with the elevation of the
  neighbouring mountain chains.

  Exactly what was happening in northern Europe during these great
  changes in the south it is not easy to say. The basaltic flows of the
  north of Ireland, the western islands of Scotland, the Faeroe Islands
  and Iceland are mere fragments of former extensive plateaus. No sign
  of marine Tertiary deposits of earlier age than Pliocene has been
  found in this northern part of Europe, and on the other hand plant
  remains are abundant in the sands and clays interbedded with the
  basalts. It is probable, therefore, that in Eocene times a great
  land-mass lay to the north-west of Europe, over which the basalt lavas
  flowed, and that the formation of this part of the Atlantic and
  perhaps of the North Sea did not take place until the Miocene period.

  At a later date the climate, for some reason which has not yet been
  fully explained, grew colder over the whole of Europe, and the
  northern part was covered by a great ice-sheet which extended
  southward nearly as far as lat. 50° N., and has left its marks over
  the whole of the northern part of the continent. With the final
  melting and disappearance of the ice-sheet, the topography of Europe
  assumed nearly its present form, and man came upon the scene. Minor
  changes, such as the separation of Great Britain from the continent,
  may have occurred at a later date; but since the Glacial period there
  have, apparently, been no fundamental modifications in the
  configuration of Europe.

  The elevation of each of the great mountain systems already described
  was accompanied by extensive eruptions of volcanic rocks, and the
  sequence appears to have been similar in every case. The volcanoes of
  the Mediterranean are the last survivors of the great eruptions which
  accompanied the elevation of the Alpine mountain system.     (P. La.)


    Winds.

  In western Europe by far the most prevalent wind is the S.W. or W.S.W.
  It represents 25% of the annual total; while the N. is only 6%, the
  N.E. 8, the E. 9, the S. 13, the W. 17 and the N.W. 11. Of the summer
  total it represents 22%, while the N. is 9, N.E. 8, E. 7, S.E. 7, W.
  21 and N.W. 17. In south-eastern Europe, on the other hand, the
  prevailing winds are from the N. and E.--the E. having the
  preponderance in winter and autumn.[32] Of local winds the most
  remarkable are the föhn, in the Alps, distinguished for its warmth and
  dryness; the Rotenturm wind of Transylvania, which has similar
  characteristics; the bora of the Upper Adriatic, so noticeable for its
  violence; the mistral of southern France; the etesian winds of the
  Mediterranean; and the sirocco, which proves so destructive to the
  southern vegetation. Though it is only at comparatively rare intervals
  that the winds attain the development of a hurricane, the destruction
  of life and property which they occasion, both by sea and land, is in
  the aggregate of no small moment. About six or seven storms from the
  west pass over the continent every winter, usually appearing later in
  the southern districts, such as Switzerland or the Adriatic, than in
  the northern districts, as Scotland and Denmark.


    Climate.

  The great determining factors of the climate of Europe are these. The
  northern borders of the continent are within the Arctic Circle; the
  most southern points of the mainland are 13½° or more north of the
  Tropic of Cancer; to the east extends for about 3000 m. the continuous
  land surface of Asia; to the west lie the waters of the north
  Atlantic, which penetrate in great inland seas to the north and south
  of the great European peninsula; the prevailing winds in western
  Europe as already stated are more or less south-westerly; and the
  arrangement of the highlands is such as to allow of the penetration of
  winds with a westerly element in their direction far to the east. The
  first two of these factors are not distinguishing influences. They
  affect the climate of Europe in the same manner as they do that of any
  other land surface in the same latitudes.

  The remaining factors, however, are of the highest importance. It is
  to them in fact that Europe owes in a very large measure those
  physical conditions which are the basis of its recognition as a
  separate continent. In estimating the value of those factors one must
  bear in mind, first, that the waters of the north Atlantic are
  exceptionally warm, especially on the European side of the ocean. The
  Gulf Stream carries a large body of warm water northwards to near the
  parallel of 40° N., and to the north of the Gulf Stream prevailing
  south-westerly winds, especially during the winter months, drift
  onwards to the western and northern shores of Europe, even as far east
  as Spitsbergen, large bodies of water of an exceptionally high
  temperature. Secondly, one must bear in mind that these relatively
  high temperatures over the ocean promote evaporation and thus favour
  the presence of a relatively large amount of water-vapour in the air
  over those parts of the ocean which adjoin the continent; and,
  thirdly, that, as the winds are the sole means of carrying
  water-vapour from one part of the earth's surface to the other, and
  the sole means of carrying heat and cold from the ocean to the land,
  the prevailing south-westerly winds are allowed by the superficial
  configuration to bring a relatively high rainfall and a relatively
  large amount of heat in winter to land farther in the interior than in
  any corresponding latitudes. During the summer the winds referred to
  have a cooling effect, but not to the same degree as those of winter
  tend to raise the temperature. From the point of view just indicated
  the only part of the world that is fairly comparable with Europe is
  the west of North America; but, as there the outline and superficial
  configuration are quite different, the oceanic influences affect only
  a narrow strip of seaboard and not any extent of land which could be
  regarded as of continental rank. It is owing to these influences that
  in the greater part of Europe there is a more or less continuous
  population dependent on agriculture. On the east side of Europe,
  again, the existence of the continent of Asia has a marked effect on
  the climate which also aids in giving to Europe its individual
  character. It is owing to that circumstance that the south-east of the
  continent, which has temperatures as favourable to agriculture as the
  corresponding latitudes of eastern Asia or eastern North America, is
  without the copious rains which make those temperatures so valuable,
  and hence forms part of the desert that divides the populations of
  Europe and Asia.


    Precipitation.

  On the local distribution of rainfall and temperature, the physical
  configuration of the continent has very marked effects. Here as
  elsewhere there is a striking difference both in the amount of
  rainfall and the temperature on the weather and lee sides of mountains
  and even low hills. But with reference to this it should not be
  forgotten that water-vapour, heat and cold may be carried farther into
  the land by winds blowing in a different direction from that of those
  by which they were introduced from the ocean, and, with reference to
  rainfall, that the condensation of water-vapour may be brought out by
  different winds from those by which the water-vapour was brought to
  the area in which it is condensed. Water-vapour that may have been
  introduced by a south-westerly wind may be driven against a mountain
  side by a northerly or easterly wind, and thus cause rain on the
  northern or eastern side of the mountain. Still, any rainfall map of
  Europe indicates clearly enough the origin of the water-vapour to
  which the rainfall is due. Such a map, taking into account the results
  of more detailed investigations of different parts of the continent,
  is that of Joseph Reger.[33] This map shows the rainfall or rather
  total precipitation in seven tints at intervals of 250 mm. (about 10
  in.) up to 1000 mm., and beyond that at intervals of 500 mm. up to
  2000 mm. In some parts of the continent the limits of a rainfall of
  200 mm. and 600 mm. are also shown. The picture there given is too
  complicated for brief description except by saying quite generally
  that it shows on the whole a diminution in the total amount of
  precipitation from west to east, and that the heaviest precipitation
  is indicated on the west or south and most exposed sides of mountains.
  The areas of scantiest rainfall lie to the north and north-west of the
  Caspian Sea and in the interior of the Kola Peninsula, north-west of
  the White Sea. The Stye in the English Lake District, some 2 m. from
  and 650 ft. higher than Seathwaite, has long been reputed to be the
  station recording the heaviest rainfall in Europe, but it has been
  shown to have a rival in Crkvice, a station immediately to the north
  of the Bocche di Cattaro on the Dalmatian coast. In the period
  1881-1890 the average rainfall at the Stye amounted to 177 in., in
  1891-1900 that at Crkvice amounted to about 179 in.[34]


    Snowfall.

  The amount of the snowfall as distinguished from the rest of the
  precipitation is now coming to be recognized as an important
  climatological element. So far, however, the only European country in
  which a record of the snowfall is kept is Russia, but it may be
  pointed out that the scantiness of the winter precipitation and
  accordingly of snow in the south-east of Europe almost entirely
  prevents the cultivation of winter wheat, which is thus left without
  the protective blanket enjoyed in some other parts of the world with
  cold winters.


    Seasonal distribution of rainfall.

  The important subject of the seasonal distribution of the rainfall of
  Europe has received attention from Drs A.J. Herbertson, Köppen and
  Supan, and Mr A. Angot. The rainfall of each month in Europe as in the
  other continents is shown by Dr A.J. Herbertson in _The Distribution
  of Rainfall over the Land_.[35] On plate 19 of the _Atlas of
  Meteorology_, by J.G. Bartholomew and A.J. Herbertson, Dr Köppen has
  furnished maps showing the months of maximum rainfall and the seasons
  of maximum and minimum rain frequency in different parts of Europe. Mr
  A. Angot's work on the subject is published in two papers in the
  _Annales du bureau central météor. de France_, a series of memoirs in
  which the rainfall observations of Europe for the thirty years
  1861-1890 are recorded and discussed. The first paper (1893, B, pp.
  157-194) deals with the Iberian Peninsula, the second (1895, B, pp.
  155-192) with western Europe (from about 43° to 58° N. and as far east
  as about 19° to 21° E.). Both papers are accompanied by maps showing
  by six tints the mean rainfall for each month as well as for the
  entire year; and that on western Europe, by maps extending in the west
  as far south as Avila, the proportion of the rainfall occurring during
  the winter, spring, autumn and summer months respectively. But the
  most instructive maps on the subject embracing the whole of Europe are
  four maps prepared by Dr Supan[36] to show the percentage of the total
  rainfall of the year occurring in spring, summer, autumn and winter
  respectively. From the maps it appears that all the southern and
  western coasts of Europe have a high proportion of rain in autumn, and
  that this is true also of the whole of the Italian peninsula and the
  islands of the western half of the Mediterranean, of all the
  south-west of the Balkan peninsula, including the Peloponnesus, of the
  Saône-Rhone valley and both sides of the Gulf of Bothnia, and that a
  high winter rainfall is characteristic of Iceland, the extreme western
  coasts of Scotland, Ireland, France and the Iberian peninsula, as well
  as of the greater part of the Mediterranean region, but more
  particularly the south-east, while in this region, and, again more
  particularly in the south-east, there is a great scarcity of summer
  rains, which, on the other hand, form the highest percentage in the
  interior and eastern parts of the continent. If the year be divided
  into a winter and summer half, the area with a predominance of summer
  rains begins in the east of Great Britain and extends eastwards,
  while the Mediterranean region generally is one of rainy winters and
  relatively dry summers. The consequence is that with similar
  conditions of soil and superficial configuration the Mediterranean
  region is agriculturally much less productive, except where there are
  means of irrigation, than the corresponding latitudes in the east of
  Asia and the east of North America, where there are corresponding
  summer temperatures but an opposite seasonal distribution of rainfall.


    Sunshine.

  In connexion with the seasonal distribution of rainfall may be noticed
  the prevalence of sunshine and cloud. The map accompanying König's
  paper on the duration of sunshine[37] shows on the whole, outside of
  the Mediterranean peninsulas, an increase from north-west to
  south-east (Orkney Islands, 1145 hours = 26% of the total possible;
  Sulina, 2411 hours = 55%). In the Mediterranean peninsulas the
  duration is everywhere great--greatest, so far as the records go, at
  Madrid, 2908 hours = 66%. Dr P. Elfert's[38] map illustrating
  cloud-distribution in central Europe embraces the region from Denmark
  to the basin of the Arno, and from the confluence of the Loire and
  Allier to the mouths of the Danube.


    Temperature.

  The temperature of the continent has been illustrated by Dr Supan in
  an interesting series of maps based on actual observations not reduced
  to sea-level, and showing the duration in months of the periods within
  which the mean daily temperature lies within certain ranges (at or
  below 32° F.; 50°-68° F.; above 68° F.).[39] The first of these maps
  strikingly illustrates the effect on temperature of the strong
  westerly winds of winter, and, in the south, that of winds from the
  Mediterranean Sea as well as the protection afforded to the
  Mediterranean countries against cold winds from the north by the
  barrier of mountains. South of the parallel of 60° there is no lowland
  area in the west of Europe where the average daily temperature is at
  or below the freezing point for as much as one month, and in the
  Mediterranean region only the higher parts of the mountains besides
  the northern part of the Balkan Peninsula are characterized by such
  prolonged frosts. On the other hand, on the parallel of 50° N. the
  duration of such low temperatures increases at first rapidly,
  afterwards more gradually, from west to east. The second map
  illustrating the duration of average daily temperatures between 50°
  and 68° F., that is, the temperatures favourable to the ordinary
  vegetation of the temperate zone, shows that the duration of such
  temperatures increases on the whole from south to north, and that by
  far the greater part of the continent south of 53° N. has at least six
  months within those limits, and south of 58° N. at least five months.
  The third of the maps shows that the high temperatures which it
  illustrates are prolonged for a month or more throughout the
  Mediterranean region, but outside of that region hardly anywhere
  except in the south-western plains of France, the Rhone valley and a
  large area in the south-east of Russia. Without doubt an important
  cause of the prolonged duration of high temperatures in this last area
  is the relatively long duration of sunshine already mentioned as shown
  by König's map to be characteristic of south-eastern Europe.

  Mention should here be made also of Brückner's remarkable treatise on
  the variations of climate in time. Though it deals with such
  variations over the entire land-surface of the globe, a large
  proportion of the data are derived from Europe, for which continent,
  accordingly, it furnishes a great number of particulars with regard to
  secular variations in temperature, rainfall, the date of the vintage,
  the frequency of cold winters, the level of rivers and lakes, the
  duration of the ice-free period of rivers (in this case all Russian),
  and other matters. Those relating to the date of the vintage are of
  peculiar interest. They apply to 29 stations in France, south-west
  Germany and Switzerland, and for one station (Dijon) go back with few
  breaks to the year 1391; and as the variations of climate of which
  they give an indication correspond precisely to the indications
  derived from temperature and rainfall in those periods in which we
  have corresponding data for these meteorological elements, they may be
  taken as warranting conclusions with regard to these points even for
  periods for which direct data are wanting. A period of early vintages
  corresponds to one of comparatively scanty rains and high
  temperatures. It is accordingly interesting to note that the data
  referred to indicate, on the whole, for Dijon an earlier vintage for
  the average of all periods of five years down to 1435 than for the
  average of the periods of the same length from 1816-1880; but that the
  figures generally show no regular retardation from period to period,
  but more or less regular oscillations, differing in their higher and
  lower limits in different periods of long duration.


    Cultivated plants.

  Much light has been thrown on the present state of agriculture in
  Europe by the publication of Engelbrecht's _Landbauzonen der
  aussertropischen Länder_.[40] Of the two chief bread-plants of Europe,
  wheat and rye, wheat is cultivated as far north as about 69° N. both
  in Norway and Finland, but the limit of the area in which more wheat
  is cultivated than rye to the west and south, more rye than wheat to
  the east and north, runs parallel to the west coast of the Netherlands
  and Belgium, then strikes south-eastwards so as to include nearly all
  Germany except Alsace-Lorraine and the south-west of Württemberg, also
  eastern Switzerland, nearly all the Alpine provinces of Austria and
  nearly the whole region north of the Carpathians, as well as the
  greater part of Bohemia within the area in which rye predominates,
  while in Russia the limit runs east-north-east from about 44° N. in
  the west to about 55° N. in the Urals. On one side of this line wheat
  makes up more than 80% of the entire grain area[41] in western
  Rumania, in Italy and a large part of the south-west of France, and
  from 40% to 60% in the south-east of England. Spelt is cultivated in
  the south-west of Germany, Belgium and northern Switzerland, on the
  middle Volga and in Dalmatia and Servia. Rye covers more than 50% of
  the grain area in the east of Holland and Belgium, in the north-west
  of Germany, in central and eastern Germany and in middle Russia. Oats
  are more cultivated than all varieties of wheat in Ireland, in the
  west and the northern half of Great Britain, in Finland and in the
  greater part of Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein. Barley is more largely
  cultivated than oats both in the extreme north and the south of the
  continent. Maize is cultivated to a great extent in the north-west of
  the Iberian Peninsula, in the south-west of France, in northern Italy
  and in the lands bordering the lower Danube; in many parts covering an
  area equal to or greater than that occupied by all grain crops.
  Millets (various species of panicum) are most extensively cultivated
  in the south-east of Europe. The kind of millet known as guinea-corn
  or durra (_Sorghum vulgare_ Pers.), so extensively cultivated in
  Africa and India, is grown to a small extent on the east side and in
  the interior of Istria. Buckwheat is cultivated in the west and east
  of the continent--in the west from the Pyrenees to Jutland, in the
  east throughout southern and middle Russia. The potato is very largely
  cultivated in western, northern and central Europe, but has made
  comparatively little progress in Russia. The cultivation of lentils is
  most largely pursued in the west and south-west of Germany and in the
  south and north of France. That of lupines has spread with great
  rapidity since 1840 in the dry sandy regions of eastern Germany, where
  lupines have proved as well adapted for such soils as the more widely
  cultivated sainfoin has done for dry chalky and other limestone soils.
  Sugar beet is most largely cultivated in the extreme north of France
  and the adjoining parts of Belgium and in central Germany, to a less
  but still considerable extent in south-eastern Germany, northern
  Bohemia and the south-west of Russia. Flax, like other industrial
  plants, shows a tendency to concentrate itself on specially favourable
  districts. It is most extensively grown in Russia from the vicinity of
  Riga north-eastwards, even crossing in the north-east the 70th
  parallel of latitude; but it is also an important crop in the
  north-east of Ireland, in Belgium and Holland, in Lombardy and in
  northern Tirol. Hemp is more extensively cultivated in central and
  southern Europe, above all in Russia. Teasels are grown in various
  spots in the south-east of France and in south Germany. The
  cultivation of madder is not yet extinct in Holland and Belgium, that
  of weld (_Reseda luteola_), woad (_Isatis tinctoria_) and saffron not
  yet in France.

  The vine can be grown without protection in southern Scandinavia, and
  has been known to ripen its grapes in the open air at Christiansund in
  63° 7'; but its cultivation is of no importance north of 47½° on the
  Atlantic coast, 50½° on the Rhine, and from 50° to 52° in eastern
  Germany, the limit falling rapidly southwards to the east of 17° E.
  The olive, with its double crop, is one of the principal objects of
  cultivation in Italy, Spain and Greece, and is not without its
  importance in Portugal, Turkey and southern Austria. Tobacco is grown
  to a considerable extent in many parts of western, central and
  southern Europe, for the most part under government regulation. The
  most important tobacco districts are the Rhine valley in Baden and
  Alsace, Hungary, Rumania, the banks of the Dnieper, Bosnia and the
  south-west and other parts of France. The cultivation is even carried
  on in Sweden and Great Britain, but the most northerly area in which
  it occupies as much as 0.1% of the grain area is the Danish island of
  Fyen (Funen).

  Hop-growing is hardly known in the south, but forms an important
  industry in England, Austria, Germany and Belgium. Among the exotics
  exclusively cultivated in the south are the sugar-cane, the cotton
  plant, and rice. The first, which is found in Spain and Sicily, is of
  little practical moment; the second holds a secondary position in
  Turkey and Greece; and the third is pretty extensively grown in
  special districts of Italy, more particularly in the valley of the Po.
  Even pepper is cultivated to a small extent in the extreme south of
  Spain. Of the vast number of fruit trees which flourish in different
  parts of the continent only a few can be mentioned. Their produce
  furnishes articles of export to Austria-Hungary, Germany, France,
  Belgium, Italy and Spain. In Sardinia the acorn of the _Quercus
  Ballota_ is still used as a food, and in Italy, France and Austria the
  chestnut is of very common consumption. In the Mediterranean region
  the prevailing forms--which the Germans conveniently sum together in
  the expression _Südfrüchte_, or southern fruits--are the orange, the
  citron, the almond, the pomegranate, the fig and the carob tree. The
  palm trees have a very limited range: the date palm (_Phoenix
  dactylifera_) ripens only in southern Spain with careful culture; the
  dwarf palm (_Chamaerops humilis_) forms thickets along the Spanish
  coast and in Sicily, and appears less frequently in southern Italy and
  Greece.


    Wheat and rye.

  Special interest attaches to the two main bread crops of Europe, wheat
  and rye, the average annual production of which in the different
  countries of the continent at three periods is shown in the following
  tables.

    _Average Production of Wheat in Millions of Bushels._

    +---------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    |                     | 1872-1876.[42]| 1881-1890.[43]| 1894-1903.[44]|
    +---------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    | Austria-Hungary[45] |      137      |      161      |      191      |
    | Belgium             |       22      |       18      |       15      |
    | Bulgaria[46]        |       ..      |       40      |       36      |
    | Denmark             |        4.7    |        5      |        3.6    |
    | France              |      277      |      309      |      335      |
    | Germany             |      101      |       93      |      127      |
    | Greece              |       ..      |        7      |        4      |
    | Italy               |      140      |      122      |      131      |
    | Netherlands         |        6      |        6      |        6      |
    | Norway              |        0.3    |        0.3    |        0.4    |
    | Portugal            |        9      |        8      |        8      |
    | Rumania[46]         |       ..      |       50      |       57      |
    | Russia[47]          |      275      |      242      |      325      |
    | Servia[46]          |       ..      |        8      |       11      |
    | Spain[48]           |      168      |       73      |      101      |
    | Sweden              |        3      |        3.7    |        4.5    |
    | Switzerland         |        2      |        2.6    |        5      |
    | Turkey in Europe[46]|       ..      |       38      |       18      |
    | United Kingdom      |       91      |       78      |       57      |
    +---------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

    _Average Production of Rye in Millions of Bushels in the chief
    Rye-producing Countries of Europe._[49]

    +---------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    |                     |   1872-1876.  |   1881-1890.  |   1894-1903.  |
    +---------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
    | Austria-Hungary     |      129      |      122      |      124      |
    | Belgium             |       16      |       17      |       20      |
    | Denmark             |       15      |       17      |       22      |
    | France              |       69      |       69      |       73      |
    | Germany             |      209      |      228      |      368      |
    | Netherlands         |       10      |       11      |       16      |
    | Russia[50]          |      715      |      713      |      971      |
    | Spain               |       32      |       21      |       23      |
    | Sweden              |       18      |       20      |       27      |
    +---------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

  Perhaps the most striking facts revealed by these two tables are
  these; first, that the United Kingdom is the only great wheat-growing
  country which has shown a great decline in the amount of production in
  two successive periods; and, second, that both Germany and Russia show
  a great advance under both wheat and rye between the last two periods.
  This gives interest to statistics of acreage under these two crops,
  and some data under that head are given in the adjoining tables.

    _Acreage under Rye._

    +-----------+------------+------------+
    |  Period.  |  Germany.  |   Russia   |
    |           |            |(ex-Poland).|
    +-----------+------------+------------+
    | 1881-1890 |   14.50    |     ..     |
    | 1883-1887 |    ..      |    64.6    |
    | 1899-1903 |   14.74    |    65.5    |
    +-----------+------------+------------+

  These figures show that the increased production is only in part, in
  some cases in small part, attributable to increase in area, and the
  following figures giving the average annual yield of wheat per acre
  (a) in the period preceding 1885, and (b) generally in the period of
  five years preceding 1905, shows that an improvement in yield in
  recent years has been very general.

    +--------------+-------+-------++----------------+-------+-------+
    |              |  (a)  |  (b)  ||                |  (a)  |  (b)  |
    +--------------+-------+-------++----------------+-------+-------+
    | Austria      |  15.8 |  17.3 || Italy          |  12.0 |  12.8 |
    | Hungary      |  15.5 |  17.5 || Netherlands    |  25.0 |  30.7 |
    | Belgium      |  24.5 |  34.5 || Russia         |   8.0 |   9.7 |
    | France       |  18.0 |  19.2 || Poland         |   ..  |  14.8 |
    | Germany      |  18.5 |  28.2 || United Kingdom |  29   |  29.9 |
    +--------------+-------+-------++----------------+-------+-------+


    Forests.

  When the Aryan peoples began their immigration into Europe a large
  part of the surface must have been covered with primeval forest; for
  even after long centuries of human occupation the Roman conquerors
  found vast regions where the axe had made no lasting impression. The
  account given by Julius Caesar of the Silva Hercynia is well known: it
  extended, he tells us, for sixty days' journey from Helvetia eastward,
  and it probably included what are now called the Schwarzwald, the
  Odenwald, the Spessart, the Rhön, the Thüringerwald, the Harz, the
  Fichtelgebirge, the Erzgebirge and the Riesengebirge. Since then the
  progress of population has subjected many thousands of square miles to
  the plough, and in some parts of the continent it is only where the
  ground is too sterile or too steep that the trees have been allowed to
  retain possession. Several countries, where the destruction has been
  most reckless, have been obliged to take systematic measures to
  control the exploitation and secure the replantation of exhausted
  areas. To this they have been constrained not only by lack of timber
  and fuel, but also by the prejudicial effects exerted on the climate
  and the irrigation of the country by the denudation of the high
  grounds. But even now, on the whole, Europe is well wooded, and two or
  three countries find an extensive source of wealth in the export of
  timber and other forest productions, such as turpentine, tar,
  charcoal, bark, bast and potash.

    _Acreage under Wheat._[51]

    +--------------------+--------+-------+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+--------+
    |      Period.       | United |France.|  Italy.  |Germany.|Austria.|Hungary.|   Russia   |Rumania.|
    |                    |Kingdom.|       |          |        |        |        |(ex-Poland).|        |
    +--------------------+--------+-------+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+--------+
    | Average, 1881-1885 |   2.8  |  17.2 | 11.7[52] |   4.6  |   2.6  |   6.5  |   28.9[53] |    ..  |
    |   "      1886-1890 |   2.5  |  17.3 | 10.9[52] |   4.8  |   2.8  |   7.1  |    ..      |    ..  |
    |   "      1891-1895 |   2.0  |  16.7 | 11.3[52] |   4.9  |   2.7  |   8.3  |   32.5     |   3.5  |
    |   "      1896-1900 |   2.0  |  16.9 | 11.3[52] |   4.9  |   2.6  |   8.2  |   36.9     |   3.8  |
    |   "      1901-1903 |   1.7  |  16.3 | 12.0     |   4.4  |   2.6  |   9.0  |   42.8     |   3.9  |
    +--------------------+--------+-------+----------+--------+--------+--------+------------+--------+

  The following estimates of the forest areas of European countries are
  given in G.S. Boulger's _Wood_:--

    +-----------------+-----------+--------------+
    |    Countries.   | Thousands | Per cent. of |
    |                 | of Acres. |  Total Area. |
    +-----------------+-----------+--------------+
    | Russia          |  469,500  |     34       |
    | Sweden          |   43,000  |     24       |
    | Austria-Hungary |   42,634  |     29       |
    | France          |   20,642  |     19       |
    | Spain           |   20,465  |     16.3     |
    | Germany         |   20,047  |     25.6     |
    | Norway          |   17,290  |     25       |
    | Italy           |    9,031  |     18       |
    | Turkey          |    5,958  |     14       |
    | United Kingdom  |    2,500  |      3.8     |
    | Switzerland     |    1,905  |     18.8     |
    | Greece          |    1,886  |     11.8     |
    | Portugal        |    1,107  |      5       |
    | Belgium         |    1,073  |     12       |
    | Holland         |      486  |      6       |
    | Denmark         |      364  |      4.6     |
    +-----------------+-----------+--------------+


    Domestic animals.

  Horse-breeding is a highly important industry in almost all European
  countries, and in several, as Russia, France, Hungary and Spain, the
  state gives it exceptional support. Almost every district of the
  continent has a breed of its own: Russia reckons those of the
  Bashkirs, the Kalmucks, the Don-Cossacks, the Esthonians and the
  Finlanders as among its best; France sets store by those of Flanders,
  Picardy, Normandy, Limousin and Auvergne; Germany by those of
  Hanover, Oldenburg and Mecklenburg, which indeed rank among the most
  powerful in the world; and Great Britain by those of Suffolk and
  Clydesdale. The English racers are famous throughout the world, and
  Iceland and the Shetland Islands are well known for their hardy breed
  of diminutive ponies. The ass and the mule are most abundant in the
  southern parts of the continent, more especially in Spain, Italy and
  Greece. The camel is not popularly considered a European animal; but
  it is reared in Russia in the provinces of Orenburg, Astrakhan and
  Taurid, in Turkey on the Lower Danube, and in Spain at Madrid and
  Cadiz; and it has even been introduced into Tuscany. A much more
  important beast of burden in eastern and southern Europe is the ox:
  the long lines of slow-moving wains in Rumania, for example, are not
  unlike what one would expect in Cape Colony. In western Europe it is
  mainly used for the plough or fattened for its flesh. It is estimated
  that there are about 100 distinct local varieties or breeds in Europe,
  and within the last hundred years an enormous advance has been made in
  the development and specialization of the finer types. The cows of
  Switzerland and of Guernsey may be taken as the two extremes in point
  of size, and the "Durhams" and "Devonshires" of England as examples of
  the results of human supervision and control. The Dutch breed ranks
  very high in the production of milk. The buffalo is frequent in the
  south of Europe, more especially in the countries on the Lower Danube
  and in southern Italy. Sheep are of immense economic value to most
  European countries, above all to Spain and Portugal, Great Britain,
  France, Hungary, the countries of the Balkan Peninsula, the Baltic
  provinces of Germany and the south-east of Russia. The local varieties
  are even more numerous than in the case of the horned cattle, and the
  development of remarkable breeds quite as wonderful. In all the more
  mountainous countries the goat is abundant, especially in Spain, Italy
  and Germany. The pig is distributed throughout the whole continent,
  but in no district does it take so high a place as in Servia. In the
  rearing and management of poultry France is the first country in
  Europe, and has consequently a large surplus of both fowls and eggs.
  In Pomerania, Brandenburg, West Prussia, Mecklenburg and Württemberg
  the breeding of geese has become a great source of wealth, and the
  town of Strassburg is famous all the world over for its _pâtés de foie
  gras_. Under this heading may also be mentioned the domesticated
  insects, the silkworm, the bee and the cantharis. The silkworm is most
  extensively reared in northern Italy, but also in the southern parts
  of the Rhone valley in France, and to a smaller extent in several
  other Mediterranean and southern countries. Bee-keeping is widespread.
  The cantharis is largely reared in Spain, but also in other countries
  in southern and central Europe.


    Minerals.

  The most important mineral products of Europe are coal and iron ore.
  In order of production the leading coal-producing countries have long
  been the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Belgium. Since 1897
  Russia has held the fifth place, followed by Austria-Hungary, Spain
  and Sweden. The production in other countries is insignificant.
  Besides coal, lignite is produced in great amount in Germany and
  Austria-Hungary, and to a small amount in France, Italy and a few
  other countries. Down to 1895 the United Kingdom stood first among the
  iron-ore producing countries of Europe, but since 1896 the order under
  this head has been the German Customs' Union, the United Kingdom,
  Spain, France, Russia, Sweden, Austria-Hungary and Belgium. By far the
  most important iron-ore producing district of Europe is that which
  lies on different slopes of the hills in which German Lorraine, the
  grand duchy of Luxemburg and France meet, the district producing all
  the ore of Luxemburg and the principal supplies of Germany and France.
  Another important producing district is what is known as the
  Siegerland on the confines of the Prussian provinces of the Rhine and
  Westphalia. Next in importance to these are the iron-ore deposits of
  the United Kingdom, the chief being those of the Cleveland district
  south of the Tees, and the hematite fields of Cumberland and Furness.

  With regard to the mineral production of Europe generally, perhaps the
  most notable fact to record is the relatively lower place taken by the
  United Kingdom in the production both of coal and iron. Here it is
  enough to state the main results. In the production of coal the United
  Kingdom is indeed still far ahead of all other European countries, but
  notwithstanding the fact that the British export of coal has been
  increasing much more rapidly than the production, this country has not
  been able to keep pace with Germany and Russia in the rate of increase
  of production. In 1878 the production of coal in the German empire was
  only about 34% of that of the United Kingdom, but in 1906 it had grown
  to nearly 50%. This, too, was exclusive of lignite, the production of
  which in Germany is increasing still more rapidly. It was equal to
  little more than one-fourth of the coal production in 1878, but more
  than two-fifths in 1906. The coal production of Russia (mainly
  European Russia) is still relatively small, but it is increasing more
  rapidly than that of any other European country. While in 1878 it was
  little more than 2% of that of the United Kingdom, in 1906 the
  corresponding ratio was above 8%. In the production of iron ores the
  decline in the position of the United Kingdom is much more marked. The
  production reached a maximum in 1882 (18,032,000 tons), and since then
  it has sunk in one year (1893) as low as 11,200,000 tons, while, on
  the other hand, there was a rapid increase in the production of such
  ores in the German Zollverein (including Luxemburg), France, Spain,
  Sweden and Russia, down to 1900, with a more progressive movement, in
  spite of fluctuations, in all these countries than in the United
  Kingdom in more recent years. In the total amount of production the
  United Kingdom in 1905 took the second place. While in 1878 the
  production of iron ores in the German Zollverein was little more than
  a third of that in the United Kingdom, in 1905 it exceeded that of the
  United Kingdom by nearly 60%.

  An indication of the relative importance of different European
  countries in the production of ores and metals of less aggregate value
  than coal and iron is given in the following tables[54]:--

    +--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
    |                    |    Gold.   |   Silver.  |Quicksilver |  Tin Ore.  |
    |                    |            |            |    Ore.    |            |
    +--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
    |                    |   kilos.   |   kilos.   |    m.t.    |    m.t.    |
    | Austria            |    126     |   38,940   |   91,494   |     54     |
    | German Empire      |    121     |  177,183   |     ..     |    134     |
    | Hungary            |  3,738     |   13,642   |     ..     |     ..     |
    | Italy              |    ..      |     ..     |   80,638   |     ..     |
    | Norway             |    ..      |   6,367    |     ..     |     ..     |
    | Portugal           |     29     |     ..     |     ..     |     22     |
    | Russia             |  8,202[55] |     ..     |     ?[57]  |     ..     |
    | Spain              |    ..      |     ?[56]  |   26,186   |     86     |
    | United Kingdom     |     58     |   4,614    |     ..     |   7,268[58]|
    +--------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
      Kilos = kilograms. M.t. = metric tons.

    +--------------------+-------------+------------+------------+------------+
    |                    | Copper Ore. |  Lead Ore. | Manganese  |  Zinc Ore. |
    |                    |             |            |    Ore.    |            |
    +--------------------+-------------+------------+------------+------------+
    |                    |    m.t.     |   m.t.     |    m.t.    |   m.t.     |
    | Austria            |   20,255    |  19,683    |   13,402   |  32,037    |
    | Belgium            |      ..     |     121    |      120   |   3,858    |
    | Bosnia-Herzegovina |      765    |     ..     |    7,651   |      31    |
    | France             |    2,547    |  11,795[62]|   11,189   |  53,466    |
    | German Empire      |  768,523    | 140,914    |   52,485   | 704,590    |
    | Greece             |      ..     |   ?[63]    |   10,040   |  26,258    |
    | Hungary            |    1,338    |     564    |   10,895   |     ..     |
    | Italy              |  147,135    |  40,945    |    3,060   | 155,821    |
    | Norway             |   32,203    | (see zinc) |      ..    |   3,308[66]|
    | Portugal           |  352,689[59]|     511    |       22   |   1,267    |
    | Russia             |     ?[60]   |     ..     |     ?[65]  |   9,612    |
    | Spain              |2,888,777[61]| 263,519[64]|   62,822   | 170,383    |
    | Sweden             |   19,655    |   1,938[62]|    2,680   |  52,552[67]|
    | United Kingdom     |    7,598    |  31,289    |   23,127   |  23,190    |
    +--------------------+-------------+------------+------------+------------+
      M.t. = metric tons.

  Platinum has hitherto been obtained nowhere in Europe except in the
  auriferous sands in the Russian government of Perm. Nickel is derived
  from Germany, Norway and Sweden; antimony from Germany and Hungary;
  bismuth from Saxony and Bohemia. Bauxite, which is used in the
  manufacture of aluminium, is obtained from France, Styria and Ireland.
  In order of importance the chief salt-producing countries are the
  United Kingdom (in which for some years the amount produced has been
  for the most part stationary or declining), Germany (which is rapidly
  increasing its production), Russia, France, Spain, Italy,
  Austria-Hungary, Rumania and Switzerland. Besides common salt Germany
  has for many years been producing a rapidly increasing amount of
  potash salts, of which it has almost a monopoly. Italy (chiefly
  Sicily) is by far the most important producer of sulphur. Among other
  mineral products may be mentioned the boric acid and statuary marble
  of Tuscany, the statuary marble of Greece, the asphalt of Switzerland,
  Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, the slates of Wales, Scotland and
  France, the kaolin of Germany, England and France, and the abundant
  glass sands of Belgium, France and Bohemia.


    Commerce, industries and railways.

  With regard to commerce, industries and railways, as a whole, Europe
  may be said to be characterized by the rapid development of
  manufacturing at the expense of agricultural industry. With few
  exceptions the countries of Europe that export agricultural products
  are able to spare a diminishing proportion of the aggregate of such
  produce for export. Other countries are becoming more and more
  dependent on imported agricultural products. Most European countries,
  even if not able to export a large proportion of manufactured
  articles, are at least securing a greater and greater command of the
  home market for such products.[68] Inland centres of manufacturing
  industry are extending the range of their markets. All these changes
  have been largely, if not chiefly, promoted by the improvements in the
  means of communication, and the methods of transport by sea and land.
  Larger ships more economically propelled have brought grain at a
  cheaper and cheaper rate from all parts of the world, and improved
  methods of refrigeration have made fresh meat, butter and other
  perishable commodities even from the southern hemisphere articles of
  rapidly growing importance in European markets. Improvements in
  transport have likewise tended to cheapen British coal in many parts
  of the mainland of Europe. On the other hand, the extension of the
  railway network of the continent has brought a wider area within the
  domain of the manufacturing regions associated with the coalfields
  occurring at intervals in central Europe from the upper Oder to the
  basin of the Ruhr, as well as some of the more detached coalfields of
  Russia. As affecting the relative advantages of different European
  countries for carrying on manufacturing industry, three inventions or
  discoveries of recent years may be mentioned as of capital importance:
  (1) the invention in 1879 of the Thomas process for the manufacture of
  ingot iron and steel from the phosphoric iron ores, an invention which
  gave a greatly enhanced value to the ores on the borders of Lorraine,
  Luxemburg and Alsace, as well as others both in England and on the
  continent; (2) the invention of efficient machines for the application
  of power by means of electricity, an invention which gave greatly
  increased importance to the water-power of mountainous countries; and
  (3) the discovery of the fact that from lignite an even higher grade
  of producer gas may be obtained than from coal, a discovery obviously
  of special importance for the great lignite-producing districts of
  Germany and Bohemia.


    Water-power.

  Such particulars as can be procured with regard to the utilization of
  water-power in the countries of Europe which use that source of power
  most largely are given in the following table:--

    +-----------------+------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
    |                 |      | Total Horse- | Total Horse- |  Percentage  |
    |    Countries.   | Date.|power used in |   power in   | belonging to |
    |                 |      | Mechanical   |  Hydraulic   |  Hydraulic   |
    |                 |      |  Industry.   |Installations.|Installations.|
    +-----------------+------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
    |                 |      |  Thousands.  |  Thousands.  |   Per cent.  |
    | Germany         | 1895 |    3427      |     629      |      18      |
    | France        / | 1899 |     ..       |     575      |      ..      |
    |               \ | 1904 |    2581[69]  |     650[69]  |      25      |
    | Austria-Hungary | 1902 |     ..       |     437      |      ..      |
    | Italy           | 1899 |    2209      |     337      |      15      |
    | Sweden          | 1903 |     453      |      ..      | about 50[70] |
    | Norway          | 1904 |     254      |     186      |      73      |
    |               / | 1895 |     153      |      88      |      58      |
    |               | | 1895 |     153      |      95[71]  |      62      |
    | Switzerland  <  | 1901 |     320      |     185      |      58      |
    |               | | 1901 |     320      |     223[71]  |      70      |
    |               \ | 1905 |     516      |      ?       |       ?      |
    +-----------------+------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

  The figures derived from the three recent industrial censuses of
  Switzerland are very instructive, especially if one is justified in
  including the electric among the hydraulic installations. The
  estimates that have been made of the total available water-power in a
  few European countries are mostly based on such problematical data
  that they are not worth giving. One very uncertain element in such
  calculations is the amount of water-power that is capable of being
  artificially created by the construction of valley-dams, such as have
  been erected on a small scale in the Harz and other mining and
  smelting regions of Germany from an early date, and are now being
  built on a much larger scale in the Rhine region and other parts of
  Europe, or is incidentally provided in the construction of canals.


    Transcontinental routes.

  The commercial history of Europe has illustrated from the earliest
  times the influence of the outline and physical features in
  determining great trade-routes along certain lines. At all periods
  land routes have connected the southern seas with the Baltic and the
  North Sea, effecting the great saving of distance more or less
  indicated by the following table:--

    +---------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+
    |                           | Distance |  Direct   | Distance |
    |                           | by Sea.  | Distance. | by Rail. |
    +---------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+
    |                           |  st. m.  |    m.     |    m.    |
    | St Petersburg-Odessa      |   5240   |    930    |   1217   |
    | Riga-Odessa               |   4985   |    765    |   1022   |
    | Danzig-Odessa             |   4735   |    745    |   1009   |
    | Stettin-Triest            |   4065   |    550    |    854   |
    | Lübeck-Venice             |   3920   |    640    |    871   |
    | Hamburg-Triest            |   3820   |    560    |    945   |
    | Hamburg-Venice            |   3805   |    555    |    886   |
    | Hamburg-Genoa             |   2845   |    640    |    880   |
    | Antwerp-Venice            |   3500   |    515    |    850   |
    | Antwerp-Genoa             |   2535   |    515    |    778   |
    | Antwerp-Marseilles        |   2350   |     ?     |    725   |
    | Calais-Genoa              |   2400   |    555    |    780   |
    | Calais-Marseilles         |   2215   |    535    |    721   |
    | Havre-Marseilles          |   2135   |    475    |    678   |
    | Bordeaux-Cette            |   1945   |    227    |    295   |
    | Calais-Constantinople     |   3510   |   1445    |   2134   |
    | Calais-Salonica           |   3370   |   1215    |   1911   |
    | Christiania-Stockholm     |    780   |    260    |    357   |
    | Luleå-Narvik (Ofotenfjord)|   1970   |    240    |    295   |
    +---------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+

  From the form of the continent it obviously results that the farther
  east the route lies the greater is the saving of distance. The precise
  direction of the routes has been very largely fixed, however, by the
  physical features; by the course of the rivers where navigable rivers
  formed parts of the routes; in other cases by the situation and form
  of the mountains, or the direction of the river valleys which is
  implied in the form of the mountains. From the Black Sea the most
  convenient starting-point is obviously towards the west, and two
  connecting routes with the Baltic lie wholly to the east of the
  mountains. One route makes use of the Bug or the Dniester, the San and
  the Vistula so far as possible, while another starting in the same way
  proceeds round the foot-hills of the Carpathians, thus finding easy
  crossing places on the head-streams of the rivers, as far as the Oder
  and then down that stream. Another route is up the Danube to the
  neighbourhood of Vienna, and then north-eastwards through the opening
  between the Carpathians and the Sudetic range to the head-waters of
  the Oder, crossing a water-parting little more than 1000 ft. in
  altitude. The first route was certainly used again and again by the
  ancient Greeks, starting from Olbia near the mouth of the Bug, the
  objective point being the coast in the south-east of the Baltic
  supplying the amber which was so important an article of commerce in
  early times. This route was again much used in the middle ages, when
  Visby, on Gotland, undoubtedly selected on account of the security
  afforded by an island station, was for hundreds of years an important
  centre of trade both in northern products (of which furs were the most
  valuable) and those of the East (pepper and other spices, silks and
  other costly articles). Numerous coins, Roman, Byzantine and Arabic,
  found not merely in Gotland itself but also at various points along
  the route indicated, testify to the long-continued importance of this
  route. In the middle ages the Oder route was also largely used whether
  reached by rounding the Carpathians or ascending the Danube, and in
  connexion with that route the island of Bornholm long formed a focus
  of commerce answering to that in Gotland farther east. The Danube
  route was also made use of farther west, and formed a large part of a
  great route connecting the East with the north-west of Europe. The
  valuable goods of the Orient could be conveyed up-stream as high as
  Ratisbon (Regensburg), and thence north-westward across Nuremberg to
  Frankfort-on-Main, from which access was had to the Rhine gorge
  leading on to Cologne and the ports of Dordrecht and Rotterdam, Bruges
  and Ghent; or they could be carried still farther up-stream to Ulm,
  thence by a route winding through the north of the Black Forest to
  Strassburg and from that point north of the Vosges to the Marne and
  Seine.

  [Illustration: Map of Europe at the end of the 10th century.]

  [Illustration: Map of Europe at the end of the 12th century.]

  Farther west use was made at an early date of passes by which the
  whole system of the Alps could be crossed, or partly crossed and
  partly rounded, in a single rise. The ancient Etruscans, in exchanging
  their earthenware and bronzes for the amber found largely in those
  times not only in the Baltic but also on the eastern shores of the
  North Sea north of the Rhine mouths, made regular use of at least
  three such passes. One of these was the Brenner, the summit of which
  is under 4500 ft. in height, approached on the south side by the
  valley of the Adige and its tributary the Eisak, on the other side by
  the Inn valley and that of its small tributary the Sill. By this route
  the Alps at about their widest are crossed with exceptional ease; and
  hence it was natural that it should have been used by the Etruscans to
  reach the amber shores of the Baltic, and in all subsequent periods in
  intercourse between central Europe and northern Italy. In their trade
  with the mouth of the Rhine the Etruscans appear to have used only the
  passes approached by the Dora Baltea, which leads equally to the
  Little St Bernard, to the south of Mont Blanc, and so to the Isère
  valley and the Rhone, and to the Great St Bernard, to the east of Mont
  Blanc, and so directly to the Rhone valley above the Lake of Geneva,
  by which route the remainder of the Alps could be rounded on the west
  and the Rhine valley reached by crossing the northern Jura. Roman
  roads were afterwards made across all these passes, although that
  across the Great St Bernard (the highest of all, above 8100 ft.) seems
  never to have been made practicable for carriages. The Romans also
  made use of three intervening passes by which in a single rise from
  the Po basin the heads of valleys leading right down to the head of
  Lake Constance could be reached. These were the Bernardino, Splügen
  and Septimer, to mention them in the order from west to east. By the
  Romans the Simplon was also made use of as affording the most direct
  connexion between Milan and the upper Rhone valley. All these passes
  were likewise in use in the middle ages when Venice and Genoa were the
  great intermediaries in the trade in pepper and spices and other
  Oriental products. The Brenner afforded the most direct connexion
  between Venice and southern Germany, on a route leading also to
  northern Germany by way of Ratisbon and afterwards the rivers of the
  Elbe basin, and finally (from the end of the 14th century) by a canal
  to Lübeck, which was the great distributing centre of these and other
  products for the Baltic. To take the most direct route to the Rhine
  valley and north-western Europe some other pass (the Seefeld or the
  Fern) in the Bavarian Alps had to be crossed and the Rhine valley
  reached by Augsburg, and thence either by way of Ulm or Frankfort.
  From Genoa the routes in the early middle ages were by way of Milan to
  the Lake of Constance, and thence by way of Ulm if the Rhine valley
  was the goal, and by way of Augsburg if it was the Baltic. The St
  Gotthard route, the most direct connexion between Milan and the north
  of the Alps, was added about the end of the 13th century. The Mont
  Cenis pass from an early date afforded the most direct connexion
  between Genoa and the middle Rhone valley by way of Turin. When modern
  carriage roads came to be built it was still the same routes that were
  chosen. The road across the Brenner, completed in 1772, was the first
  of these. The building of the great Swiss carriage roads across the
  passes in the early part of the 19th century was inaugurated by
  Napoleon's road across the Simplon completed in 1805. A later
  paragraph will show that modern railways follow much the same, if not
  exactly the same, routes. On the early use of the Saône-Rhone valleys,
  and the route between the foot-hills of the Cevennes and the Pyrenees,
  it is not necessary to insist, but it may be mentioned that English
  tin was sometimes conveyed to the Mediterranean (Marseilles) by this
  latter route in Roman times.


    Inland waterways.

  Since the introduction of railways inland waterways have in most
  countries taken a very inferior position as means of transport. The
  articles on the different countries supply the necessary information
  with respect to those which have a purely national interest, but here
  mention must be made of those which have significance as belonging to
  trans-European routes or have an international value. The importance
  of shortening the water-route between the opposite sides of the great
  European isthmus separating the Baltic and the Black Sea is brought
  into prominence by the constant revival of projects for a ship-canal
  connecting those coasts. A definite step taken with a view to carrying
  out such a project was the sanction given by the tsar in April 1905
  for the appointment of a special commission to inquire into the
  practicability of a scheme for the excavation of a canal about 28 ft.
  deep between Riga and Kherson, utilizing the waters of the Duna or
  western Dvina, the Berezina and Dnieper. Since the completion in 1845
  of the Ludwigs or Danube-Main Canal, running from the Main near
  Bamberg to Kelheim on the Danube, it has been possible to go by water
  from the mouth of the Rhine to the mouth of the Danube; but this canal
  has in reality no trans-European significance. It cannot take barges
  of a greater capacity than 125 tons, is not adapted for steamers, and
  carries only a very small amount of traffic. But projects for
  connecting the Danube with northern Europe by water are still
  entertained. Of these the most advanced are those for establishing
  connexions through Austria. On the 11th of June 1901 the Austrian diet
  passed an act prescribing the construction of a canal connecting the
  Oder with the Danube through the Morava, and another connecting the
  Danube at Linz with the Moldau-Elbe, and the improvement of the
  navigation on the connected waterways. The Oder-Danube canal thus
  authorized would have to cross a watershed of little more than 1000
  ft. in altitude as against 1365 ft. in the case of the Ludwigs Canal;
  but the Elbe-Danube Canal would have to cross one of about 2250 ft.
  Under the provisions of the act the work is to be completed by 1924.
  In Germany projects have been actively agitated for improving the
  Danube-Main connexion either wholly or partly along the route of the
  present canal, and for establishing a new connexion by means of a
  canal of at least 6½ ft. in depth by way of the Neckar, the Rems and
  the Brenz, joining the Danube at Lauingen about midway between Ulm and
  Donauwörth. The Moldau-Elbe is itself an important international
  waterway, inasmuch as it allows of steamer traffic from Prague in
  Bohemia to Hamburg, and by means of a connecting canal to Lübeck. But
  the most important of all international waterways in Europe is the
  Rhine, on which even sea-going steamers regularly ascend to Cologne,
  and an amount of traffic crosses the Dutch frontier three or four
  times as great as that which makes use of the Manchester ship-canal.
  The river is also navigable to Basel in Switzerland, though above
  Strassburg the river is little used, being replaced since 1834 by the
  Rhine and Rhone canal, which connects the two rivers through the Ill
  and the Saône. The Rhine is also connected with the Seine by the Marne
  and Rhine canal passing north of the Vosges, and its tributary the
  Moselle is also navigable from France into Germany. The Meuse again is
  navigable from France through Belgium into Holland, and is connected
  by more than one route with the Seine, and in the densely peopled
  mining and manufacturing country in the north of France and the
  adjoining parts of Belgium numerous waterways ramify in different
  directions. Even in an article on Europe the entirely French canals
  connecting the Seine and Rhone (Burgundy canal, summit-level 1230 ft.,
  completed 1832), the Loire and Rhone (Canal du Centre, summit-level
  990 ft., completed in 1793), and the Canal du Midi, connecting the
  Garonne at Toulouse with Cette on the Mediterranean, may be mentioned
  inasmuch as they establish communication between different seas. The
  last is of special interest because it is the oldest (completed in
  1681), because it makes use of the lowest crossing, surmounting the
  passage of Naurouse, or Gap of Carcassonne, at an altitude of 625 ft.,
  and because it effects the greatest shortening of distance from sea to
  sea. On this account the project of establishing a ship-canal of
  modern dimensions along this route has been as often revived as that
  of the Black Sea and Baltic canal. In the east of Europe the Vistula
  and Memel are both international waterways, but they are of little
  importance compared with those in the west. The Kaiser Wilhelm or
  North Sea and Baltic canal, opened in 1895, has, however, no little
  international value, inasmuch as it shortens the sea-route to the
  Baltic for all North Sea ports to the south of Newcastle, and affords
  the means of avoiding a rather dangerous passage round the north of
  Jutland. A minor degree of international interest belongs to the
  ship-canal through the Isthmus of Corinth, opened on the 6th of August
  1893.


    Railways.

  The following table gives a summary statement of the progress of
  railway construction in European countries down to the end of the 19th
  century:--

    _Railways in European Countries._

    +-------------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------------+
    |                   |  Date of  |                      Miles open.                    |
    |                   |opening of +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
    |                   |first line.|  1875. |  1880. |  1885. |  1890. |  1895. |  1900. |
    +-------------------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
    | Austria           |   1837    |  6,402 |  7.083 |  8,270 |  9,506 | 10,180 | 11,912 |
    | Belgium           |   1835    |  2,171 |  2,399 |  2,740 |  2,810 |  2,839 |  2,851 |
    | Bosnia-Herzegovina|   1879    |   ..   |   ..   |   ..   |    342 |    471 |   ..   |
    | Bulgaria          |   1866    |   ..   |   ..   |   ..   |   ..   |    535 |    921 |
    | Denmark           |   1847    |    689 |    975 |  1,195 |  1,217 |  1,371 |  1,809 |
    | France            |   1828    | 13,529 | 16,275 | 20,177 | 20,666 | 22,505 | 26,739 |
    | German Empire     |   1835    | 17,376 | 20,693 | 22,640 | 25,411 | 27,392 | 30,974 |
    | Great Britain     |   1825    | 14,510 | 15,563 | 16,594 | 17,281 | 18,001 | 18,680 |
    | Greece            |   1869    |      7 |      7 |    278 |    452 |    ?   |    641 |
    | Hungary           |   1846    |  3,992 |  4,421 |  5,605 |  6,984 |  8,651 | 10,624 |
    | Ireland           |   1834    |  2,148 |  2,370 |  2,575 |  2,792 |  3,173 |  3,183 |
    | Italy             |   1836    |  4,771 |  5,340 |  6,408 |  7,983 |  9,579 |  9,864 |
    | Luxemburg         |   1873    |    110 |   ..   |   ..   |   ..   |    270 |   ..   |
    | Netherlands       |   1839    |  1,006 |  1,143 |  1,496 |  1,653 |  1,869 |  2,007 |
    | Norway            |   1854    |    345 |    652 |    970 |    970 |  1,071 |  1,231 |
    | Portugal          |   1856    |    643 |    710 |    949 |  1,316 |  1,336 |  1,346 |
    | Rumania           |   1869    |    766 |    859 |  1,100 |  1,590 |  1,617 |  1,920 |
    | Russia *          |   1838    | 12,166 | 14,026 | 15,934 | 18,059 | 21,948 | 27,345 |
    | Servia            |   1884    |   ..   |   ..   |    155 |    335 |    335 |    355 |
    | Spain             |   1848    |  3,801 |  4,550 |  5,547 |  6,211 |  7,483 |  8,206 |
    | Sweden            |   1856    |  2,171 |  3,654 |  4,279 |  4,980 |  6,058 |  7,018 |
    | Switzerland       |   1844    |  1,257 |  1,596 |  1,795 |  2,014 |  2,233 |  2,401 |
    | Turkey            |   1872    |   ..   |    727 |    657 |    657 |    935 |   ..   |
    --------------------+-----------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
      * Excluding Finland.

  The chief railways of most European countries are on the same gauge as
  that originally adopted in Great Britain, namely, 4 ft. 8½ in. Irish
  railways are, however, on the gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. The standard gauge
  in Russia is 5 ft., that of Spain and Portugal about 5 ft. 6 in. The
  still isolated railway system of Greece is upon a narrow gauge. The
  very general use of a common gauge obviously greatly facilitates
  international trade. It allows, for example, of wagons from Germany
  entering every country on its frontier except Russia. It allows of
  German coal being carried without break of bulk to Paris, Milan and
  the mainland of Denmark. By means of train-ferries German trains can
  also be conveyed to Copenhagen by way of Warnemünde and Gjedser and
  then across the channel separating Falster and Zealand; and there is a
  similar means of communication between Copenhagen and Malmö (Sweden)
  and between Lindau in Bavaria on the Lake of Constance and Romanshorn
  on the same lake in the Swiss canton of Thurgau. The establishment of
  this method of transport between England and France has been urged in
  opposition to the Channel Tunnel scheme.

  Of the railway systems of the mainland of Europe as a whole the main
  features are these. There is a broad belt running from the North Sea
  eastwards between the lines marked by Amsterdam and Hanover on the
  north, and Calais, Liége, Düsseldorf and Halle on the south, in which
  important lines of railway run from west to east. About 12° E. those
  lines begin to converge on Berlin. This belt is crossed in the Rhine
  valley by a much narrower but very important belt running north and
  south, now connected with the Italian railway system through the St
  Gotthard tunnel. To the south of the west end of the west-to-east belt
  lies the principal railway focus in western Europe, Paris, from which
  important lines radiate in all directions; two of these radiating
  lines now establish communication with the Italian railway system,
  through the Mont Cenis and Simplon tunnels respectively, and other two
  connecting with the Spanish system round the ends of the Pyrenees.
  Berlin in central Europe is perhaps an even more important railway
  focus. Among the chief lines radiating from it are one through Leipzig
  and Munich and connecting with the Italian railway system by the
  Brenner route, and another through Dresden and Prague to Vienna, and
  then by the Semmering pass by one route to Triest and by another to
  Venice. East of Berlin the railways of Europe begin to form wider
  meshes. Two main lines diverge towards the north-east, one by Küstrin
  and Königsberg and the other by Frankfort on the Oder and Thorn, both
  uniting at Eydtkühnen to the east of Königsberg before crossing the
  Prussian frontier and passing on to St Petersburg. From Thorn a line
  branches off by Warsaw to Moscow, the chief railway focus in eastern
  Europe. South-east from Berlin there runs another important line
  through Breslau, Cracow and Lemberg to Odessa, skirting to a large
  extent the foot-hills of the Carpathians like the ancient trade route
  from Olbia to the Baltic. Two routes on which there are services
  organized by the International Sleeping Car Company connect London
  with Constantinople, and it is noteworthy that both of these indicate
  the importance of the physical feature which has determined the
  position of the great north-south belt of railways above mentioned,
  and also of towns famous as commercial centres in the middle ages. One
  of these is the route of the Orient Express, which goes by Calais,
  Paris and Strassburg, then east of Strassburg runs north in the Rhine
  valley for about 40 m. to Karlsruhe, then winds through the hilly
  country between the Black Forest proper and the Odenwald to Stuttgart,
  proceeding thence by Ulm, Augsburg and Munich to Linz and then by the
  valley of the Danube through Vienna and Budapest to Belgrade, and
  thence by the valleys of the Morava, Nishava and Maritza to
  Constantinople. The other is that of the Ostend-Vienna express, going
  by Ostend to Brussels, and through Aix-la-Chapelle to Cologne, then up
  the Rhine gorge southwards to Bingen and eastwards to Mainz and on to
  Frankfort (on the Main), thence south-eastwards by the route so
  celebrated in the middle ages through Nuremberg to Regensburg
  (Ratisbon), and thence down the valley of the Danube coinciding with
  the Orient Express route from a point a few miles above Linz. From the
  Orient Express route a branch crosses from the valley of the Morava to
  that of the Vardar, establishing a connexion with Salonica.

  In the development of this railway system the mountains have proved
  the most formidable of natural obstacles, and at the head of the
  mountains in this respect as in others stand the Alps. The first
  railway to cross one of the main chains of the Alps was the Semmering
  line on the route from Vienna to the Adriatic, constructed in
  1848-1854. Its summit is in a tunnel less than 1 m. long, 2940 ft.
  above sea-level or nearly 300 ft. below the level of the pass. South
  of the Semmering, however, various other passes have to be crossed,
  and it was not till 1857 that the railway to Triest (by Laibach) was
  completed, and not till the late seventies that the more direct route
  to Venice across the Tarvis pass in Carinthia was established. Of the
  route from Triest by Görz across the Karawanken and Tauern Alps to
  Salzburg and south-eastern Germany the first section was opened only
  in 1906. After the Semmering the next railway to cross the Alps was
  that following the Brenner route which crosses the summit of the pass
  at the height of 4490 ft., and, as already stated, is the only pass
  that has to be crossed on the way from Munich to the plains of Italy.
  Next followed in 1871 the western route through the so-called Mont
  Cenis tunnel, really under the Col de Fréjus, to the west of the Mont
  Cenis pass, and effecting a crossing between the valleys of the Arc
  (Rhone basin) and the Dora Riparia (Po basin) at an altitude of 4380
  ft., or nearly 2500 ft. lower than the pass previously used, but only
  by piercing the mountains in a tunnel more than 7½ m. long. Next in
  order was the St Gotthard route, opened in 1882, the most direct route
  between northern Italy and western Germany, connecting the Lake of
  Lucerne with the valley of the Ticino. Here the altitude is reduced to
  3785 ft., about 3150 ft. below the summit-level of the pass, but the
  tunnel length is increased to rather more than 9¼ m. The Simplon route
  opened in June 1906, between the upper Rhone valley and the Toce
  valley, shortening the route between Milan and northern France,
  effects the crossing at an altitude of only 2300 ft., nearly 4300 ft.
  lower than the pass, but by increasing the tunnel length to 12¼ m.
  Steps were subsequently taken to continue the Simplon route northwards
  by a tunnel through the Lötschberg in the Bernese Alps, and a project
  is entertained for continuing the Vintschgau (upper Adige) railway
  across or under the Reschenscheideck to the Inn valley. An important
  east-west crossing of the Alps was effected when the Arlberg tunnel
  (6.37 m. long, summit-level 4300 ft.) connecting the Inn valley with
  that of the Rhine above the Lake of Constance was opened in 1884.

  Several lines wind through and cross the Jura. That which in 1857
  pierced the Hauenstein, in the north of Switzerland, attained
  international importance on the opening of the St Gotthard tunnel,
  inasmuch as it lies on the route thence through Lucerne to the Rhine
  valley at Basel; and that which crosses the Col de Jougne between
  Vallorbe and Pontarlier acquired similar importance on the completion
  of the Simplon tunnel. Further projects are entertained for shortening
  the connexion between this tunnel and the north of France by making a
  more direct line from Vallorbe to the French side of the Jura, or by
  making a railway across or under the Col de la Faucille (4340 ft.),
  north-west of Geneva.

  Of the two railways that pass round the extremity of the Pyrenees, the
  western was the first to be constructed, the eastern was not opened
  till 1878. Hitherto the intervening mountains have proved more of a
  railway barrier than the mightier system of the Alps, but in 1904 a
  convention was concluded between the French and Spanish governments
  providing for the establishment of railway connexion between the two
  countries at three points of the great chain.

  There are several railways across the Carpathians, mostly by passes
  under 3000 ft. in height. The fact that the Tömös Pass, on the direct
  route from Hungary through Transylvania to Bucharest, attains an
  altitude of 3370 ft. was undoubtedly one reason why the railway
  following this route, completed in December 1879, passing through
  several tunnels, was one of the last to be constructed. But the
  obstruction of mountains has not been the only cause of delay in the
  building of railways. Sparseness of population and general economic
  backwardness have also proved hindrances, especially in Russia and the
  Balkan Peninsula. The railways to Constantinople and Salonica were
  completed only in 1888, and yet the highest altitude on the
  Constantinople line is only 2400 ft., that on the Salonica line 1750
  ft. Among other important railways of recent date and of more than
  merely national significance may be mentioned that bringing Bucharest
  into connexion with the Black Sea port of Costantza by means of a
  bridge across the Danube at Chernavoda (opened in September 1895); a
  line across the Carpathians connecting Debreczen with Lemberg, the
  continuation of the line eastwards from Lemberg to Kiev; a network
  bringing the coalfield of the Donets basin into connexion with ports
  on the Sea of Azov; a line in the south-east of Russia connecting
  Novocherkask with Vladikavkaz, and branches running from the same
  point connecting that line with Novorossiysk on the Black Sea on the
  one hand, and with Tsaritsyn at the last angle of the Volga on the
  other hand; a line in northern Russia bringing Archangel into
  connexion with the European system at Vologda (opened in 1898); a
  detached line in the north-east across the Urals from Perm by
  Ekaterinburg (completed in 1878) to Tyumeñ (completed in 1884).
  Chelyabinsk on the Siberian railway has a branch running northwards to
  Ekaterinburg, and this line now affords uninterrupted communication
  with the northern Dvina, inasmuch as the railway which originally
  started at Perm has been carried westwards through Vyatka and then
  northwards to Kotlas at the point of origin of that river, to which
  point it was opened in 1900; and a line in the east connecting the
  European system at Samara with the great mining centre at Zlatoust,
  already in 1890 continued across the Urals to Miyas, and since then
  carried farther east as the great Siberian railway.

  The result of the construction of the numerous transcontinental
  railways has been to bring rail and sea-routes and ports on opposite
  sides of the continents into competition with one another to a greater
  degree than is possible in any other continent. The more valuable, and
  above all perishable commodities may be sent right across the
  continent even through the mountains. Even from Great Britain, which
  is bound to carry on its external commerce in part by sea, goods are
  sometimes sent far south in Italy by railways running from one or
  other of the North Sea ports. It will hence be readily understood that
  for inland trade on the mainland the competition between ports on
  opposite sides of the continent and between different railways will be
  very keen, greatly to the advantage of the inland centres to which
  that competition extends. This competition is inevitably all the more
  keen now that the trade of Europe with the East is once more carried
  on through the Mediterranean as it was in ancient times and the middle
  ages. The great shortening of the sea-route in this trade at such
  ports as Marseilles, Triest, Venice and Genoa, indicated by the
  figures below, goes far to counterbalance the extra cost even of
  railway transport across the mountains.

    _Distance in Nautical Miles from Port Said._

    London         3215 | Marseilles  1506
    Bremen         3502 | Genoa       1426
    Hamburg        3520 | Venice      1330
    Stettin        3749 | Brindisi     930
    St Petersburg  4300 | Odessa      1130


  Ethnology.

An enormous amount of investigation with regard to European ethnology
has been carried on in recent years. These labours have chiefly
consisted in the study of the physical type of different countries or
districts, but it is not necessary to consider in detail the results
arrived at. It should, however, be pointed out that the idea of an Aryan
race may be regarded as definitely abandoned. One cannot even speak with
assurance of the diffusion of an Aryan civilization. It is at least not
certain that the civilization that was spread by the migration of
peoples speaking Aryan tongues originated amongst and remained for a
time peculiar to such peoples. The utmost that can be said is that the
Aryan languages must in their earliest forms have spread from some
geographical centre. That centre, however, is no longer sought for in
Asia, but in some part of Europe, so that we can no longer speak of any
detachment of Aryan-speaking peoples entering Europe.

The most important works, summarizing the labours of a host of
specialists on the races of Europe, are those of Ripley and Deniker.[72]
Founding upon a great multitude of data that have been collected with
regard to the form of the head, face and nose, height, and colour of the
hair and eyes, most of the leading anthropologists seem to have come to
the conclusion that there are three great racial types variously and
intricately intermingled in Europe. As described and named by Ripley,
these are: (1) the Teutonic, characterized by long head and face and
narrow aquiline nose, high stature, very light hair and blue eyes; (2)
the Alpine, characterized by round head, broad face, variable rather
broad heavy nose, medium height and "stocky" frame, light chestnut hair
and hazel grey eyes; and (3) the Mediterranean, characterized by long
head and face, rather broad nose, medium stature and slender build, dark
brown or black hair and dark eyes. The Teutonic race is entirely
confined to north-western Europe, and embraces some groups speaking
Celtic languages. It is believed by Ripley to have been differentiated
in this continent, and to have originally been one with the other
long-headed race, sometimes known as the Iberian, and to the Italians as
the Ligurian race, which "prevails everywhere south of the Pyrenees,
along the southern coast of France, and in southern Italy, including
Sicily and Sardinia," and which extends beyond the confines of Europe
into Africa. The Alpine race is geographically intermediate between
these two, having its centre in the Alps, while in western Europe it is
spread most widely over the more elevated regions, and in eastern Europe
"becomes less pure in proportion as we go east from the Carpathians
across the great plains of European Russia." This last race, which is
most persistently characterized by the shape of the head, is regarded by
Ripley as an intrusive Asiatic element which once advanced as a wedge
amongst the earlier long-headed population as far as Brittany, where it
still survives in relative purity, and even into Great Britain, though
not Ireland, but afterwards retired and contracted its area before an
advance of the long-headed races. Deniker, basing his classification on
essentially the same data as Ripley and others, while agreeing with them
almost entirely with regard to the distribution of the three main traits
(cephalic index, colour of hair and eyes, and stature) on which
anthropologists rely, yet proceeds further in the subdivision of the
races of Europe. He recognizes six principal and four secondary races.
The six principal races are the Nordic (answering approximately to the
Teutonic of Ripley), the Littoral or Atlanto-Mediterranean, the
Ibero-Insular, the Oriental, the Adriatic or Dinaric and the Occidental
or Cevenole.


  Language.

Although language is no test of race, it is the best evidence for
present or past community of social or political life; and nothing is
better fitted to give a true impression of the position and relative
importance of the peoples of Europe than a survey of their linguistic
differences and affinities.[73] The following table contains the names
of the various languages which are still spoken on the continent, as
well as of those which, though now extinct, can be clearly traced in
other forms. Two asterisks are employed to mark those which are
emphatically dead languages, while one indicates those which have a kind
of artificial life in ecclesiastical or literary usage.

  I. INDO-EUROPEAN.
      1. INDIC branch, represented by            Gipsy dialects.
      2. IRANIC branch,     "      "         (a) Ossetian.
                                             (b) Armenian.
      3. HELLENIC branch,   "      "        *(a) Greek.
                                             (b) Romaic.
                                             (c) Neo-Hellenic.
      4. ITALIC branch,     "      "        *(a) Latin.
                                           **(b) Oscan.
                                           **(c) Umbrian, &c.
                                         /   (d) French.
                                         |   (e) Walloon.
                                         |   (f) Provençal.
                                         |   (g) Italian.
             _Neo-Latin_                <    (h) Ladin (Rumonsh, Rumansh,
                                         |         Rheto-Romance).
                                         |   (i) Spanish.
                                         |   (j) Portuguese.
                                         \   (k) Rumanian.
      5. CELTIC branch, represented by       (a) Irish.
                                             (b) Erse or Gaelic.
                                             (c) Manx.
                                             (d) Welsh.
                                           **(e) Cornish.
                                             (f) Low Breton.
      6. TEUTONIC branch, represented by   **(a) Gothic.
                                         / **(b) Norse or Old Norse.
                                         |   (c) Icelandic and Faeroese.
             _Scandinavian_             <    (d) Norwegian.
                                         |   (e) Swedish.
                                         \   (f) Danish.
                                         / **(g) Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, or First
                                         |         English.
                                         |   (h) English.
                                         | **(i) Old Saxon.
             _Low German_               <    (j) Platt-Deutsch or Low
                                         |         German.
                                         |   (k) Flemish  }  Netherlandish.
                                         |   (l) Dutch    }
                                         \   (m) Frisic.
                                         / **(n) Old High German.
                                         |   (o) Middle High German.
             _High German_              <    (p) New High or Literary
                                         \         German
      7. SLAVONIC branch, represented by    *(a) Church Slavonic.
                                         /   (b) Russian.
                                         |   (c) Ruthenian, Rusniak, or Little-
                                         |         Russian.
                                         |   (d) White Russian or Bielo-
             _South-Eastern_            <          Russian.
                                         |   (e) Bulgarian.
                                         |   (f) Servo-Croatian.
                                         \   (g) Slovenian.
                                         /   (h) Czech (Bohemian).
                                         |   (i) Slovakish.
             _Western_                  <    (j) Polish.
                                         |   (k) Sorbian (Wendic, Lusatian).
                                         \  *(l) Polabian.
      8. LETTIC branch, represented by     **(a) Old Prussian
                                             (b) Lettish.
                                             (c) Lithuanian.
      9. UNATTACHED                       **?(a) Old Dacian.
                                             (b) Albanian.
  II. SEMITIC.
      1. CANAANITIC branch, represented by  *(a)Hebrew.
                                           **(b)Phoenician or Punic.
      2. ARABIC branch, represented by     **(a) Arabic.
                                           **(b) Mozarabic.
                                             (c) Maltese.
  III. FINNO-TATARIC (Turanian, Ural-Altaic, &c.).
      1. FINNO-UGRIC languages               (a) Samoyede.
                                             (b) Finnish or Suomi.
                                             (c) Esthonian, Livonian, Vepsish,
                                                   Votish.
                                             (d) Lappish.
                                             (e) Cheremissian.
                                             (f) Mordvinian.
                                             (g) Ziryenian and Permian.
                                             (h) Votiak.
                                             (i) Magyar.
      2. TATAR-TURKISH languages             (a) Turkish.
                                             (b) Kazan Tatar, Crimean Tatar,
                                                   Bashkir, Kirghiz.
                                             (c) Chuvash.
      3. MONGOLIAN languages                     Kalmuk.
      4. UNATTACHED                              Basque.

From this conspectus it appears that there are still about 60 distinct
languages spoken in Europe, without including Latin, Greek, Old Slavonic
and Hebrew, which are still used in literature or ecclesiastical
liturgies. Besides all those which are spoken over extensive
territories, and some even which are confined within very narrow limits,
are broken up into several distinct dialects.


  Political boundaries.

The boundaries of European countries have of course been determined by
history, and in some cases only historical events can be held to account
for their general situation, the influence of geographical conditions
being seen only on a minute examination of details. In most cases,
however, it is otherwise. The present political boundaries were all
settled when the general distribution of population in the continent was
in a large measure determined by the geographical conditions, and
accordingly the lines along which they run for the most part show the
influence of such conditions very clearly, and thus present in many
cases a marked contrast to the political boundaries in America and
Australia, where the boundaries have often been marked out in advance of
the population. In Europe the general rule is that the boundaries tend
to run through some thinly peopled strip or tract of country, such as is
formed by mountain ranges, elevated tablelands too bleak for
cultivation, relatively high ground of no great altitude where soil and
climate are less favourable to cultivation than the lower land on either
side, or low ground occupied by heaths or marshes or some other sterile
soil; but it is the exception for important navigable rivers to form
boundaries between countries or even between important administrative
divisions of countries, and for such exceptions a special explanation
can generally be found. Navigable rivers unite rather than separate, for
the obvious reason that they generally flow through populous valleys,
and the vessels that pass up and down can touch as easily on one side as
the other. Minor rivers, on the other hand, flowing through sparsely
peopled valleys frequently form portions of political boundaries simply
because they are convenient lines of demarcation. A brief examination of
the present political map of Europe will serve to illustrate these
rules.

  The eastern frontier of the Netherlands begins by running southwards
  through a marsh nearly parallel to the Ems but nowhere touching it,
  then winds south or south-westwards through a rather sparsely peopled
  district to the Rhine. This river it crosses, it then approaches but
  does not touch the Meuse, but runs for a considerable distance roughly
  parallel to that river along higher ground, where the population is
  much more scanty than in the valley. On the side of Belgium the Dutch
  boundary is for the most part thoroughly typical, winding between the
  dreariest parts of the Dutch or Belgium provinces of North Brabant,
  Limburg and Antwerp. The Scheldt nowhere forms a boundary between
  countries, not even at its wide estuary. The eastern frontier of
  Belgium is quite typical both on the side of Germany and Luxemburg. It
  is otherwise, however, on the south, there that country confines with
  France, and indeed the whole of the north-east frontier of France may
  be called a historical frontier, showing the influence of geographical
  conditions only in details. One of these details, however, deserves
  attention, the tongue in which it advances northwards into Belgium so
  as to give to France the natural fortress of Givet, a tongue, be it
  noted, the outline of which is as typical a boundary as is to be seen
  in Europe in respect of scantiness of population, apart from the
  fortress.

  The mountainous frontiers of France on the east and south require
  hardly any comment. Only in the Burgundy Gate between the Vosges and
  the Jura has an artificial boundary had to be drawn, and even that in
  a minor degree illustrates the general rule. The division of the
  Iberian peninsula between Spain and Portugal goes back in effect to
  the Christian reaction against the Moors. The valley of the Miño and
  its tributaries establishes a natural connexion between Galicia and
  the rest of Spain; but an independent crusade against the Moors
  starting from the lower part of the valley of the Douro resulted in
  the formation of the kingdom of Portugal, which found its natural
  eastern limit on the scantily peopled margin of the Iberian tableland,
  where the rivers cease to be navigable and flow through narrow gorges,
  that of the Tagus, where the river marks the frontier, being almost
  without inhabitants, especially on the Spanish side.

  The greater part of the Italian boundary is very clearly marked
  geographically, though we have to look back to the weakness of divided
  Italy to account for the instances in which northern mountaineers have
  pushed their way into southern Alpine valleys. Even in these parts,
  however, there are interesting illustrations of geographical influence
  in the way in which the Italian boundary crosses the northern ends of
  the Lago Maggiore and the Lake of Garda, and cuts off portions of Lake
  Lugano both in the east and west. In all these cases the frontier
  crosses from one steep unpeopled slope to another, assigning the
  population at different ends or on different sides of the lakes to the
  country to which belongs the adjacent population not lying on their
  shores.

  Of the Swiss frontiers all that it is necessary to remark is that the
  river Rhine in more than one place marks the boundary, in one,
  however, where it traverses alluvial flats liable to inundation (on
  the side of Austria), in the other place where it rushes through a
  gorge below the falls of Schaffhausen. The southern frontier of
  Germany is almost throughout typical, the northern is the sea, except
  where a really artificial boundary runs through Jutland.

  In the east of Germany and the north-east of Austria the winding
  frontier through low plains is the result of the partition of Poland,
  but in spite of the absence of marked physical features it is for the
  most part in its details almost as typical as the mountainous frontier
  on the south of Germany. All the great rivers are crossed. Most of the
  line runs through a tract of strikingly scanty population, and the
  dense population in one part of it, where upper Silesia confines with
  Russian Poland, has been developed since the boundary was fixed.

  In the Balkan Peninsula the most striking facts are that the Balkans
  do not, and the Danube to a large extent does form a boundary.
  Geographical features, however, bring the valley of the Maritsa
  (eastern Rumelia) into intimate relation with upper Bulgaria, the
  connexion of which with Bulgaria north of the Balkans had long been
  established by the valley of the Isker, narrow as that valley is. On
  the side of Rumania, again, it is the marshes on the left bank of the
  Danube even more than the river itself that make of that river a
  frontier. An examination of the eastern boundary of all that is
  included in Russia in Europe will furnish further illustrations of the
  general rule.

  Finally, on the north-west of Russia it was only natural that the
  Tornea and the Tana should be taken as lines of demarcation in that
  thinly peopled region, and it was equally natural that where the
  boundary between Norway and Sweden descends from the fjeld in the
  south it should leave to Norway both sides of the valley of the
  Glommen.

    +-------------------+-------------+------------------------------------+--------+
    |                   |    Area.    |            Population.             |        |
    |                   +-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+Pop. per|
    |    Countries.     |   English   |   About   |   About    |   About   | sq. m. |
    |                   |   sq. m.    |   1880.   |   1890.    |   1900.   |        |
    +-------------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+--------+
    | Austria-Hungary   |   241,466   | 37,884    |  41,358    | 45,405[11]|  188   |
    |   Bosnia-Herze-   |    19,735   |  1,336[1] |     ..     |  1,568[12]|   81   |
    |     govina[a]     |             |           |            |           |        |
    |   Liechtenstein   |        61   |           |       9[7] |    ..     |  147   |
    | Belgium           |    11,373   |  5,520    |   6,069    |  6,694[16]|  589   |
    | Denmark[b]        |    15,431   |  1,980    |   2,185    |  2,465[14]|  160   |
    | France            |   207,206   |           |  38,343[7] | 38,596[14]|  186   |
    |   Monaco          |         8   |    ..     |     ..     |     15[13]|        |
    | German Empire     |   208,760   | 45,234    |  49,428    | 56,345[16]|  270   |
    |   Luxemburg       |     1,003   |           |            |    237[16]|  247   |
    | Greece            |    24,974   |           |   2,187[8] |  2,434[15]|   97   |
    | Italy             |   110,676   | 28,460[2] |            | 32,450[14]|  293   |
    |   San Marino      |        23   |    ..     |            |     11[17]|  435   |
    | Montenegro        |     3,500   |    ..     |            |    228[15]|   65   |
    | Netherlands       |    12,741   |  4,013[3] |   4,511[8] |  5,103[17]|  400   |
    | Portugal          |    34,347[c]|  4,160[4] |   4,660    |  5,423[16]|  153   |
    | Rumania           |    50,588   |           |            |  5,913[17]|  117   |
    | Russia            | 1,951,249   | 89,685[1] |     ..     |103,671[18]|   53   |
    |   Finland         |   144,255   |  2,176[1] |     ..     |  2,555[11]|   18   |
    | Servia            |    18,762   |  1,908[5] |            |  2,494[16]|  133   |
    | Spain[a]          |   191,994   | 16,432[6] |  17,262[9] | 18,618[16]|   97   |
    |   Andorra         |       175   |    ..     |       5    |    ..     |   29   |
    | Sweden            |   173,968   |  4,566    |   4,785    |  5,136[16]|   30   |
    | Norway            |   126,053   |           |   2,001[7] |  2,231[16]|   18   |
    | Switzerland       |    15,976   |  2,846    |   2,933[10]|  3,314[16]|  207   |
    | Turkey (Europe)[e]|    66,840   |           |            |  5,892?   |   90   |
    |   Bulgaria[f]     |    37,323   |  2,008[2] |   3,154[10]|  3,733[14]|  100   |
    |   Crete           |     3,328   |    ..     |     302[9] |    304[16]|   91   |
    |   Thasos          |       152   |    ..     |     ..     |     12?   |   79   |
    | United Kingdom    |   121,742   | 35,026[2] |  37,881[7] | 41,455[14]|  341   |
    +-------------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-----------+--------+
      [a] Annexed by imperial decree to Austria-Hungary in 1908.
      [b] Including Faeroe Islands.
      [c] Area exclusive of Tagus and Sado inlets (together 161 sq. m.).
      [d] Excluding Canary Islands.
      [e] With Novi-bazar.
      [f] Bulgaria proclaimed its independence of Turkey in 1908.

      [1] 1885.           [10] 1888.
      [2] 1881.           [11] Census 1900.
      [3] 1879.           [12] Census 1895.
      [4] 1878.           [13] Estimate 1897.
      [5] 1884.           [14] Census 1901.
      [6] 1887.           [15] Census 1896.
      [7] 1891.           [16] Census 1900.
      [8] 1889.           [17] Census 1899.
      [9] Census 1890.    [18] Census 1897.

[Illustration: Map of Europe middle of 16th century.]

[Illustration: Map of Europe in 1715.]


  Population.

The preceding table shows the area of the countries of Europe, with
their estimated or enumerated populations in thousands (000 omitted) at
different dates.

A noteworthy feature of the distribution of population in Europe,
especially in western, southern and central Europe, in modern times, is
the high degree of aggregation in towns, which is exhibited in the
following table[74] for the different countries or regions of the
continent:--

  +-----------------------------+----------------------+-----------+
  |                             | Percentage in Towns. |           |
  |                             +----------+-----------+ All Towns |
  |                             |   Over   |   From    |   over    |
  |                             | 100,000. | 20,000 to |  20,000.  |
  |                             |          |  100,000. |           |
  +-----------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
  | England and Wales           |   34.8   |   23.5    |   58.3    |
  | Scotland                    |   29.7   |    9.9    |   39.7    |
  | Ireland                     |   14.2   |    5.3    |   19.5    |
  | Norway                      |   10.8   |    6.8    |   17.6    |
  | Sweden                      |    8.5   |    2.6    |   11.2    |
  | Denmark                     |   19.4   |    6.6    |   26.0    |
  | German Empire               |   17.0   |   11.2    |   28.2    |
  | Netherlands                 |   22.3   |   15.0    |   37.3    |
  | Belgium                     |   18.6   |   12.0    |   30.6    |
  | France                      |   13.7   |   10.3    |   24.0    |
  | Spain and Portugal          |   10.5   |    5.7    |   16.2    |
  | Bosnia, Servia and Bulgaria |          |    4.2    |    4.2    |
  | Rumania                     |    4.6   |    7.2    |   11.8    |
  | Hungary                     |    3.7   |    9.1    |   12.8    |
  | Galicia and Bukovina        |    2.0   |    4.8    |    6.8    |
  | Cis-Leithan provinces of    |          |           |           |
  |   Austria (exclusive of the |          |           |           |
  |   two latter)               |   12.4   |    5.9    |   18.3    |
  | Poland                      |   10.6   |    4.2    |   14.8    |
  | Baltic Provinces, Russia    |   11.4   |    8.3    |   19.7    |
  | Moscow region[75]           |    9.6   |    5.4    |   15.0    |
  | Black earth governments,    |          |           |           |
  |   Great Russia[76]          |    0.7   |    4.9    |    5.6    |
  | Governments of middle and   |          |           |           |
  |   lower Volga[77]           |    3.3   |    4.0    |    7.3    |
  | South Russia[78]            |    7.0   |    8.5    |   15.5    |
  | Finland                     |    3.8   |    4.3    |    8.1    |
  +-----------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+

The following table contains a list of the towns with more than 100,000
inhabitants, not in every case according to the most recent census, but,
in order to make the populations fairly comparable with one another,
according to the nearest census or available estimate to 1900.
Population in thousands (000 omitted):--

  *London (Greater, 1901)     6581 | Portsmouth (1901)         189
   London (Registration,           | Charlottenburg (1900)     189
     1901)                    4536 | Königsberg (1900)         188
  *Paris (w. subs.)           2877 | Triest (1900)             179
     "   (City, 1901)         2661 | Plymouth-Devonport (1901) 177
  *Berlin (w. subs.)          2073 | Stuttgart (1900)          176
     "    (1900)              1884 | Kharkov (1897)            174
   Vienna (1900)              1662 | Bolton (1901)             168
  *St Petersburg (w. subs.,        | Oporto (1900)             168
     1897)                    1267 | Cardiff (1901)            164
  *Constantinople (w. subs.)  1200 | Bremen (1900)             163
   Moscow (w. subs., 1897)    1036 | Ghent (1901)              162
   Glasgow (w. subs., 1901)    910 | Dundee (1901)             161
   Hamburg-Altona (1900)       867 | Vilna (1897)              160
   Liverpool (w. subs., 1901)  767 | Brighton-Hove (1901)      160
   Manchester-Salford (1901)   765 | Lemberg (1900)            160
   Budapest (1900)             732 | Liége (1901)              160
   Warsaw (1897)               638 | Halle a S. (1900)         157
  +Birmingham (w. subs., 1901) 599 | Aberdeen (1901)           153
  *Naples (comm., 1901)        565 | Bologna (comm., 1901)     152
   Brussels (1901)             563 |*Venice (comm., 1901)      152
  *Madrid (1900)               540 | Catania (comm., 1901)     150
   Amsterdam (1902)            540 | Messina (comm., 1901)     150
  *Barcelona (1900)            533 | Salonica                  150
   Munich (1900)               500 | Strassburg (1900)         150
   Marseilles (1901)           495 | Zürich (comm., 1900)      150
  *Milan (comm., 1901)         493 | Seville (1900)            148
   Copenhagen (w. subs., 1901) 477 | St Etienne (1901)         147
  *Rome (comm., 1901)          463 | Sunderland (1901)         147
   Lyons (1901)                460 | Dortmund (1900)           142
   Leipzig (1900)              455 | Danzig (1900)             141
   Leeds (w. subs., 1901)      444 | Mannheim (1900)           140
   Breslau (1900)              423 | Stettin (1895)            140
   Odessa (1897)               405 | Croydon (1901)            139
   Dresden (1900)              395 | Graz (1900)               138
   Edinburgh-Leith (1901)      393 | Oldham (1901)             137
   Sheffield (1901)            381 | Saratov (1897)            137
   Dublin (w. subs., 1901)     373 | Aachen (1900)             135
   Cologne (1900)              372 | Gothenburg (1902)         134
  *Lisbon (1900)               356 | Toulouse (1896)           134
   Belfast (1901)              349 | Nantes (1901)             133
   Rotterdam (1902)            348 | Kazan (1897)              132
   Turin (comm., 1901)         335 | Malaga (1900)             130
   Bristol (1901)              329 | Havre (1901)              130
   Newcastle-Gateshead (1901)  325 | Blackburn (1901)          128
   Prague (w. subs., 1900)     317 | Brunswick (1900)          128
   Lódz (1897)                 315 | Ekaterinoslav (1897)      121
  *Palermo (comm., 1901)       310 | Rostov-on-Don (1897)      120
   Stockholm (1902)            306 | Essen (1900)              119
   Elbferfeld-Barmen (1901)    299 | Posen (1900)              117
   Bordeaux (w. subs., 1896)   289 | Preston (1901)            113
   Frankfort-on-Main           288 | Astrakhan (1897)          113
   Riga (w. subs., 1897)       283 | Norwich (1901)            112
   Bucharest (1899)            282 | Murcia (1900)             112
   Bradford (1901)             280 | Birkenhead (1901)         111
   Antwerp (1901)              273 | Athens (1896)             111
 ++West Ham (1901)             267 | Tula (1897)               111
   Nuremberg (1900)            261 | Brünn (1900)              110
   Kiev (1897)                 247 | Kishinev (1897)           109
   Hull (1901)                 241 | Basel (comm., 1900)       109
   Nottingham (1901)           240 | Utrecht (1902)            109
   Hanover (1900)              237 | Kiel (1900)               108
   Genoa (comm., 1901)         235 | Reims (1901)              108
   Magdeburg (1900)            230 | Krefeld (1900)            107
   Christiania (1900)          226 | Derby (1901)              106
   The Hague (1902)            222 | Kassel (1900)             106
   Roubaix-Tourcoing (1901)    220 | Halifax (1901)            105
   Düsseldorf (1900)           214 | Nice (1901)               105
  *Valencia (1900)             214 | Southampton (1901)        105
   Florence (comm., 1901)      205 | Nancy (1901)              103
   Leicester (1901)            212 | Szeged (1900)             103
   Lille (1901)                211 | Toulon (1901)             102
   Chemnitz (1900)             207 | Cartagena (1900)          100

     Comm. = commune. w. subs. = with suburbs.

     [*] In 1800 only those to which an asterisk is prefixed rose above
     100,000. Thirty-four out of the 144 towns enumerated in the list
     above belong to the British Isles.

     [+] The contiguous parliamentary boroughs of Birmingham and Aston
     Manor.

     [++] Part of Greater London.

  AUTHORITIES.--Elisée Reclus, vols. i. to v. of _Nouvelle Géographie
  universelle_ (Paris, 1876-1880), translated by E.G. Ravenstein and
  A.H. Keane (vol. i. Southern Europe, vol. ii. France and Switzerland,
  vol. iii. Austria-Hungary, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, vol.
  iv. The British Isles, vol. v. Scandinavia, Russia in Europe, and the
  European islands, translation undated); G.G. Chisholm, "Europe" (2
  vols.) in Stanford's _Compendium of Geography and Travel_ (London,
  1899, 1902); Kirchhoff and others, _Die Landerkunde des Erdteils
  Europa_, vols. ii. and iii. of _Unser Wissen von der Erde_ (comprising
  all the countries of Europe except Russia) (Vienna, &c., 1887-1893);
  A. Philippson and L. Neumann, _Europa, eine allgemeine Landerkunde_
  (Leipzig, 1895, 2nd edition by A. Philippson, 1906); Joseph Partsch,
  _Central Europe_ (London, 1903) (embraces Belgium, the Netherlands,
  Germany, Austria-Hungary, Rumania, Servia, Bulgaria and Montenegro
  treated from a general point of view); Joseph Partsch, _Mitteleuropa_
  (Gotha, 1904) (the same work in German, extended and furnished with
  additional coloured maps); M. Fallex and A. Moirey, _L'Europe moins la
  France_ (Paris, 1906) (no index); A. Hettner, _Europa_ (Leipzig, 1907)
  (an important feature of this work is the division of Europe into
  natural regions); Vidal de la Blache, _Tableau de la géographie de la
  France_ (Paris, 1903) (contains a most instructive map embracing
  western and central Europe to about 42° N. and 24°-26° E., showing the
  former extent of forest, the distribution of soils earliest fit for
  cultivation, of littoral alluvium and of the mines of salt and tin
  which were so important in early European commerce); H.B. George, _The
  Relations of Geography and History_ (Oxford, 1901) (deals very largely
  with Europe); W.Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_ (London, 1900); J.
  Deniker, _The Races of Man_ (London, 1900); R.G. Latham, _The
  Nationalities of Europe_ (London, 2 vols., 1863); J.G. Bartholomew,
  "The Mapping of Europe," in _Scot. Geog. Magazine_ (1890), p. 293;
  Joseph Prestwich, _Geological Map of Europe_ (Oxford, 1880); A. Supan,
  _Die Bevölkerung der Erde_ (viii. Gotha, 1891, and x. Gotha, 1899);
  Strelbitsky, _La Superficie de l'Europe_ (St Petersburg, 1882); Oppel,
  "Die progressive Zunahme der Bevölkerung Europas," _Petermanns
  Mitteil._ (Gotha, 1886); Dr W. Koch, _Handbuch für den
  Eisenbahn-Güterverkehr_ (Berlin), published annually (gives railway
  distances on all the lines of Europe except those of the British
  Isles, Greece, Portugal and Spain); _Verkehrsatlas von Europa_
  (Leipzig), frequently re-issued; _Grosser Atlas der Eisenbahnen von
  Mitteleuropa_ (Leipzig); _Verlag für Börsen_ and _Finanzliteratur_,
  frequently re-issued (gives kilometric distances between a great
  number of places and a great variety of other information in the
  text); K. Wiedenfeld, _Die nordwesteuropäischen Welthäfen_ (Berlin,
  1903) (an important work discussing the geographical basis of the
  commercial importance of the seaports of London, Liverpool, Hamburg,
  Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Havre). Papers relating to
  the climate of Europe: J. Hann, "Die Vertheilung des Luftdruckes über
  Mittel- und Süd-Europa" (based on monthly and annual means for the
  period 1851-1880), in Penck's _Geograph. Abhandlungen_ (vol. ii. No.
  2, Vienna, 1887); A. Supan, "Die mittlere Dauer der
  Haupt-Wärme-perioden in Europa," _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1887), pl. 10,
  and pp. 165-172; Joseph Reger, "Regenkarte von Europa," in _Petermanns
  Mitteil._ (1903), pl. 1; A. Supan, "Die jahreszeitliche Verteilung der
  Niederschläge in Europa," &c., _ibid._ (1890), pl. 21, and pp.
  296-297; P. Elfert, "Die Bewölkung in Mitteleuropa mit Einschluss der
  Karpatenländer," _ibid._ (1890), pl. 11 and pp. 137-145; König, "Die
  Dauer des Sonnenscheins in Europa," in _Nova Acta Leopoldina Karol.
  der deutschen Akad. der Naturforscher_, vol. lxvii. No. 3 (Halle,
  1896); E. Ihne, "Phänologische Karte des Frühlingseinzugs in
  Mitteleuropa," in _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1905), pl. 9, and pp. 97-108;
  A. Angot, "Régime des pluies de la péninsule ibérique," in _Annales du
  bur. cent. météor. de France_ (1893, B. pp. 157-194), and "Régime des
  pluies de l'Europe occidentale," _ibid._ (1895, B. pp. 155-192); E.D.
  Brückner, "Die Klimaschwankungen seit 1700," in Penck's _Geographische
  Abhandlungen_, iv. Pl. 2 (Vienna, 1890); Supan, "Die Verschiebung der
  Bevölkerung in Mitteleuropa mit Einschluss der Karpatenländer,"
  _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1892); Block, _L'Europe politique et sociale_
  (2nd ed., 1892); E. Reclus, "Hégémonie de l'Europe," in _La Société
  nouvelle_ (Brussels, 1894). Publications relating to the measurement
  of a degree of longitude on the parallel of 52° N. from Valentia
  (Ireland) to the eastern frontier of Russia: (1) Stebnitsky, account
  of the Russian section of this work in the _Memoirs_ (Zapiski) _of the
  Milit. Topog. Section of the Russian General Staff_, vols. xlix. and
  l. (St. Petersburg, 1893) (in Russian, see notice in _Petermanns
  Mitteil._ (1894), _Litteraturbericht_, No. 289); (2) and (3) _Die
  europäische Längengradmessung in 52° Br. von Greenwich bis Warschau_;
  (2) Part i., Helmert, _Hauptdreiecke und Grundlinienanschlüsse von
  England bis Polen_ (Berlin, 1893); (3) Part ii., Bërsch and Krüger,
  _Geodätische Linien, Parallelbogen, und Lothabweichungen zwischen
  Feaghmain und Warschau_ (Berlin, 1896); J.G. Kohl, _Die geographische
  Lage der Hauptstädte Europas_ (Leipzig, 1874); Paul Meuriot, _Des
  agglomérations urbaines dans l'Europe contemporaine_ (Paris, 1898);
  Scharff, _The History of the European Fauna_ (London, 1899).
       (G. G. C.)


2. POLITICAL HISTORY

The origin of the name of Europe has been dealt with above, and the
difficulty of any exact definition of the geographical limits covered by
this term has been pointed out. A similar difficulty meets us when we
come to deal with European history. We know what we mean when we speak of
European civilization, though in its origins, as in its modern
developments, this was not confined to Europe. In one sense the history
of Europe is the history of this civilization and of the forces by which
it was produced, preserved and developed; for a separate history of
Europe could never have been written but for the alien powers by which
this civilization was for centuries confined within the geographical
limits of the European continent. Moreover, within these geographical
limits the tradition of the Roman empire, and above all the organization
of the Catholic Church, gave to the European nations, and the states
based upon them, a homogeneity which without them could not have
survived. The name of Europe, indeed, remained until modern times no more
than "a geographical expression"; its diplomatic use, in the sense of a
group of states having common interests and duties, is, indeed, no older
than the 19th century; in the middle ages its place was taken by the
conceptions of the Church and the Empire, which, though theoretically
universal, were practically European. Yet the history of the states
system of Europe, though enormously influenced by outside forces,
possesses from the first a character of its own, which enables it to be
treated as a separate unit. This historical Europe, however, has never
been exactly commensurate with Europe considered as a geographical
division. Russia, though part of Europe geographically--even if we set
the limits of Asia at the Don with certain old geographers--had but
slight influence on European history until the time of Peter the Great.
The Ottoman empire, though its influence on the affairs of Europe was
from the first profound, was essentially an Asiatic power, and was not
formally introduced into the European system until the treaty of Paris of
1856. It still remains outside European civilization.

Europe, then, as we now conceive the term in its application to the
political system and the type of culture established in this part of the
world, may, broadly speaking, be traced to four principal origins: (1)
The Aegean civilization (Hellenic and pre-Hellenic); (2) the Roman
empire; (3) Christianity; (4) the break-up of the Roman empire by the
Teutonic invasions. All these forces helped in the development of Europe
as we now know it. To the Aegean civilization, whether transformed by
contact with Rome, and again transformed by the influence of
Christianity and the religious genius of the middle ages--or
rediscovered during the classical Renaissance--Europe owes the
characteristic qualities of its thought and of its expression in
literature and art. From republican Rome it largely draws its
conceptions of law and of administrative order. From the Roman empire it
inherited a tradition of political unity which survived, in visible
form, though but as a shadowy symbol, until the last Holy Roman emperor
abdicated in 1806; survived also, more fruitfully, in the rules of the
Roman lawyers which developed into modern international law. Yet more
does Europe owe to Christianity, an Asiatic religion, but modified by
contact with Greek thought and powerfully organized on the lines of the
Roman administrative system. The Roman Church remained a reality when
the Roman empire had become little more than a name, and was throughout
the period of chaos and transformation that followed the collapse of the
Roman empire the most powerful instrument for giving to the
heterogeneous races of Europe a common culture and a certain sense of
common interests.

The history of Europe, then, might well begin with the origins of Greece
and Rome, and trace the rise of the Roman empire and the successive
influence upon it of Hellenism and Christianity. These subjects are,
however, very fully dealt with elsewhere (see AEGEAN CIVILIZATION;
GREECE; ROME; CHURCH HISTORY); and it will, therefore, be more
convenient to begin this account with the Teutonic invasions and the
break-up of the Roman empire, events which mark the definite beginning
of the modern European states system.

In a sense the Roman empire had been already "barbarized" before the
invasions of the barbarians _en masse_. Land left vacant by the
dwindling of the population was colonized by immigrants, Teutonic and
other, from beyond the frontiers; the Roman legions were largely
recruited from Germans and other non-Romans, some of whom even rose to
the imperial purple. Thus, in the end, the Roman emperor, with his guard
and his household, ruling over an empire mercilessly exploited to fill
his treasury, was essentially indistinguishable from those barbarian
chiefs, with their _antrustions_ and their primitive fiscal methods, who
entered into portions of his inheritance and carried on the traditions
of his rule.

The history of the Teutonic peoples prior to their organized invasions
of the empire is dealt with elsewhere (see TEUTONIC PEOPLES). It was in
the 4th century that the pressure of their advance was first felt on the
frontiers, and this led to a change in the government of the empire
which was to have notable consequences. In A.D. 330 Constantine had
transferred the capital from Rome to Byzantium (Constantinople), but the
empire, from the Forth to the Tigris, continued to be administered
successfully from a single centre. Not, however, for long: the
increasing perils from without made a closer supervision essential, and
after the death of Theodosius I. (395) the empire was divided between
emperors of the East and West. It was the beginning not only of the
break-up of the empire, but of that increasing divergence between the
eastern and western types of European religion and culture which has
continued to this day.

[Illustration: Europe in the VI century.]

The pressure of the Teutonic invasions became increasingly strong during
the reigns of the emperor Valens and his successors. These invasions
were of two types, (1) migrations of whole peoples with their old German
patriarchal organization complete, (2) bands, larger or smaller, of
emigrants in search of land to settle on, without tribal cohesion, but
organized under the leadership of military chiefs. The earlier invaders,
Goths and Vandals, and later the Burgundians and Lombards were of the
first type; to the second belonged the Franks, "free" men from the Saxon
plain, and the Saxon invaders of Britain. The distinction was a vital
one; for the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Lombards never took root in
the soil, and succumbed in turn, while the Frankish and Saxon
immigrants, each man lord in his own estate, not only maintained
themselves, but set up at the cost of the Roman organization and of the
power of their own kings a wholly new polity, based on the independence
of the territorial unit, which later on was to develop into feudalism.


  The Teutonic Invasions.

It was owing to the pressure of Turanian invaders from the East that the
Teutonic peoples were first forced to take refuge within the empire. In
378 the Goths defeated and slew the emperor Valens in a battle near
Adrianople; in 410 Alaric, king of the West Goths, sacked Rome; and
shortly after his death the Goths passed into Gaul and Spain. In 429
Gaiseric, king of the Vandals, at the invitation, it is said, of the
governor Bonifacius, passed over from Spain to Roman Africa, which
became the centre of another Teutonic kingdom, soon established as a
great naval power which for a while commanded the Mediterranean and
devastated the coasts of Italy and Sicily with its piracies.

Meanwhile the Franks and Burgundians were pressing into Germany and
Gaul, while from 449 onwards the Saxons, the Angles and the Jutes
invaded and occupied Britain. For a moment it was doubtful if the Aryan
or Turanian races would be supreme, but in 451 Attila, king of the Huns,
was decisively beaten in the battle of Châlons by a combination of
Franks, Goths and Romans, under the Roman general Aetius and Theodosius,
king of the Goths. This battle decided that Europe was to be Christian
and independent of Asia and Africa. In 476 the succession of Western
emperors came to an end with Odoacer's occupation of Rome, and with the
decision of the Roman senate that one emperor was enough, and that the
Eastern emperor, Zeno, should rule the whole empire. For a time
Theodoric, king of the East Goths, ruled Italy, Gaul and Spain; but
after his death in 526 the empire of the East Goths was shattered, and
changes took place which led to the rise of independent Teutonic
kingdoms in Gaul and Spain. In Gaul Clovis (d. 511), the king of the
Franks, had already established his power, and in Spain, the West Gothic
kingdom, with its capital at Toledo, now asserted its Teutonic
independence. Under the emperor Justinian (527-565), indeed, the Roman
empire seemed in a fair way to recover its supremacy; the Vandal kingdom
in Africa was destroyed; in 555 the Byzantine general Narses finally
shattered the power of the East Goths in Italy, and the exarchate of
Ravenna was established in dependence on the Eastern emperor; the West
Goths were forced to give up the south of Spain; and the Persians were
checked. But with the death of Justinian troubles began. In 568 the
Lombards, under Alboin, appeared in Italy, which they overran as far
south as the Tiber, establishing their kingdom on the ruins of the
exarchate. Though in Asia the emperor Heraclius, in a series of
victorious campaigns, broke the Persian power and succeeded even in
extending the Roman dominion, Italy, save for a while Ravenna itself and
a few scattered sea-coast towns, was thenceforth lost to the empire of
which in theory it still formed a part.

This catastrophe produced one result the importance of which it is
impossible to exaggerate; the development of the political power of the
papacy. At the beginning of the 6th century Rome, under Theodoric the
Goth, was still the city of the Caesars; the tradition of its ancient
life was yet unbroken; at the end of the century Rome, under Pope
Gregory the Great (590-604), had become the city of the popes. And with
the city the popes entered into some of the inheritance of the Caesars;
in the world-wide activity of Gregory we already have a foreshadowing of
universal claims, often effectively asserted, which made the great
medieval popes, in a truer sense than the medieval emperors, the
representatives of the idea of Roman imperial unity (see ROME, sec. ii.
_Middle Ages_; PAPACY).


  The Hegira, A.D. 622. Rise of Mahommedanism.

The next event that profoundly affected the history of Europe was the
rise of Mahommedanism. In A.D. 622, sixteen years after Gregory's death,
occurred the flight (_Hijra_) of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which
fixed the memorable era of the Hegira. The full force of the militant
religion founded by the Arab prophet was not felt till after his death
(632). The emperor Heraclius, the vigour of his manhood passed, was
unable to meet this new peril; the Arabs, strong in their hardy
simplicity, and new-born religious fanaticism, and aided by the treason
and cowardice of the decadent Roman governing classes, overran Asia
Minor, conquered Egypt and the whole of northern Africa, overwhelmed the
Gothic kingdom in Spain, and even penetrated beyond the Pyrenees to the
conquest of the province of Narbonne. One of the chief effects of these
Arab conquests was that Christian civilization became gradually confined
to Europe, another was that the trade routes to the East were closed to
the Western nations. The conquest of Narbonne marked the limit of the
advance of Islam in western Europe, for in 732 the Arabs were overthrown
by Charles Martel in the battle of Tours, and a few years later were
driven out of Gaul. In Spain, however, they succeeded in maintaining
themselves throughout the middle ages; developing a high type of
civilization which had a considerable influence on the intellectual life
of medieval Europe; and it was not till 1494 that Granada, their last
possession in the peninsula, was conquered by the Christian monarchs,
Ferdinand and Isabella.


  The Carolingians.

The battle of Tours emphasized and increased the power and reputation of
Charles Martel. As a mayor of the palace to the decadent Merovingian
successors of Clovis, he was virtually ruler of the Franks, and, after
his death, the last of the _rois fainéants_ of the house of Merovech was
deposed, and Pippin, Charles's son, was elected king of the Franks. The
prestige of the Carolingian house (to give it the name it was later
known by) was increased when, at the urgent entreaty of Pope Stephen
III., Pippin marched into Italy and saved Rome from the Lombards, who
were endeavouring to extend their power southwards. Pippin's son Charles
(Charlemagne) finally conquered the Lombards in 774 and thus added part
of northern Italy to his dominions.

[Illustration: Charlemagne's Empire at its greatest extent.]


  The coronation of Charles the Great as emperor. 800.

In 797 an event of the highest importance to the European world took
place. The emperor Constantine VI. was deposed by his mother Irene, who
seized the throne. Thereupon Pope Leo and the Roman people definitely
threw off the authority of the emperors of Constantinople, on the ground
that a woman could not hold the position of Caesar. In 800 Leo crowned
Charlemagne emperor at Rome, and henceforth till 1453, when
Constantinople was conquered by the Turks, there was an Eastern and a
Western empire. Till his death in 814 Charlemagne was king of the
Franks as well as emperor. His kingdom embraced not only all German and
modern France, but included a large part of Italy and Spain as far as
the Ebro. Under his rule western Europe was united in a powerful empire,
in the organization of which the principles of Roman and Teutonic
administration were blended; and, after his death, he left to his
successors, the Frankish and German kings, the tradition of a
centralized government which survived the chaos of the period that
followed, and the prescriptive right to the title and prestige of Roman
emperors--a tradition and a claim that were to exercise a notable effect
on the development of European history for centuries to come. (See
FRANCE: _History_ and CHARLEMAGNE.)


  Europe after the death of Charlemagne.

The period from the death of Charlemagne (814) to the 12th century is
characterized in western Europe by the general weakening of the idea of
central government and by the rise of feudalism. During the same period
the East Roman or Byzantine empire escaped disruption and, preserving
the traditions of Roman civil and military administration, formed an
effective barrier for Europe and Christendom against the advancing tide
of Islam. At the same time, however, the growing divergence between the
Eastern and Western Churches, which had been accentuated by the
iconoclastic controversy (see ICONOCLASTS), and was destined in 1053 to
culminate in a definite schism, was gradually widening the breach
between the two types of European civilization, which came into violent
conflict at the beginning of the 13th century, when crusaders from
western Europe captured Constantinople and set up a Latin empire in the
East (see ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER; CHURCH HISTORY; CRUSADES). In western
Europe, meanwhile, the unity of the empire did not long survive
Charlemagne. Its definite break-up dates from the treaty of Verdun
(843), by which Charles the Bald received Neustria, Aquitaine and
western Burgundy, Louis the German Bavaria, Swabia, Saxony and
Thuringia, and the emperor Lothair the middle kingdom known by his name,
the _regnum Lotharii_ or Lotharingia (see LORRAINE). By the partition of
Mersen (870) Lotharingia itself was divided between the West and East
Frankish realms--France and Germany, terms which from this time begin to
represent true national divisions. With the treaties of Verdun and
Mersen the history of the European state system may be said to begin.

[Illustration: The Western Empire after the Partition of Mersen 870.]

[Illustration: Europe in 1810.]

[Illustration: Europe in 1815.]


  Rise of feudalism.

At first, indeed, it seemed as though the nascent states were about to
be dissolved by disruption from within and attacks from without. All
alike were subject to the attacks of the Norse sea-rovers, hardy pirates
who not only scourged all the coasts of Europe but penetrated, burning
and harrying, far inland up the great waterways. Meanwhile, the
weakening of central government due to dynastic struggles had led to
the growth of independent or semi-independent powers within the states
themselves. The Frank landowners had successfully asserted their
independence of the jurisdiction of the king (or emperor) and his
officials; the imperial officials themselves, dukes or counts, had
received grants of lands with similar immunities (_beneficia_), and
these had become hereditary. Thus sprang up a class of great territorial
nobles to whom, amid the growing anarchy, men looked for protection
rather than to the weak and remote central power; and so, out of the
chaos that followed the break-up of the empire of Charlemagne, was born
the feudal system of the middle ages (see FEUDALISM). This organization
was admirable for defence; and with its aid, before the close of the
first decade of the 10th century, the frontiers of France and Germany
had been made safe against the northern barbarians, who had either been
driven off and barriers erected against their return--e.g. the marks
established by Henry the Fowler along the middle Elbe--or, as in the
case of the Normans, absorbed into a system well adapted for such a
process. By the treaty of St Claire-sur-Epte (911) between Charles the
Simple and Rollo, chief of the Norsemen, the Normans were established in
the country since known as Normandy (q.v.), as feudatories of the French
crown. In England, by the treaty of Wedmore (878) between Alfred and the
Danish king Guthrum, the Danes had already been established in a large
part of England.


  Royalty and feudalism.

Feudalism, by the time the Northmen had been subdued by its aid, was
quite firmly established in the western part of Europe. During the 11th
century it was carried by the Normans into England, into Sicily and
southern Italy, and by the nobles of the first crusade into the newly
established kingdom of Jerusalem (1099). By the kings of France, England
and Germany, however, who saw themselves in danger of being stripped of
all but the semblance of power by its delegation to their more or less
nominal vassals, the feudal organization was early recognized as
impossible as a form of state government, if the state was to be
preserved; and the history of the three great European powers during the
succeeding centuries is mainly that of the struggle of the sovereigns
against the disruptive ambitions of the great feudal nobles. In England
the problem was, from the outset, simplified; for though William the
Conqueror introduced the system of feudal land tenure into England in
1066 he refused to set it up as his system of government, retaining
alongside of it the old English national policy. In France, on the other
hand, feudalism as a system of government had become firmly established;
and it was not till the days of Philip Augustus (1180-1223) and Louis
IX. (1226-1270) that the monarchy began to get the upper hand. From this
time until the 17th century the power of the French monarchy, in spite
of occasional lapses, grew steadily stronger. The reverse was the case
with the German kingship. Its association with the undefined claims
involved in the title of Roman emperor, traditionally attached to it,
and notably those to authority in Italy, necessitated concession after
concession to the feudal nobles, in order to purchase their support for
their assertion. The kingship, moreover, became elective; the imperial
title was obtainable only at Rome at the hands of the pope; and the
German kings thus became entangled in contests, not only with their own
vassals, but with the tremendous spiritual force of the medieval papacy
by which, for its own ends, the spirit of feudal insubordination was
from time to time fomented. Thus in Germany the feudal nobles gradually
acquired a sovereign status which, in some cases, has survived the
territorial rearrangements of the 19th century and left its mark on the
federal constitution of modern Germany; while the kingship and the
imperial title grew more and more shadowy till in 1806 it vanished
altogether. (See ENGLISH HISTORY; FRANCE: _History_, GERMANY:
_History_.)


  The rise of the house of Capet.

In France the process by which a strong hereditary monarchy was
established was a slow one. During the greater part of the 10th century
the Carolingians, stripped of the vast domains which had been the basis
of the power of Pippin, owed their continued existence to the
forbearance of Hugh the Great, count of Paris. In 987, however, the last
Carolingian king died, and Hugh Capet, son of Hugh the Great, the most
powerful of the territorial magnates, was chosen king of France. With
his election dates the real beginning of the French monarchy, and under
him and his successors Paris became the capital of France. Hugh's
election, however, was the work of the great feudatories, and France
remained divided among a number of great fiefs, of which the chief were
Brittany, Anjou, Flanders, Vermandois, Champagne, Burgundy, Aquitaine,
Poitou, Gascony, Toulouse and Normandy.


  The royal power in Germany.

While the central power in France advanced slowly but steadily, the
development of the royal authority in Germany was in the 10th and 11th
centuries more rapid. In 911 the German magnates had elected Conrad the
Franconian to reign over them, and in 919 Henry "the Fowler" of Saxony,
"whose reign forms one of the great turning-points in the history of the
German nation." He defeated the Hungarians, the Slavs and the Danes, and
by encouraging the growth and development of towns he contributed
greatly to the formation of the German kingdom. His immediate
successors, Otto the Great and Otto II., continued his work, which was
only interrupted for a short time during the reign of the idealist Otto
III., whose "cosmopolitan imperialism" brought him into collision with
the German Church and to some extent with the German nobles. Henry II.
(1002-1025) asserted with success his authority over Germany, and his
successor Conrad II., who belonged to the Salian or Franconian line, did
much to secure unity and prosperity to the Empire. His son and successor
Henry III. (1039-1056) governed Germany wisely, and his reign witnessed
the culminating point of the Holy Roman Empire. At the time of his death
it seemed probable that Germany, like England and France, would
gradually escape from the thraldom of the great feudatories. The future
of the German monarchy depended upon the ability of future kings to
suppress the forces of feudal disintegration in Germany, and to
withstand the temptation of struggling to establish their influence over
Italy. Unfortunately for German kingship Henry IV. (1056-1106) was only
six years old on his accession, and when he became a man he found that
the papacy under Hildebrand's influence was practically independent of
the emperor. Had Henry confined his efforts to coercing the German
barons he might, like the Normans and Angevins in England, and like the
Capetians in France, have proved successful. Unfortunately for Germany
Henry entered upon the famous contest with the papacy under Gregory VII.
(1073-1080), which ended in the 13th century in the defeat of the Empire
in the person of Frederick II. The struggle began in 1073 over the
question of investiture (q.v.), and widened into a duel between the
spiritual and temporal powers. During the early years of the contest the
influence of the papacy reached a high pitch and made itself felt in the
crusading movement, which received its first impetus from Pope Urban
II., who appealed to Europe at the council of Clermont in 1095 to
recover the Holy Places from the Turks.


  The eastern Empire and the Crusades.

During the 11th century the Eastern Empire was attacked by the Russians,
the Normans and the Seljuks. The emperor Alexius Comnenus found himself
on his accession in 1081 threatened by the Seljuks (the victors in the
decisive battle of Manzikert in 1071) and by the Sicilian Normans who in
1081 besieged Durazzo. In 1083 he defeated the Normans in the battle of
Durazzo, and with the death of Robert Guiscard in 1085 all danger from a
fresh Norman invasion passed away. But the first crusade brought new
anxieties to Alexius, for he feared that the crusaders might attack
Constantinople. That fear removed, he took advantage of the increased
connexion between eastern and western Europe by bestowing commercial
privileges upon the Italian trading republics, who thus gained access to
the ports of the Empire on easy terms.


  The Crusades and the Hildebrandine reformation.

With the era of the Crusades, which lasted till the middle of the 13th
century, Europe entered upon a period of change, the importance of which
is realized by contrasting the condition of western Christendom in the
11th with its condition in the 13th century. Between the opening and
close of the crusading movement Europe underwent a complete revolution.
While the Crusades tended to enhance the prestige and authority of the
papacy and the power of European monarchs, they also led to increased
knowledge of the East, to the rapid development of commerce, to the
introduction of new industries, to the rapid decline of the influence of
the feudal nobility, and to the rapid development of town life (see
COMMUNE). At the same time the Hildebrandine reformation was having an
immense influence upon the intellectual condition of Europe. The 12th
century saw the establishment of many new monastic orders (see
MONASTICISM), and at the same time a remarkable speculative and literary
revival (see SCHOLASTICISM). This movement owed not a little of its
success to the influence of the Crusades, which stirred up intellectual
as well as commercial activity. This intellectual activity, as well as
the fruits of commercial expansion, were--since learning was still a
monopoly of the clerical order--weapons in the hands of the papacy,
which in the 12th century attained the height of its power, if not of
its pretensions. It is, indeed, impossible to exaggerate the influence
of the Roman Church upon the development of Europe at this period. The
popes, in fact, represented Europe in a sense that could not be
predicated of the emperors; the terror of their spiritual power, their
vast wealth derived from the tribute of all the West, their unique
experience of international affairs, and--in the case of the great popes
of this epoch--the superiority of their minds and characters, made them
not only the spiritual rulers of Europe, but the effective centres of
whatever political unity it possessed. As a Byzantine observer was to
observe of Innocent III., they had become the successors of the Caesars
rather than of Peter (see PAPACY).


  Growth of the royal power in France.

Nowhere were the beneficial effects of the Crusades seen more clearly
than in France. The smaller fiefs were steadily absorbed by the greater
lordships, which in their turn fell victims to the royal power. It might
almost be said that "modern France is a creation of the Crusades." The
effects of the crusading movement were felt in France as early as the
reign of Louis VI. (1108-1137). Aided by his able minister Suger, Louis
managed before his death to add to the possessions of his house the Île
de France and a prospective claim to Poitou and Aquitaine. Under his
successor Louis VII. (1137-1180) the consolidation movement was checked
owing to the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine (after her divorce from
Louis VII.) to Henry II of England. By the addition of his wife's lands
(Gascony and Guienne) to those which he had already inherited from his
father and mother (Normandy, Anjou, Touraine and Maine) Henry was
enabled to form the powerful though short-lived Angevin empire. But the
lost ground was rapidly recovered by Philip Augustus (1180-1223), who
took advantage of the weakness and folly of John of England, and before
1215 had united firmly to France Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Touraine.
Louis VIII. and Louis IX. adhered firmly to the policy of Philip IV.,
and in 1258, by the treaty of Paris, Henry III. of England recognized
the loss of Poitou. There thus remained to England out of the vast
continental domains of Henry II. only Gascony and Guienne.


  General results of the Crusades.

The rest of Europe was also in various degrees affected by the Crusades.
While Spain was occupied in a crusade of her own against the Moors and
gradually driving them into Granada, Germany, Italy, and to some extent
England, were interested in, and influenced by, the Crusades against the
Turks. During the absence of many of the nobles in the East the growth
of towns and the development of the mercantile class proceeded without
interruption. The trading classes demanded strong governments and equal
justice, and vigorously supported the monarchs in their suppression of
feudalism.

During the 12th and 13th centuries the Crusades thus proved a large
factor in the commercial prosperity of the Italian maritime states, an
"open door" between East and West was secured, and reinforcements from
Europe were poured into Syria as long as the peoples of the West
regarded the stability of the Latin kingdom of Syria as a matter of
prime importance. During the crusading period a check was placed to the
tide of Mahommedan conquest, while to the caliphate the Crusades proved
a perpetual drain upon its material resources. To the Mahommedans the
possession of the Holy Places by the Christians was as great a
humiliation as their desecration by the Mahommedans was to the
crusaders. Unfortunately the Crusades led to a disastrous schism between
the Byzantine empire and western Christendom, which had calamitous
results. The decay of the crusading spirit was a necessary result of the
growth of the consolidation of the European nations, but the price paid
was the fall of Constantinople and the establishment of the Turks in
eastern Europe. The Crusades thus not only postponed the conquest of
Constantinople by the Turks for some two hundred years, but led, as had
already been said, to a vast expansion of commerce, as seen in the rapid
growth and development of the Italian cities, and to a striking
development of town life.


  The struggle between the Empire and the papacy.

The Crusades had enormously strengthened the power and prestige of the
papacy, and indirectly contributed to its victory over the Empire in the
person of Frederick II. From the reign of the emperor Henry IV. to the
death of Frederick II. in 1250 the struggle between the Empire and the
papacy continued, and is coincident in point of time with the Crusades.
The reign of Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1190) saw that struggle at its
height, and during that reign it became apparent that the emperor's
efforts to unite Italy and Germany under one crown were doomed to
failure. The rise and success of the alliance of Italian republics known
as the Lombard League no doubt contributed to the success of the papacy,
but in their contest with the popes the emperors never had any chance of
gaining a permanent victory. Frederick II continued with great energy to
attempt the hopeless task of dominating the papacy, but his possession
of Sicily only made the popes more determined than ever to establish
their predominance in Italy. Frederick's death in 1250 marked not only
the triumph of the papacy in Italy, but also that of feudalism in
Germany. He has been called the "most dazzling of the long line of
imperial failures," and with him ends the Empire as it was originally
conceived. Henceforward the Holy Roman Empire, which implied the unity
of Italy and Germany, and the close alliance of pope and emperor, no
longer exists save in name, and its place is taken by a glorified German
kingship presiding over a confederation of turbulent German nobles.


  Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Thus with the later years of the 13th century Europe had arrived at the
definite close of one epoch and the beginning of another. The period of
the Crusades was over, the theory of the Holy Roman Empire had broken
down. The period from the beginning of the 14th to the close of the 15th
century might well be styled the latter days of medieval Europe.

During the 14th and 15th centuries the idea of regarding Europe as one
state in which emperor and pope presided over a number of subordinate
kings gave way before the spirit of nationalism and particularism.
England, France and Spain were rapidly becoming strong centralized
monarchies which stood in striking contrast to the weakened Empire.
Partly no doubt owing to the failure of the Empire and papacy to work
together, a great impetus had been given to the formation of national
monarchies. While Frederick II. had failed, Louis IX. and Philip IV. of
France, Ferdinand III. of Castile (1217-1252), James the Conqueror, king
of Aragon (1213-1276) and Edward I. of England (1239-1307) succeeded in
laying the foundations of strong monarchies which after two centuries of
struggles with the dying efforts of feudalism were established on a firm
basis. In spite of the intellectual activity and political developments
which characterized the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries it remains true
that the later middle ages were marked by the decay of those remarkable
social and political forces which had been such striking characteristics
of the earlier period (see MIDDLE AGES).


  Summary of the characteristics of the 14th and 15th centuries.

Thus the 14th and 15th centuries have characteristics which
differentiate them from all preceding and succeeding centuries, The
triumph of the papacy over the Empire had been short-lived. Owing to the
disturbed state of Italy, Clement V. was in 1305 compelled to take
refuge at Avignon, and till 1377--a period known as the Babylonish
captivity--the popes remained in France. While the Empire and papacy
steadily decline, while the Byzantine empire falls before the Turks,
strong monarchies are gradually formed in England, France, Spain, and
Portugal, and in Italy the Renaissance movement covers the later years
of the 15th century with glory (see RENAISSANCE). During these centuries
there is common to Europe no one principle which is to be found in all
kingdoms. But while the old system, founded on belief in the unity of
Europe under the Empire and papacy, declines amid chaos and turbulence,
there is much intellectual and political activity which portends the
appearance of an entirely new state of things. The 14th and 15th
centuries may truly be styled a period of transition.


  The decline of the Empire, 1254-1519.

From the death of Conrad IV., the son of Frederick II., in 1254 to 1273,
when Rudolph of Habsburg became king, chaos reigned in Germany, and the
period is known as the Great Interregnum. The forces of decentralization
strengthened themselves, and the emperors found that the formation of a
strong and united German kingdom was an impossibility. Rudolph of
Habsburg (1273-1291), realizing what were the limits of his power in
Germany and the futility of attempting to establish his hold upon Italy,
began that policy of family aggrandizement which was continued so
notably by successive members of his house. His reign witnessed the firm
establishment of the house of Anjou in Naples, and, after the Sicilian
Vespers in 1282, the supremacy of the house of Aragon in Sicily.
Refusing to follow the example of Frederick II. and to take part in
distant expeditions, Rudolph conquered Austria, Styria, Carinthia and
Carniola, Vienna became the capital of the Habsburg dominions in
Germany, and his son Albert of Austria, who was king from 1298 to 1308,
was careful to continue the policy of his father. Though no Habsburg was
again elected to the imperial throne till 1438, when the long succession
of emperors began which continued unbroken till 1742, the establishment
of the Habsburgs in Austria by Rudolph proved an event of European
importance. From that time the leading members of the Habsburg family
never lost an opportunity of aggrandizement. In 1335 they received
Carinthia, in 1363 the Tirol. While, however, the Habsburgs, the
Wittelsbachs and later the house of Brandenburg were strengthening
themselves, the Empire was steadily declining in power and influence.
The 14th century saw Switzerland shake itself free from the Austrian
house and establish its independence, which was, however, not formally
acknowledged till the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

During the 14th century the weakness of the Empire became more and more
accentuated under the weak rule of Louis IV. On his death in 1346 his
successor Charles of Luxemburg, known as the emperor Charles IV., made a
celebrated attempt to form a strong centralized German monarchy. With
that object he issued in 1356 the Golden Bull, by which it was hoped
that all matters connected with the imperial election would be settled.
The number of imperial electors was settled, and henceforth they were to
consist of the archbishops of Cologne, Mainz and Trier, and of the king
of Bohemia, the duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and the
count palatine of the Rhine. Charles hoped to concentrate gradually in
his house all the chief German provinces, and having by the Golden Bull
endeavoured to check the growth of the towns, he expected to establish
firmly the imperial influence in Germany. But the towns were too strong
to be coerced, and during his reign the Swabian cities formed a union;
and though the marriage of his son Sigismund to the heiress of the king
of Hungary and Poland, and the possession of Brandenburg, which fell to
him in 1373, seemed steps towards the realization of his hopes, his
death in 1378 left his work unfinished. Moreover, his son and successor
Wenceslaus (1378-1400) proved, like Richard II. of England and Charles
VI. of France, unequal to the task of checking the growing independence
of the nobles and the cities. The Hanseatic League (q.v.) was at the
height of its power, and in 1381 the Rhenish towns formed a
confederation. Wenceslaus, like Richard II., had fallen upon evil times.
The advance westwards by the Turks occupied the attention of his brother
Sigismund, now king of Hungary; he was himself unpopular in Bohemia, and
at the same time was exposed to the intrigues of his cousin Jobst of
Moravia, who had secured Brandenburg. In 1400 Wenceslaus was formally
deposed by the electors, and spent the rest of his life in Bohemia,
where he died in 1419. His successor Rupert of the palatinate reigned
from 1400 to 1410, and during his reign the council of Pisa endeavoured
to bring to an end the great schism which had followed upon the return
of Pope Urban VI. from Avignon to Rome in 1377. Two popes had been
elected, one living at Rome, the other at Avignon, and Christian Europe
was scandalized at the sight of two rival pontiffs. On Rupert's death
the electors chose Sigismund the brother of Wenceslaus, and he ruled as
emperor from 1411 to 1437.


  Decline of the papacy.

  Sigismund, emperor, 1411-1437.

  The taking of Constantinople by the Turks.

Thus at the beginning of the 15th century the papacy was seen to have
fallen from the high position which it occupied at the time of the death
of Frederick II. The Avignon captivity followed by the great schism
weakened its temporal as well as its spiritual power and prestige, while
national developments and dynastic ambitions, such as led to the Hundred
Years' War, diverted men's minds from religious to purely temporal
concerns. The work of Wycliffe and Hus illustrated not only the decline
of papal prestige but also the general opinion that reform in the papacy
was necessary. Sigismund's reign as emperor was rendered noteworthy by
the part which he took in the council of Constance (q.v.), and by his
successful efforts to suppress the Hussite movement in Bohemia (see
HUSSITES). That country on the death of Wenceslaus in 1419 fell to
Sigismund, but it was not till 1431, after a long and sanguinary war,
that the opposition to the union of Bohemia with the Empire was
suppressed. Led by Zizka and other able chiefs, the Bohemians who were
Slavs utilized the Hussite movement in a vigorous attempt to secure
their independence. In 1436 Sigismund was formally acknowledged king of
Bohemia. In 1431, the year of the final overthrow of the Bohemians and
the Hussites, he opened the council of Basel (q.v.), being resolved to
establish a religious peace in Europe and to prevent the Hussite
doctrines from spreading into Germany. In 1438 Sigismund died, leaving
Germany involved in a quarrel with the papacy, but having successfully
withstood the efforts of the Bohemians to acquire independence.
Sigismund's death marks an epoch in the history of the Empire, for his
successor Albert of Austria proved to be the first of a long line of
Habsburg emperors. Albert himself reigned only from 1438 to 1440, but on
his death the imperial dignity was conferred upon another member of the
Habsburg house, Frederick, duke of Styria and Carinthia, known as the
emperor Frederick III. With his accession the imperial throne became
practically hereditary in the Habsburg family. Frederick's long reign,
which lasted from 1440 to 1493, was of little benefit to Germany; for he
showed no administrative skill and proved a weak and incapable ruler.
Undoubtedly his lot fell upon evil days, for not only were the Turks at
the height of their power, but both Bohemia and Hungary gave him much
anxiety. The imminent fall of Constantinople, the last barrier of
Christendom against Islam in the East, was a threat not only to the
Empire, but to all Christian Europe. But western Europe was too much
occupied with internecine feuds to unite effectively against the common
enemy. In vain the emperor John VI. had gone in person to solicit aid at
the various courts of the West; in vain he had humbled himself to pay
the price asked, by subscribing to the abnegation of the distinctive
tenets of the Orthodox Church, which secured the ephemeral reunion of
Christendom at the council of Florence (1438). The crusading spirit was
dead; the European powers stirred no finger to save the imperial city;
and in 1453 Sultan Mahommed II. rode through the breach over the body of
the last of the Eastern Caesars, and planted the crescent on the dome
of the metropolitan church, of Eastern Christendom (see TURKEY, and
ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER).

The fall of Constantinople marked the definite establishment on European
soil of a power alien and hostile to all that was characteristic of
European civilization. It was a power, moreover, which could live only
by expanding; and for over two hundred years to come the dread of
Ottoman aggression was a dominant factor in the politics of eastern
Europe. The tide of Turkish advance could have been arrested by a union
of Europe; but the appeals of Pope Nicholas V. fell unheeded upon a
sceptical age, intent only on its dynastic and particularist ambitions.
To the emperor the ousting of the Ottomans from the Balkan peninsula
seemed of less importance than the consolidation of the Habsburg power
in Germany, and its extension over the neighbouring kingdoms of Hungary
and Bohemia. France was exhausted by the long agony of the Hundred
Years' War, which came to an end the very year of the fall of
Constantinople, and the French kings--especially Louis XI.
(1461-1483)--were busy for the rest of the century crushing out the
remnants of feudalism and consolidating the power of the monarchy. As
for Italy, with its petty tyrants and its _condottieri_, there was no
hope of uniting it for any purpose whatever, least of all a religious
purpose, and Spain was busy with her own crusades against the Moors. The
exploits of John Hunyadi, king of Hungary, against the Turks, therefore,
remained isolated and unsupported. In 1456 he checked their advance
northwards by a brilliant victory which led to the relief of Belgrade;
but he died the same year, and his death was followed by a struggle for
the succession between Hungarians and Bohemians. The racial and
religious quarrels of the Balkan peoples had made it possible for the
Turks to obtain a foothold in Europe; the jealousies and internecine
struggles of the Christian states made possible the vast expansion of
the Ottoman power, which in the 17th century was to advance the
frontiers of Islam to those of Germany and to reduce the emperors, in
their relations with the Porte, to the status of tributary princes.

The victory of Ladislaus, son of Casimir, king of Poland, who succeeded
in uniting in his own person the crowns of Bohemia, Hungary and Poland,
threatened to result in the permanent independence of those countries of
the house of Habsburg. But in 1490 Ladislaus was compelled by
Maximilian, son of Frederick III., to sign the treaty of Pressburg,
providing for the eventual succession of the Habsburgs to Hungary and
Bohemia.


  Consolidation of the Habsburg power.

In other ways the reign of Frederick III. laid the foundations of the
greatness of his family. In 1477 Maximilian married Mary, duchess of
Burgundy and heiress of Charles the Bold, and through her the Habsburgs
obtained Franche Comté and the Netherlands. The line, _Bella gerant
alii, tu felix Austria nube_, well described the method by which the
house of Habsburg increased its possessions and established its
fortunes. A.E.I.O.U. (_Austriae est imperare orbi universo_), was the
device invented for his house at that time by Frederick III. and it
proved no idle boast. Maximilian I, the son of Frederick III., reigned
from 1493 to 1519, and during his reign Europe passed from medieval to
modern times. Some reforms in the Empire were carried out, but the
events of his reign made it apparent that it was impossible to set up a
centralized monarchy in Germany (see MAXIMILIAN I.; GERMANY and AUSTRIA:
_History_).


  France in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Far different developments were taking place during the 14th and 15th
centuries in France, Spain, the Scandinavian north and in England.
During the greater part of the 14th century France was engaged in
foreign wars and in internal complications, and it seemed doubtful if a
strong centralized monarchy would be firmly established. The failure of
Philip VI. (1328-1350) and John (1350-1364) in their contest with
England weakened the central power in France, and, though Charles V.
(1364-1389), owing to his own sagacity and the weakness of the English
government, managed to regain for France many of her lost provinces, the
French power both at home and abroad again declined under the rule of
the incapable Charles VII. (1380-1422). In fact the year 1422 may be
said to mark the lowest stage in the history of the French monarchy.
From that year an improvement gradually set in. A national sentiment, as
exemplified in the career of Joan of Arc (q.v.), was developed; an
alliance, essential for the successful expulsion of the English from
France, was made in 1435 between the king of France and the duke of
Burgundy; and in 1439 the famous ordinance empowering the king to
maintain a standing army and to raise money for its maintenance was
passed at Orleans by the states-general. These measures proved
successful; in 1453 the Hundred Years' War came to an end, and Louis XI.
managed between 1461 and 1483 to establish an absolutism in France on
sure foundations. Under his successor Charles VIII. (1483-1498),
Brittany was annexed, and France, secure from all danger of a feudal
reaction, entered with the invasion of Italy in 1494 by Charles VIII.
upon modern times. A similar process is observable in England and Spain.
In England the Wars of the Roses were followed by the establishment of a
strong monarchy under Henry VII., while in Spain Ferdinand and Isabella
established in place of anarchy the royal authority, and during their
reign suppressed all attempts at provincial independence. In 1491 the
consolidation of Spain was completed by the conquest of Granada. In
1397, by the union of Calmar, the three kingdoms of Norway, Sweden and
Denmark were united under Eric XIII. This union was, however,
short-lived, and in the early years of the 16th century came definitely
to an end (see NORWAY; SWEDEN; DENMARK).


  The close of the middle ages.

The close of the middle ages and the beginning of modern times was
marked by several noteworthy events. The invention of printing, the
discovery of America and the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. all
occurred before the end of the 15th century, while in the early years of
the 16th century the ideal of civil and ecclesiastical unity was finally
shattered by the Reformation and by the development of the modern states
system, accompanied by the prominence henceforward attached to the
question of the balance of power.


  The Renaissance.

During the whole of the 15th century Europe had been affected by what is
known as the Renaissance movement, which marked the transition from the
medieval to the modern order. This movement, caused by the growth of
learning, had its first home in Italy, which had witnessed a marvellous
revival of interest in classical antiquity, in painting and in
sculpture, accompanied by a keen intellectual activity in religious and
political, no less than in literary matters. Criticism of existing
beliefs was developed, knowledge became widely diffused, and, while the
way was prepared for the substitution of individualism for the old
ecclesiastical system, the development of commerce coincident with the
discovery of America and the establishment of monarchical systems
destroyed feudalism (see RENAISSANCE). The later years of the 15th, and
the early years of the 16th, centuries may be described as the
transition from medievalism to modern times, from feudalism to
individualism, from the idea of a world church and a world empire to one
in which national consolidation was the chief feature and monarchical
government a necessity.


  Summary of European history from 1500.

From the beginning of the 16th century Europe entered upon modern times.
Many events marked the close of the middle ages. The discovery of
America, the decay of Venice, the development of the European states
system, the rise of diplomacy as a permanent international system (see
DIPLOMACY), the wars of religion--all these are the general
characteristics of the new period upon which Europe now enters. With the
growth of monarchies arises the belief in the divine right of kings, the
development of territorial sovereignty, and wars of ambition like those
waged by Louis XIV.

With the 18th century democratic ideas first begin to appear side by
side with the rule of the enlightened despots such as Frederick the
Great, Catherine II. and Joseph II. The outbreak of the French
Revolution brings to an end the old European system, upsets the ideas on
which it was founded, and leads to important territorial changes.

[Illustration: Map of Europe 1815-1910.]


  The balance of power and the beginning of modern times.

The advent of the Reformation, as has already been pointed out, finally
shattered that ideal of civil and religious unity which had been the
main characteristic of the middle ages. Thus from the beginning of the
16th century Europe sees the development of the modern states system and
becomes the scene of national wars in which the idea of the balance of
power was the leading principle (see BALANCE OF POWER). That principle
did not allow of the recognition of the rights of nationalities, and
till the wars of the French Revolution the interests of the various
European states were usually subordinated to the dynastic aims of their
rulers. During the ensuing centuries the balance of power in Europe was
seriously threatened; during the first half of the 16th century by
Charles V., during the latter half of the same century by Philip II., in
the first half of the 17th century by the house of Habsburg, and in the
latter half by Louis XIV.

The close of the Seven Years' War seemed to prelude a period of British
ascendancy on the continent, but that danger passed away with the
outbreak of the war between Great Britain and her American colonies. For
a time the balance of power in Europe was completely shattered by
Napoleon's brilliant conquests, but his fall, while to a great extent
restoring the political equilibrium, gave an opportunity to Alexander of
Russia to dominate Europe. Thus the 16th century definitely marked the
beginning of modern times both from a political as well as from a
religious point of view.


  The Reformation and the rivalry of Charles V. and Francis I.

With the accession of Francis I. to the French and Charles V. to the
imperial throne began the long rivalry between France and the house of
Habsburg, which continued with few interruptions till 1756. In the
struggle between Charles V. and Francis I., which began in 1521, the
former had the advantage, and the battle of Pavia (1525) seemed likely
to lead to the permanent pre-eminence of the imperial cause. But
unexpected allies were found by Francis in the German reformers and in
the Turks. The nailing by Luther of his ninety-five theses to the door
of the Wittenberg church, followed by the decisions of the diet of Worms
in 1521, led to a rapid development of Lutheran opinions among the
princes of the north of Germany. Charles V.'s victory over France in
1525 and his reconciliation with the papacy in 1529 seemed, however, to
prelude the suppression of the Protestant opinions. But Francis I. again
took up arms, while the invasions of Suleiman the Magnificent, during
whose reign the Turkish influence was not only felt in Hungary and
Germany but extended to the west basin of the Mediterranean, forced
Charles to temporize. When in 1544 the conclusion of the peace of Crépy
with Francis I. enabled Charles to turn his attention to the rapid
growth of Protestantism, it was too late to adopt with any chance of
success a policy of suppression. In 1552 he found himself compelled to
agree to the treaty of Passau which implied the adoption of a policy of
compromise, and which in 1555 was followed by a definite arrangement at
Augsburg, which admitted the principle of _cujus regio, ejus religio_.
Till the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War in 1618, the settlement of
Augsburg tended to keep peace between the Catholics and the Protestants.
Equally unsuccessful were Charles's later efforts against France; in
1553 he lost Metz, Toul and Verdun, and in 1556 he retired to Spain,
leaving the Empire to his brother Ferdinand, and Spain, the Netherlands
and his Italian possessions to his son Philip. The latter, after winning
the battle of St Quentin in 1557, made peace with Henry II. of France by
the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559.


  The Counter-Reformation.

By this peace a term was put to the struggle between France on the one
hand and the Empire and Spain on the other, and the kings of France and
Spain were enabled to turn their attention to the issues raised by the
immense growth of Protestantism since 1521. While Charles V. had been
engaged in his struggles with the Turks and the French, Protestantism
had rapidly developed. In Sweden, in Denmark, in England, in various
parts of Germany, and in France Protestant principles had been largely
adopted (see REFORMATION).

Though the forces of Roman Catholicism had for a time been vanquished
they had still to be counted with. From the middle of the 16th century
the growth of Protestantism began to be checked, and a period of
reaction against the Reformation set in. For a time it seemed that the
efforts of Roman Catholicism would be successful and that the cause of
Protestantism would be permanently weakened. The papacy since the
beginning of the 16th century had reformed itself, the council of Trent
(q.v.), which closed its sittings in 1564, had given Roman Catholicism a
"clearly and sharply defined body of doctrine," and the Catholic Church
had become "more united, less worldly; and more dependent on herself."
In this work of reorganization the Jesuits had played a great part, and
the success of the Counter-Reformation was largely due to their efforts
(see JESUITS). Paul III., Pius IV. and V., Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V.
are all good examples of the reforming popes of the 16th century. Under
them the Jesuits worked; they restored Catholicism in Poland, Bohemia
and south Germany; and supported by them the Inquisition crushed
Protestantism out of Spain and Italy.


  The aims of Philip II.

The interest of the Counter-Reformation movement from 1559 to 1618
centres round Philip II. of Spain. While Pius V. (1566-1572) is the best
example of the Counter-Reformation popes, Philip II. took the lead among
European Catholic monarchs in working for the extinction of
Protestantism. His recovery of the southern Netherlands for the Catholic
cause, his attempt to conquer England, his intention of subjugating
France, were all parts of a scheme to advance simultaneously his own
power and that of the Counter-Reformation.

Circumstances combined to aid Philip, and while he was endeavouring to
carry out his political aims, the Jesuits were busily occupied in
winning back large portions of Europe to allegiance to the papacy. But
failure attended most of Philip's projects. Though he succeeded in
recovering the southern or Walloon provinces of the Netherlands, he was
unable to conquer the northern provinces, which under William of Orange
formed themselves into the Dutch republic (see HOLLAND: _History_). His
scheme for the conquest of England failed, and the Spanish Armada was
totally defeated in 1588. Nor was his plan for the subjection of France
more successful. After a tedious civil war between the Catholics and
Huguenots, Henry of Navarre appeared as a national leader, who, having
overcome the armies of the League with which Philip was allied,
concluded the peace of Vervins in 1598. In consenting to this treaty
Philip acknowledged that his schemes for the establishment of his
influence over France had failed. Thus, when the 16th century closed,
England's independence was assured, the Dutch republic was established,
the French monarchy was rapidly recovering from the effects of the
religious wars and the decadence of the Spanish monarchy had set in. But
the religious question was still unsettled, religious passions ran high,
and no satisfactory agreement between Catholicism and Protestantism had
been, or seemed likely to be arrived at. The successes of the
Counter-Reformation under the Jesuits and such men as Ferdinand of
Styria (afterwards the emperor Ferdinand II.) and Maximilian of Bavaria
only roused strenuous opposition on the part of Calvinist princes such
as Frederick IV., the elector palatine.


  The approach of the Thirty Years' War.

Various events had indicated the approach of a final struggle between
Protestantism and Catholicism during the early years of the 17th
century. The seizure of Donauwörth, a town with Protestant sympathies,
by Maximilian of Bavaria in 1607, the formation of the Protestant Union
in 1608 and of the Catholic League in 1609, the questions raised in 1609
by the Cleves-Jülich affair, the preparations of Henry IV. of France for
an anti-Habsburg campaign--all these showed that the political
atmosphere was charged with electricity. Till 1618, however, an open
conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism in Germany was averted;
in that year the acceptance, by the Calvinist Frederick, the elector
palatine, of the crown of Bohemia, proved the starting-point of the
Thirty Years' War.


  The Thirty Years' War.

Till the death of Gustavus Adolphus in 1632 that war preserved a
religious or semi-religious character. The emperor Ferdinand II., Philip
III. of Spain and Maximilian of Bavaria undoubtedly hoped to suppress
Protestantism in Germany, while Wallenstein, the great imperial general,
was prepared to conquer Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and to convert the
Baltic into an Austrian lake. Though the resistance of Christian IV. of
Denmark was vain, the jealousy felt by the Catholic princes of
Wallenstein and the skill of Gustavus Adolphus caused the total failure
of these ambitious schemes. All hope of seeing the imperial flag waving
over the Baltic was dispelled by the victory of Breitenfeld, and that of
Lützen in 1632, and though Gustavus Adolphus fell in the last-named
battle, he had saved north Germany from falling into the hands of the
Jesuits.


  Entry of France into the war.

With his death the Thirty Years' War became in the main a political
struggle between France and the Habsburgs--a continuation of the wars of
Francis I. and Henry II. against Charles V., and of the war between
Henry IV. and Philip II. Ferdinand II. had attempted to carry back the
religious history of the Empire more than seventy years, and had failed.
He had endeavoured to make the Empire a reality and to revive and carry
out the designs of Charles V. His failure was now complete. The edict of
Restitution issued in 1629 remained a dead letter, and from 1632 to 1648
he and his successor Ferdinand III. had to employ all their energies in
defending their possessions from the attacks of the French and Swedes.

The death of Gustavus Adolphus followed in 1634 by the assassination of
Wallenstein proved an admirable opportunity for the entry of France into
the Thirty Years' War. And till 1648, in spite of occasional reverses,
the French and their allies gradually wore down their adversaries. After
the death of Henry IV. in 1610 France had temporarily retired from a
foremost place in the politics of Europe, and for some thirty years her
ministers were busy in coercing the Huguenots and establishing the
supremacy of the crown which was threatened by the nobles. Once united
at home France was ready and eager to seize the opportunity for
inflicting a severe blow upon the Habsburgs in Spain and Austria. The
time for such action was well chosen. Austria was weakened by the war
which had been waged since 1618, while Spain, exhausted by her efforts
in the preceding century, had entered upon a long period of decay, and
was about to see Portugal regain its independence. The Protestant
princes in the north of Germany were ready to ally with France and
Sweden against the emperor, even the Catholic Bavarian duke was to prove
a doubtful ally of the Habsburg house. In 1642 Richelieu and in 1643
Louis XIII. died, but though Louis XIV. was an infant, and the French
nobles by their cabals hindered the work of the regency, Mazarin
successfully carried out the anti-Habsburg policy of his predecessors
and brought the war against Austria to a successful conclusion. (See
further THIRTY YEARS' WAR.)


  The peace of Westphalia, 1648.

The peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked the virtual close of religious
conflicts in Europe. It also marked the end of the attempts of the
Habsburgs to establish a monarchical system throughout all Germany. By
that peace the practical independence of the German princes was assured.
Henceforward each prince could decide what form of religion was to be
observed in his dominions. Thus Lutheranism, Calvinism and Catholicism
were alike tolerated, and this recognition of the principle of
compromise prepared the way for a wider toleration. Moreover, the petty
principalities of the Empire, which numbered over 300, were allowed the
right of concluding alliances with any foreign power, of making their
own laws, and of carrying on war. Thus, in consequence of this most
important concession of the emperor, the Empire lost all cohesion and
became little more than a confederation. The states had firmly
established their "liberties," the princes were now emancipated from
imperial control, and it was evident that, unless by some means the
house of Austria could re-establish its ascendancy, the eventual
dissolution of the Empire must sooner or later follow. The peace of
Westphalia thus marks for Europe, and in a special sense for Germany,
the end of an important epoch. For Germany the changes introduced into
its political life amounted to nothing less than a revolution, for there
"the mainspring of the national life was broken." For Europe the Thirty
Years' War brought to a close "the mighty impulses which the great
movements of the Renaissance and Reformation had imparted to the
aspirations" of men in all parts of the western world.


  The treaties of the Pyrenees and Oliva.

It was not, however, till the treaties of the Pyrenees (1659) and Oliva
(1660) were signed that the echoes of the Thirty Years' War died away,
and Europe entered upon a period in which the political ambitions of
Louis XIV. threatened the interests of Europe and absorbed the attention
of all European statesmen. During the intervening years from 1648 to
1659 Spain and France continued the struggle, while Charles X. of Sweden
in 1654 entered upon a career of aggression and conquest in the north of
Europe, which was only ended with his death on the 23rd of February
1660. Upon the balance of power in the north of Europe the wars of
Charles X. had little permanent effect, and the peace of Oliva to a
great extent merely marked the restoration of the _status quo_. But the
peace of the Pyrenees was far more important. During its struggle with
France, Spain found itself also involved in hostilities with England,
and the real rottenness of the Spanish monarchy became rapidly apparent.
Any assistance which might have been hoped for from the emperor was
prevented by the formation of leagues of German princes--lay and
ecclesiastical--in 1657 and 1658, which had the full support of France.
The effect of the formation of the second league was at once apparent:
all hope of assistance to Spain from the emperor was seen to have
disappeared, and the conclusion of a pacific settlement between France
and Spain was at once arrived at. The peace of the Pyrenees was a
triumph for the _Rheinbund_, no less than for France.


  The age of Louis XIV.

With the beginning of the personal rule of Louis XIV. in 1661, and the
return of Charles II. to England in 1660, a new period in the history of
personal monarchy in Europe began. At the time of the peace of
Westphalia the monarchy in Europe was under a cloud. In England the
cause of Charles I. was lost; in France the Fronde was holding its own
against Mazarin; in Germany the princes had triumphed over the emperor;
even in Russia the nobles were aiming at the curtailment of the power of
the crown. But from 1660 it became evident that these attempts to secure
the curtailment of the monarchical power were, with few exceptions, not
destined to be successful. Though all chance of the establishment of a
strong central authority in Germany had disappeared, the various states
composing the Empire now entered upon a new period in their history and
speedily formed miniature despotisms. Of these Brandenburg, Saxony and
Bavaria were the most important. In Denmark Frederick III. made his
crown hereditary, and his establishment of an absolutism was imitated by
Charles XI. of Sweden a few years later.

Thus when Louis XIV. took into his own hands the government of France,
the absolutist principle was triumphant all over Europe. The period of
his personal rule lasted from 1661 to his death in 1715, and is known as
"the age of Louis XIV." During that period France was the leading
monarchy in Europe, and the most conspicuous not only in arms but also
in all the arts of civilization. While Turenne, Luxemburg, Villars and
many others exemplified, till the rise of Marlborough, the pre-eminence
of French generals, Pascal, Racine, Corneille, Molière and Fénelon
testified to the commanding position taken by France in the world of
literature. The building of Versailles and the establishment of the
French court there was an event of importance not only in the history of
France, but also in the history of Europe. The history of Europe may
without exaggeration be said during the reign of Louis XIV. to centre
round Versailles.


  The political condition of Europe, 1661-1688.

During his reign France took the lead in European politics, and
established her supremacy all the more easily, owing partly to the
weakness of most of the European countries, partly to the aggressions of
the Turks, whose invasions of eastern Europe occupied from 1683 to 1699
the attention of the Poles and of the Austrians. The weakness or
neutrality of the various European states was due to various causes.
England was prevented till 1689 from taking a part in opposing the
ambitious schemes of Louis XIV. owing to the personal aims of Charles
II. and James II. Philip IV. and Charles II. of Spain could do nothing
to resist the growing ascendancy of France, owing to the increasing
weakness and rapid decadence of Spain, whose disappearance from the rank
of great powers was one of the most striking features in the history of
Europe during the second half of the 17th century. The weakness of
Germany from the peace of Westphalia to the end of the century, due
partly to the establishment of the independence of the princes of the
Empire, partly to the unrest in Hungary, partly to the aggressions of
the Turks, was obviously an immense gain to Louis XIV.


  Louis' aggressions.

Realizing the strength of his own position and the weakness of that of
most of the European states, he entered in 1667 into the Devolution war
and secured several fortresses in the Spanish Netherlands. From 1672 to
1678 he was again at war with Holland, and from 1673 with the emperor,
Spain and Brandenburg as well. At the same time the Turks invaded
Poland, but were successfully resisted by John Sobieski. In 1676,
however, they made the favourable treaty of Zurawna, securing Kamenets
and portions of Podolia and the Ukraine. Thus, while the Turks were
threatening the independence of eastern Europe, Louis XIV. was attacking
the independence of western Europe. In 1678 he made the treaty of
Nijmwegen, securing great advantages for France. Till the end of the
century Europe was faced with two serious problems: Could she
successfully cope with the Turks on her eastern frontier? And could she
resist the continued aggressions of France on her western frontier?
Consequently the years from 1678 to the end of the century were of vital
importance to the European world. For during that period the French and
Turks made unceasing efforts to extend their frontiers at the expense of
Germany. Encouraged by the weakness of the chief European states, Louis
set up the Chambers of Reunion, seized Strassburg in time of peace and
attempted to annex Luxemburg. At the same time it seemed that an
independent Gallican Church would be set up, and that Louis, like Henry
VIII., would sever all connexion with Rome. The persecution of the
Jansenists and the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685 established
something akin to religious uniformity in France. Buoyed up by his
successes abroad and at home, and conscious that he had nothing to fear
from England or from Spain, Louis prepared to carry out his schemes,
with regard to the extension of his territory eastwards, at the expense
of Germany. Simultaneously with Louis' aggressions in western Europe,
the Turks had made an attempt to capture Vienna in 1683. Fortunately the
efforts of the emperor Leopold, aided by John Sobieski, king of Poland,
were successful, and the Turkish tide of conquest was gradually but
successfully checked. It was not, however, till the accession of William
III. to the English throne that the tide of French conquest in western
Europe was in like manner successfully resisted, and it was not till the
treaty of Ryswick in 1697 that Louis realized that Europe had set a
limit to his conquests. That treaty inflicted a blow on the prestige of
France, just as the treaty of Karlowitz, concluded in 1699, was an
important step in the decline of the Ottoman power. By that treaty,
which marks a definite beginning in the history of the Austro-Hungarian
monarchy, the hands of the emperor were freed, and he was able to devote
his attention to the Spanish succession question, which already
engrossed the attention of all Europe.


  The Spanish Succession War.

The decadence of Spain had been obvious to all Europe since the middle
of the century, and in anticipation of the death of the Spanish king
Charles II., Louis XIV. and William III. had made a partition treaty in
October 1698, which was superseded in March 1700 by a second partition
treaty. However, on the death of King Charles on the 1st of November
1700 Louis repudiated the partition treaties and accepted the crown of
Spain for his grandson Philip, who became Philip V. of Spain. Not
content with this success Louis committed a number of aggressive acts
which led to the War of the Spanish Succession in 1702. That war
continued till 1713, when the treaty of Utrecht, followed in 1714 by the
treaties of Rastadt and Baden, ended a struggle which had many results
of vital importance to Europe. Great Britain, strengthened by the
possession of Gibraltar and Minorca, by her establishment in Canada, and
by trading rights in South America, henceforward stood forth as a rising
colonial power to whom the command of the sea was essential. Austria
obtained not only Belgium, which she held till the French Revolution,
but also a firm foothold in Italy, which she maintained till 1859. To
Spain the war indirectly brought unexpected benefits. Freed from her
expensive possessions in Belgium and Italy, and now ruled by a new
dynasty, Spain, so far from meeting with the fate which later attended
Poland, entered upon a new period in her career, and throughout the 18th
century showed considerable power of resistance to the colonial policy
of Great Britain.


  The 18th century.

With all its defects the treaty of Utrecht proved in many ways an
excellent settlement. Till 1740, although a few short wars took place,
Europe as a whole enjoyed peace. But with the settlement of Utrecht
Europe seemed to have lost all touch with the high ideals which
occasionally, as in the career of Gustavus Adolphus, or in the English
great rebellion, or in the defence of Vienna by John Sobieski, were met
with. The 18th century was marked by the dominance of a perverted system
of the balance of power, which regarded such acts as the Prussian
seizure of Silesia and the partition of Poland as justifiable on the
ground that might is right.


  European politics--1715-1740.

Before many years had passed after the treaty of Utrecht it became
evident that two new nations were forcing themselves into the front rank
of European powers. These were Russia and Prussia. The treaty of Nystäd
in 1721 was to the north of Europe what the treaty of Utrecht was to the
western and southern nations. It marked the decline of Sweden and the
rise of Russia, which henceforth played an important part in European
politics. Nevertheless till 1740 with the exception of the short Polish
Succession War 1733-35 and the equally short war of 1737-39, in which
Russia and Austria fought against Turkey, no general European struggle
took place. That this was so was due in great measure to the alliance of
1717 between Great Britain and France, to the subsequent peace policy
upheld by Walpole, Fleury, Patiño and Horn (the English, French, Spanish
and Swedish ministers), to the hostility between the courts of Vienna
and Madrid--only momentarily healed by the treaty of Vienna in 1725--and
to the uncertain character of Russian politics.

During those years from 1713 to 1740 the great powers were slowly
forming themselves into groups, bound together by motives of interest.
Thus Spain and France after 1729 began to realize that both countries
were interested in checking Great Britain's colonial developments, while
Spain was also ready to seize every opportunity of increasing her
possessions in Italy at the expense of Austria.


  1740 a new epoch.

With the year 1740 Europe entered upon a new epoch. The rivalry of
Austria and Prussia for the leadership of Germany definitely began, and
the struggle between Great Britain and France for supremacy in India,
Canada and the West Indies entered upon an acute phase. The War of the
Austrian Succession (1740-48) holds therefore an important place in the
history of Europe, and proved with the Seven Years' War, which was
practically a continuation of it, of very real interest to Europe.


  The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748.

In April 1748 Great Britain, France and Holland signed preliminaries of
peace, which on the 18th of October became the definitive treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle. The other powers concerned agreed to the treaty with
reluctance, Spain on the 20th of October, Austria on the 8th of
November, and Sardinia on the 20th of November. By the terms of the
peace France and Great Britain restored the conquests in America, India
and Europe which each had made from the other. As regards the other
powers, the peace left serious heart-burnings. Sardinia, though gaining
territory in the Milanese, was compelled to relinquish her hold on
Piacenza and its territory, and to restore Finale to Genoa; Austria had
to yield Parma and Piacenza to Don Philip, and to recognize the loss of
Silesia to Prussia; Spain was compelled to forgo all hope of regaining
Gibraltar. The importance of the terms of this treaty lies in the fact
that they indicate not only the lines followed by later European
settlements, but also the tendency of later European developments. To
Great Britain the treaty was only a pause in her expansion in Canada and
in her advance to the establishment of her influence over all India. To
France the treaty was equally a presage of future disasters in India and
Canada. The retention of Silesia by Prussia was a pronouncement to all
Europe that a new power had arisen which was destined in 1866 to oust
Austria from her dominant position in Germany. The gains won by
Sardinia, too, indicated that the real danger to Austria's position in
Italy would come from the house of Savoy.


  The Seven Years' War.

The Seven Years' War (1756-63) opened with a diplomatic revolution as
important as that of 1717, when France and Great Britain made an
alliance. In May 1756, as a reply to the treaty of Westminster the
Second, made in January between Great Britain and Prussia, France and
Austria, united in the treaty of Versailles. This unexpected union,
which lasted till the French Revolution, between two powers which had
been hostile to each other from the beginning of the 16th century,
amazed all Europe. However, it had not the results expected, for
although Russia, which was allied with Austria, sent large armies headed
by capable generals to the war, Frederick the Great remained
unconquered. This result was partly due to the English alliance, partly
to the incapable French generals, and partly to the state of internal
politics in Russia. The treaties of Paris (February 10, 1763) and
Hubertsburg (February 15) marked an important stage in the history of
Europe. By the first Great Britain emerged from the war an imperial
power with possessions all over the world, by the second Prussia was
recognized as the equal of Austria in Europe.


  Close of the Seven Years' War to the French Revolution.

The period from the close of the Seven Years' War to the French
Revolution saw all the special characteristics and tendencies of the
18th century in an accentuated form. Benevolent despotism found
representatives not only in Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa, but
also in Joseph II., Catherine II., Charles III. of Spain, and Leopold of
Tuscany. Reforming ministers, too, flourished in the persons of Tanucci,
Turgot, Squillaci, Florida Blanca, D'Aranda and many others. Instances,
too, of the low state of political morality are to be found. The
indefensible seizure of Silesia by Frederick the Great was followed in
1772 by the equally immoral partition of Poland, and it was clearly
apparent that monarchs, though ostensibly actuated by a desire for the
welfare of their subjects, were resolved that reforms should come from
above and not from below. The chief European events during these years
were (1) the partition of Poland; (2) the war of the Bavarian
Succession; (3) the alliance of Russia with Prussia in 1764 and with
Austria in 1781; (4) the entry of France and Spain into war between
Great Britain and her American colonies; (5) the combined attack of
Russia and Austria against Turkey (1787-92); (6) the Triple Alliance of
1788.

No sooner was the Seven Years' War ended than France and Spain, having
made the third family compact in 1761 (the other two were signed in 1733
and 1743), prepared to take revenge upon Great Britain at the first
favourable opportunity. The result of this determination, and of Great
Britain's absorption in internal politics, was that Russia, Prussia and
Austria were enabled to carry out the first partition of Poland in 1772.
The entry of France into the American war of independence rendered it
impossible for Joseph II., single-handed, to carry out his project of
exchanging the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria, and he was compelled,
after a short war, to give up for the time his project and to agree to
the treaty of Teschen (1779). The continuance of the American War proved
of great value to Russia and enhanced her position in Europe. Not only
had she, together with France, brought about the treaty of Teschen, but
in 1780 she headed the league of armed neutrality, and between 1780 and
1784 annexed the Crimea. The conclusion of the war of American
Independence enabled Great Britain to regain her influence in Europe,
and when Russia and Austria combined to attack Turkey, and when France
threatened to re-establish her influence in Holland, Pitt formed with
the Prussian king and the stadtholder the famous Triple Alliance of
1788. During the ensuing four years the influence of that alliance made
itself felt in an unmistakable way. All hope of the establishment of
French influence in Holland was destroyed; Denmark was forced to
relinquish an attack on Sweden, then at war with Russia; and after
Leopold of Tuscany had succeeded Joseph II. as emperor in 1790, the
revolution in the Netherlands was brought to an end. Moreover, through
the influence of Leopold the hostility of Prussia to Austria was
removed, and the two powers in July 1790 made the treaty of Reichenbach.
Great Britain, the chief member of the Triple Alliance, had supported
the pacific solution of all these questions so menacing to European
peace, and Pitt was aided in his policy by the emperor Leopold, who in
1791 made the treaty of Sistova with the Turks. Danger to the peace of
Europe was, however, caused by the attempt of the Spaniards to annex
Nootka Sound, and by the continuance of the war between Russia and
Turkey. The former difficulty was, however, removed in November 1790 by
an agreement between Great Britain and Spain, and in January 1792 Russia
made the treaty of Jassy with Turkey.


  French Revolution, 1789.

  Opening of the war between France and Great Britain, 1793.

  The treaties of Lunéville and Amiens.

Instead of Europe remaining at peace the year 1792 saw the beginning of
a series of wars which did not come to a final conclusion till the
battle of Waterloo. While the east of Europe was engaged in war, and
while the Triple Alliance was busy attempting to restore peace to
Europe, the French Revolution had broken out in 1789. The assistance
given by France to the American colonists had brought the country to
bankruptcy, and no course was left to Louis XVI. except to summon the
states-general in May 1789. In that year a revolution against the
reforms of Joseph II. had taken place in the Netherlands, and a
revolution was being prepared in Poland for the overthrow of the
aristocratic constitution and for the establishment of an hereditary
monarchy. At first the revolution in France was entirely occupied with
internal reforms, but after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly
in September 1791 the Girondists, whose influence became paramount,
determined by the advice of Brissot to insist upon a policy of menace
towards the Empire which would inevitably lead to war. War would, they
hoped, result in the downfall of monarchy in France. On the other hand,
Lafayette and his party advocated war on the ground that it would
strengthen the cause of monarchy. In April 1792 war was accordingly
declared upon Austria, then in alliance with Prussia. After a short
period of failure the French in September won the battle of Valmy, and
in November the battle of Jemappes. French armies advanced to the Rhine,
Belgium was occupied, the Scheldt was declared open, and Holland was
threatened. In consequence of the danger to Holland, Pitt adopted a
warlike tone, and in February 1793 France declared war upon Great
Britain. In that war Spain, Sardinia and Tuscany joined, so that France
was practically fighting all Europe. Nevertheless, owing to the want of
union among the allies, to the Polish questions which distracted Prussia
and Austria, and to the determination and patriotism of all classes in
France, the allies were discomfited and the league of powers broken up
in 1795, when the treaties of Basel were made. Only Great Britain,
Austria and Sardinia remained in arms against France, which was till
1799 ruled by the Directory. The next few years witnessed a series of
most startling events. The successes of Napoleon Bonaparte in the
Italian campaigns of 1797 and 1798 led to the peace of Cherasco with
Sardinia, and the peace of Campo Formio with Austria. Only Great
Britain remained at war with France. In 1799, taking advantage of the
absence of Napoleon in Egypt, the Second Coalition was formed by Russia,
Great Britain and Austria. Though the French were driven from Italy,
Massena defeated the Russians in Switzerland, and the English were
forced to retire from Holland. The return of Napoleon from Egypt was
followed by the establishment of the Consulate in November 1799, by the
overthrow of the Austrians at Marengo and Hohenlinden, by the treaty of
Lunéville with the emperor, and by the treaty of Amiens in 1802 with the
English government. (See FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS.)


  The German Revolution.

Up to this point the Revolution may be said to have benefited Europe and
to have shaken to its base the 18th-century ideas of government. During
the years succeeding the peace of Campo Formio a revolution was effected
in Germany. The Holy Roman Empire had become an anachronism, and as soon
as France became possessed of the left bank of the Rhine it was obvious
that the imperial constitution required revision. The jealousies
existing among the German princes and the overthrow of Austria at
Austerlitz enabled Napoleon to carry out a revolution in Germany
according to his own ideas. At first, in 1804, new arrangements were
made with regard to the character and formation of the diet. The
constitution of that assembly was so altered that a Protestant majority
free from Austrian influence was now assured. The middle states, such as
Prussia, Baden, Bavaria, Württemberg and Hanover, received additions of
territory, taken either from the ecclesiastical states or from the lands
belonging to the imperial knights. After Austerlitz Napoleon in 1806
established the Confederation of the Rhine, and the Holy Roman Empire
came finally to an end. A great European revolution had now been
effected, but much remained to be done before a feeling of nationality
could be aroused among the people of central Europe.


  The causes of Napoleon's success.

  Napoleon aims at the destruction of Great Britain.

Already before the peace of Amiens Pitt had tried to stir up national
feeling in Austria and Prussia, the means which he suggested for
opposing Napoleon being in great measure those which were adopted in
1813 and 1814. But during Pitt's lifetime central Europe was not moved
by any feeling of nationality or of patriotism. During the war of the
Second Coalition in 1799 Austria had acted without any regard for her
allies, while Prussia, from motives of jealousy of and from want of
confidence in Austria, had refused to move. It was not till the small
states which hitherto had formed independent units had been destroyed
and Austria and Prussia trampled under foot by Napoleon that a strong
national spirit in Germany was evoked. Until the treaty of Tilsit had
been signed in 1807 there was no visible growth of a national uprising
in any part of Europe. During the intervening years Prussia had been
crushed at Jena and her kingdom cut short (1806), while Alexander I. of
Russia, after a fierce campaign against Napoleon, had agreed in 1807 to
the treaty of Tilsit, which apparently placed Europe at the feet of
France and Russia. Napoleon was, as he thought, now in a position to
bring about the humiliation of Great Britain. Already in November 1806,
realizing that he could not ruin England by direct invasion, he had
issued the first Berlin Decree, which ordered the exclusion of British
goods from the continent. The Continental System necessitated by the
victory of Trafalgar was thus definitely set up. After Tilsit he
proposed to become supreme in the Baltic, and, by securing the
dependence of Spain and Portugal, to dominate the Mediterranean, and to
resume his plans for conquests in the East, and for the destruction of
the British power in India. Thus the effects of the British naval
victories of the Nile and Trafalgar would be completely nullified, the
Mediterranean would be closed to British ships, Great Britain's Indian
possessions would be lost, and Great Britain herself would be forced by
starvation into surrender. Fortunately for Europe various circumstances
hindered the realization of these ambitious schemes. Alexander, who
feared that the French emperor, desired Constantinople, never proved a
very helpful ally, the measures taken by Great Britain seriously
interfered with Napoleon's schemes, and, before he had subjugated Spain,
first Austria in 1809 and then Russia in 1812 offered an active
resistance to his projects. The first note of opposition to Napoleon's
plans was struck by Canning, when in 1807 he carried off the Danish
fleet to England. Then the British fleet conveyed to Brazil in safety
the Portuguese royal family when Portugal was invaded by Junot, while
the surrender of 30,000 French troops at Baylen in July 1808, which was
followed in August by the convention of Cintra, indicated that Spanish
patriotism was, when roused, as effective as in the days of the Spanish
Succession War. Austria was the first country to follow the example of
Spain, and though she was defeated at Wagram and forced to accept
Napoleon's hard terms, the national feeling aroused in Germany in 1809
rapidly developed. But Napoleon was apparently unconscious of the growth
and importance of a national sentiment in any of the subject countries.
In 1810 he had married Marie Louise of Austria, on the 20th of March
1811 a son was born to him, and he now seems to have resolved upon the
establishment of a strictly hereditary empire with Paris its capital and
Rome its second city. In extent, his empire would be vaster than that of
Charlemagne, and the pope was to be completely subordinate to the
emperor. This conception of the establishment of a reformed Holy Roman
Empire with its centre at Paris did not appear unrealizable in 1811 when
everything seemed to favour the new Charlemagne. Napoleon's power was
apparently securely established, and during the years 1810 and 1811 he
was again returning to his vast oriental designs. A sudden check,
however, was about to be placed upon his ambitious schemes.


  The triumph of "nationality."

The establishment of French influence in Italy and Germany had stirred
up in both countries a national feeling, the growth of which was
encouraged by the example of Spain. No greater mistake was ever made by
Napoleon than when, ignoring the strength of the Spanish resistance, and
the development of a national movement in Germany, he resolved to enter
upon the Russian campaign and to march to Moscow. Unconsciously Napoleon
"had called into vigorous life the forces of Democracy and Nationality
in Germany and Italy." The failure of the Moscow campaign led at once to
a national rising in Prussia, and as soon as Austria had united her
forces with those of Prussia and Russia, the overthrow of Napoleon at
Leipzig in October 1813 was the result, and "the imperial yoke was
shaken from the neck of the German people." Napoleon's wars had roused
feelings of patriotism in Italy, Germany, Russia and Spain. It was at
least realized by the nations of continental Europe, what had long been
apparent to Englishmen, that a nation to be strong must be united. To
"the subversive cosmopolitanism" of the French Revolution was now
opposed the modern idea of nationality, against which the Napoleonic
legions hurled themselves in vain. (See NAPOLEON I.; NAPOLEONIC
CAMPAIGNS; FRENCH REVOLUTION; ALEXANDER I, EMPEROR OF RUSSIA;
METTERNICH.)     (A. Hl.)


  Reconstruction of Europe.

  Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815.

The downfall of Napoleon involved that of the political system of Europe
which he had constructed. The changes wrought by the revolutionary
period in the old states system were, however, too profound to admit of
any attempt at a complete restoration, even had the interests of the
allied powers been consistent with such a course. The object of the four
great powers in whose hands the settlement of Europe now lay, was
rather, after taking precautions to confine France within her
"legitimate boundaries," to arrange such a "just equilibrium" in Europe
that no individual state should for the future be in a position to
overset the balance of power. The first object was to be attained by the
re-establishment of the ancient dynasty in France, as a guarantee to
Europe against a renewal of the revolutionary propaganda; the second was
the work of the congress of Vienna, by which, between September 1814 and
June 1815, the reconstruction of Europe was taken in hand. The opening
of the congress, in which for the first time all Europe seemed to be
united for the friendly settlement of common interests, was hailed as
the dawn of a new era. In a sense it was so; but hardly in the manner
nor to the degree that some had hoped. In its councils the arts of the
old diplomacy, still inspired by the traditional principles or lack of
principles, were directed to the old ends; and the world, as though the
popular upheaval of the Revolution had never been, was treated as real
estate to be parcelled out by the executors of Napoleon's empire among
sovereigns by divine right, regardless of the wishes of the populations,
which figured in the protocols merely as numbers to be balanced and
bartered one against the other.

This process of "dividing the spoils," as Gentz called it, was naturally
pregnant with possibilities of quarrels. Of these the most dangerous was
that provoked by the resolution of the emperor Alexander I. at all costs
to keep the former grand-duchy of Warsaw for himself, while compensating
Prussia for the loss of some of her Polish territories by the annexation
to her of all Saxony. The deadlock caused by the stubborn insistence on
this plan, which the other great powers were equally determined to
frustrate, all but led to war, and by a secret treaty signed on the 3rd
of January 1815, Great Britain, France, and Austria agreed to make
common cause in that event against Russia and Prussia. It needed
Napoleon's return from Elba (March 1815) to remind the powers that their
particular interests must still be subordinated to those of Europe. The
common peril restored the broken harmony; and while the armies of the
Alliance were closing in for the final struggle with the French emperor,
the congress hurried on its deliberations, and on the 9th of June 1815,
a few days before the battle of Waterloo, by which Napoleon's power was
finally shattered, the Final Act, embodying the treaties of Vienna, was
signed.


  Territorial adjustments of the Vienna treaties.

The territorial arrangements thus effected were for half a century the
basis of the states system of Europe, and the treaties in which they
were defined the charter of international relations. It was in central
Europe, where Napoleon's policy had most profoundly affected the
pre-revolutionary system, that the greatest changes were made. No
attempt, indeed, was made to restore the Holy Roman Empire, in spite of
the protest of the pope against the failure to re-establish "the centre
of political unity"; but the Confederation of the Rhine having come to
an end, Germany was reconstituted as a confederation of sovereign
states, in which all the former members of the Empire which had survived
the revolutionary epoch found a place (see GERMANY). Austria, in virtue
of the imperial tradition of the house of Habsburg, received the
presidency of the federal diet; but the bulk of her territories lay
outside the frontiers of the Confederation, and the non-German character
of the Habsburg monarchy was accentuated by the other arrangements at
the congress. In Italy Lombardo-Venetia was erected into a kingdom under
the Austrian crown; while the dynastic settlements in the other Italian
states tended to make Austrian influence supreme in the peninsula (see
ITALY). In return for this, Austria surrendered her claim to her former
possessions in the Low Countries, which were annexed to the crown of
Holland, so as to form, under the title of the United Netherlands, an
efficient barrier to French aggression northwards. The function of
defender of Germany on the Rhine frontier which Austria thus abandoned
was assigned to Prussia, an arrangement pregnant with momentous issues.
In compensation for her disappointment in the matter of Saxony, half of
which was ultimately restored to the dynasty of Wettin, she received a
large accession of territory in the Rhine provinces, carved partly out
of the suppressed kingdom of Westphalia, partly out of the former
ecclesiastical states, and comprising the imperial city of
Aix-la-Chapelle and the former electorate of Cologne. To Prussia also
was conceded the right to garrison the federal fortress of Luxemburg.

Of the other German states, Bavaria, which alone was sufficiently
powerful to be of any great importance in the general affairs of Europe,
reaped the reward of her timely defection from the cause of her
protector Napoleon. She had, indeed, to restore to Austria the
territories annexed to her at the expense of the Habsburg monarchy by
the French emperor: Tirol, the Quarters of the Inn and of the Hausruck,
and part of Salzburg. But she received ample compensation elsewhere,
notably the former Bavarian Palatinate with a strip of territory to
connect it with Bavaria proper. The right to garrison the federal
fortress of Mainz was also ultimately conceded to her. Bavaria was thus
placed in a position to continue her traditional policy of aiming at the
position of a European great power and holding the balance between
Austria and Prussia (see BAVARIA: _History_). The two other German
states whose elevation to kingdoms had symbolized a similar ambition,
Saxony and Württemberg, were henceforth relegated to a position of
third-rate importance; Saxony depended for her very existence on the
rivalry of her more powerful neighbours: Württemberg protested in vain
against the dictatorship of the great powers to which she was forced to
submit. Finally, the electorate of Hanover, partly out of compliment to
the king of Great Britain, partly because with the abolition of the Holy
Empire the title elector had fallen obsolete, was elevated to a kingdom.
The request of the elector of Hesse for a similar concession in his case
was refused by the powers assembled at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818.

Of great importance were the changes effected in the north and east of
Europe. The affairs of the Ottoman empire, which the treaty of Bucharest
(1812) between Russia and Turkey had left in a very unsatisfactory
condition, were not dealt with by the congress, in spite of the efforts
of Great Britain to bring them into discussion. But the concessions made
to the emperor Alexander elsewhere represented a notable advance in the
European position of Russia. The possession of Finland, conquered from
the Swedes in 1808, was confirmed to her; and, above all, the erection
of the former grand-duchy of Warsaw into a constitutional kingdom of
Poland under the Russian crown not only thrust the Muscovite power like
a wedge into the heart of Germany, but seemed to threaten the Polish
possessions of Austria and Prussia by setting up a quasi-independent
Poland as a centre of attraction to the scattered elements of the Polish
nation; though in the sequel the establishment of the city of Cracow and
its territory as an independent republic, to avoid the difficult
question of its assignment elsewhere, proved a more fruitful source of
nationalist unrest. In the north the settlement confirmed by the
congress marked the definite withdrawal of the Scandinavian Powers from
any active influence on the affairs of the continent. Alone of the
_parvenu_ monarchs of the Napoleonic age Bernadotte retained the crown
of Sweden, to which, by the treaty of Kiel, that of Norway had been
added. On the other hand, by the cession of Swedish Pomerania to
Prussia, Sweden finally withdrew from the southern shores of the Baltic.
The Scandinavian states ceased henceforth to play any determining part
in European politics. In the south, on the other hand, the restoration
of Savoy and Piedmont to Victor Emmanuel I., king of Sardinia, and the
incorporation in his dominions of the territories of the former republic
of Genoa, were factors pregnant with mighty issues. The object of this
increase of the power of the house of Savoy was but to erect a barrier
against any possible renewal of French aggression in Italy; in effect it
established the nucleus of the power which was to struggle successfully
with Austria for the hegemony of Italy.

The gains of Great Britain in Europe were comparatively small, though by
no means unimportant. By the retention of Malta she secured her power in
the Mediterranean, and this was further increased by the treaty of Paris
(November 5, 1815), by which the powers recognized her protectorate over
the Ionian Islands. (See VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.)


  The powers and France.

But for the episode of the Hundred Days, France would have emerged from
the congress with recovered prestige and mistress of at least some of
the territorial gains of the revolutionary wars; though Napoleon had
thrown away, during the negotiations at Châtillon, the chance of
preserving for her her "natural frontiers" of the Rhine, the Alps and
the Pyrenees. After Napoleon's second downfall she was in serious danger
of dismemberment, for which the German powers clamoured as essential to
their safety. That Louis XVIII. continued to rule over the territories
"handed down to him by his ancestors" was due to the magnanimity, or
policy, of the emperor Alexander I. (q.v.), and the commonsense of
Castlereagh and Wellington, who saw well that the "just equilibrium,"
which it was their object to establish, could not be secured if France
were unduly weakened, and that peace could never be preserved if the
French people were left to smart under a sense of permanent injury. By
the second peace of Paris, signed on the 20th of November 1815, France
retained her traditional boundaries. The unsatisfied ambition to secure
her "national frontiers" was to bear troublesome fruit later.

That the treaties embodied in the Final Act of Vienna represented a
settlement of all outstanding questions was believed by nobody. They had
been negotiated for weary months in an atmosphere of diplomatic and
feminine intrigue; they had been concluded in a hurry, under the
influence of the panic caused by Napoleon's return from Elba. To
Friedrich von Gentz they were at best but "partial arrangements," useful
as forming an authoritative basis for the establishment of a more
complete and satisfactory system. The history of the international
politics of Europe for the years immediately succeeding the congress of
Vienna is that of the attempt to establish such a system.


  Treaty of Nov. 20, 1815, and the Concert of Europe.

  The Holy Alliance.

  England and the Concert.

After a quarter of a century of almost ceaseless wars, what Europe
needed above all things was peace and time to recuperate. This
conviction was common to all the powers who had inherited Napoleon's
dictatorship in Europe; but on the question of the method by which peace
should be secured, and the principles which should guide their action, a
fateful divergence of view soon became apparent within their councils.
All were agreed that France still represented the storm centre of
Europe; and a second treaty, signed on the 20th of November 1815,
renewed the provisions of the treaty of Chaumont, in view of any fresh
outburst of the French revolutionary spirit. But the new treaty went
further. By its 6th article it was declared that "in order to
consolidate the intimate tie that unites the four sovereigns for the
happiness of the world, the High Contracting Powers have agreed to renew
at fixed intervals ... meetings consecrated to great common objects and
to the examination of such measures as at each of these epochs shall be
judged most salutary for the peace and prosperity of the nations and for
the maintenance of the peace of Europe." This was the formal charter of
the concert of the great powers by which for the next seven years Europe
was governed, a concert to which the name "Holy Alliance" has been
commonly but erroneously applied. The Holy Alliance, drawn up by the
emperor Alexander I., and signed by him, the emperor Francis, and King
Frederick William III. of Prussia on the 26th of September 1815,
represented a different and conflicting ideal. Actually it was not a
treaty at all, but at best a declaration of principles to which any
Christian could subscribe, at worst--to quote Castlereagh--"a piece of
sublime mysticism and nonsense" from the political point of view (see
HOLY ALLIANCE). It gained its sole political importance from the
persistent efforts of the tsar and his ministers to replace the
committee of the great powers, established by the treaty of the 20th of
November, by a "Universal Union" of all the powers, great and small, who
had signed the Holy Alliance, and thus to establish that "Confederation
of Europe" of which the autocratic idealist had borrowed the conception
from the theorists of the 18th century (see ALEXANDER I., emperor of
Russia). It was clear from the first that any attempt to set up such a
central government of Europe under a "universal guarantee" would imperil
the independence of the sovereign states; and from the first Great
Britain, represented by Castlereagh, protested against it. She would
consent to take common action on the basis of the treaties she had
actually signed, consulting with her allies on each case as it arose;
but to vague and general engagements she refused to commit herself. The
attitude of Austria and Prussia was from the outset less clear.
Metternich was torn between dread of revolution and dread of Russia; the
Holy Alliance, though essentially "verbiage," might be useful in
holding the imperial Jacobin in check; the "universal guarantee" could
not but be discouraging to the "sects"; on the other hand, the extreme
willingness of the tsar to march 200,000 Russians for any "European"
purpose in any direction convenient or inconvenient to Austria, was--to
say the least--disconcerting. Frederick William III., on the other hand,
though he too had signed the Holy Alliance with reluctance, in moments
of panic saw in the "universal guarantee" his best defence against the
renewed attack by France which was his nightmare. In effect, owing to
the firm attitude of Castlereagh at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle,
"the transparent soul of the Holy Alliance" never received a body,
though attempts were subsequently made at the congresses of Troppau,
Laibach and Verona to apply some of its supposed principles--attempts
that led to the definitive breach of Great Britain with the Alliance.


  Congress of Aix-la-Chappell, 1818

The highwater-mark of the activity of the Allies as a central government
for Europe was reached at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (q.v.) in
1818. France was now admitted to the Alliance, the objects of which were
reaffirmed by a public declaration to which she adhered; but at the same
time a secret treaty renewed the compact of Chaumont between the four
other powers. Certain questions outstanding from the congress of Vienna
were referred for settlement to a ministerial conference to meet at
Frankfort in the following year. The treaty which was the result of this
conference was signed on the 20th of July 1819. The bulk of it was
concerned with territorial settlements in Germany: between Austria and
Bavaria, and Bavaria and Baden; but some of the articles arranged for
the cession of the border fortresses Philippeville and Mariembourg to
the Netherlands, defined the frontiers of Savoy, and settled the
reversion of the Italian duchies held by the empress Marie Louise.


  Alexander I. of Russia and Metternich.

  Congress and protocol of Troppau, 1820.

Meanwhile the balance of forces within the European concert had shown a
tendency to shift. At the outset the restless activity of the emperor
Alexander, his incalculable idealism, and his hardly veiled ambitions
had drawn Austria and Great Britain together in common suspicion of an
influence that threatened to be little less disturbing to the world's
peace than that of Napoleon. But at Aix Metternich had begun to realize
that, in the long-run, the system of repression which he held to be
essential to the stability of the European, and above all of the
Austrian, polity would receive little effective aid from Great Britain,
fettered as she was by constitutional forms; while Alexander, alarmed at
the discovery of revolutionary plots against his person, had already
shown gratifying signs of repentance. The "Jacobin" propaganda of the
tsar's agents continued, it is true, especially in Italy; and, in spite
of the murder of the dramatist Kotzebue, as a Russian emissary, by the
fanatical "Bursche" Karl Sand, Alexander joined with Castlereagh in
protesting against the reactionary policy embodied in the Carlsbad
Decrees of October 1819. But the murder of the duke of Berri on the 13th
of February 1820 completed the Russian autocrat's "conversion." At the
congress of Troppau, which met in the autumn of the same year, he was a
"changed man," committed henceforth heart and soul to Metternich and his
policy. The outcome of this new understanding was the famous Troppau
Protocol, published to the world on the 19th of November 1820, and
signed by Austria, Prussia and Russia. The immediate occasion of this
manifesto was the military insurrection, under General Pepe, at Naples,
by which the Spanish constitution of 1812 had been forced on the king
(see NAPLES: _History_). But the protocol embodied a general principle
involving issues infinitely more important than any arising out of this
particular question. "States which have undergone a change of government
due to revolution," it declared, "the results of which threaten other
states, _ipso facto_ cease to be members of the European alliance, and
remain excluded from it till their situation gives guarantees for legal
order and stability. If, owing to such alterations, immediate danger
threatens other states, the powers bind themselves, by peaceful means,
or if need be by arms, to bring back the guilty state into the bosom of
the Great Alliance."

This was, in effect, an attempt to apply the principle of the Carlsbad
Decrees to all the world; and, had the attempt succeeded, all Europe
would have been turned into a confederation on the model of that of
Germany; for a political alliance, charged with the safeguarding of the
territorial settlement defined by treaty, would have been substituted a
central diet of the great powers, armed with undefined authority; and
the sovereign independence of the nations would have been at an end. To
any such principle, and therefore to the protocol in which it was
embodied, Great Britain offered an uncompromising opposition. In vain
Metternich urged upon Castlereagh that the protocol was but the logical
conclusion drawn from premises to which he was already committed; for,
if the alliance was to be effective in maintaining peace, it must
interfere wherever and whenever peace should be threatened, and
therefore to crush internal revolutions which could not but have an
external result. The logic was perfect; the proposition that on which
every "project of peace" must eventually break. Castlereagh's reply was,
in brief, that Great Britain could never admit a principle which she
would not in any circumstances allow to be applied in her own case.


  First rift in the alliance.

  Congress of Laibach, 1821.

The absence of the signatures of Great Britain and France from the
Troppau protocol marked the first rift in the alliance, a rift that was
soon to develop into a breach. For the time, indeed, the crack was
"papered over." Castlereagh was prepared to leave Austria a free hand to
deal with the risings in Naples and Piedmont, since she had treaty
rights in the former case and her interests, as an Italian power, were
threatened in both. Great Britain was even represented at the congress
which reassembled at Laibach in January 1821, though Lord Stewart, the
ambassador at Vienna, was not armed with full powers. Castlereagh had
approved of the invitation sent to the king of Naples to attend the
congress, as implying "negotiation," an improvement on the dictatorial
attitude of the protocol. But everything in the conferences tended still
further to shatter the unstable foundations of the alliance. Capo
d'Istria, as though the debates of Aix-la-Chapelle had never been,
raised once more the spectre of the "Universal Union" which Castlereagh
believed he had laid for ever. Metternich, anxious to prove to the
Italian Liberals that the tsar was no longer their friend, welcomed the
demonstration, and Prussia followed obediently in Austria's wake. "It is
clear," wrote Lord Stewart, "that a Triple Understanding has been
created which binds the parties to carry forward their own views in
spite of any difference of opinion which may exist between them and the
two great constitutional governments." (See TROPPAU and LAIBACH.)


  Effect of revolution in Spain.

  Congress of Verona, 1822.

But the narrower "Holy Alliance" of the three autocratic monarchies, as
opposed to the two western constitutional monarchies, was not in fact
destined to take shape till after the Paris revolution of 1830. Several
factors delayed the process, notably the revolt of the Greeks against
the Ottoman rule, and the Spanish question, which latter formed the main
subject of discussion at the congress of Verona in 1822. In the Eastern
Question the interests of Austria and Great Britain were identical; both
desired to maintain the integrity of Turkey; both saw that this
integrity was in the greatest peril owing to the possible intervention
of the Orthodox tsar in favour of his co-religionists in revolt; and
both agreed that the best means of preventing such intervention was to
bind the Russian emperor to the European concert by using his devotion
to the principles of the Holy Alliance. At Verona, however, the Eastern
question was entirely overshadowed by that of Spain, and in this matter
the views of Great Britain were diametrically opposed to those of the
other powers of the alliance. She shared indeed with France and Austria
the strenuous objection to the emperor Alexander's proposal to march
150,000 Russians into Piedmont in order to deal with Jacobinism whether
in France or Spain; but she protested equally strenuously against the
counter-proposal of France, which was ultimately adopted, that a French
army should march into Spain to liberate the king from his
constitutional fetters in the name of Europe. George Canning, carrying
on the tradition of Castlereagh, once more protested, through
Wellington, as British plenipotentiary at the congress, against the
whole principle of intervention; and when, in spite of the British
protest, the other powers persisted, the breach of Great Britain with
the continental alliance was proclaimed to all the world. When, on the
7th of April 1823, the French army under the duke of Angoulême crossed
the Bidassoa, the great experiment of governing Europe through a central
committee of the great powers was at an end. (See VERONA, CONGRESS OF;
ALEXANDER I.; LONDONDERRY, ROBERT STEWART, 2ND MARQUESS OF; CANNING,
GEORGE.)


  End of the "Confederation of Europe."

  Principle of nationality.

Henceforth, though the treaties survived, and with them the principle of
the concert on which they were based, "Europe" as a diplomatic
conception tends to sink into the background and to be replaced by the
old international anarchy of the 18th century. To Canning this
development seemed wholly welcome. He applied to the rivalry of states
the Liberal principle of free competition as the sole condition of
healthy growth. "Villèle is a minister of thirty years ago," he wrote to
Bagot on the 3rd of January 1823, "no revolutionary scoundrel: but
constitutionally hating England, as Choiseul and Vergennes used to hate
us, and so things are getting back to a wholesome state again. Every
nation for itself, and God for us all." But the essential difference
between the rivalries of the 18th and 19th centuries was in the
conception of the "nation." To Canning, as to the diplomatists of the
congress of Vienna, "nation" was synonymous with "state," and national
boundaries were those defined by the treaties, which Canning was as bent
on preserving as any of his reactionary contemporaries. The conception
of the divine right of every nationality to readjust political frontiers
to suit its own ideals was as foreign to him as to Metternich. Yet this
principle of nationality, which was destined during the 19th century to
wreck the political structure consecrated at Vienna, and to leave to the
succeeding age a host of unsolved and insoluble problems, found in
Canning its earliest champion in the higher councils of Europe. The
recognition of the independence of the South American republics and of
the belligerent rights of the Greek insurgents were both in the first
instance motived by the particular interests of Great Britain; but they
were none the less hailed as concessions to the principles of
nationality, to which they gave an impetus which was destined to
continue till the face of Europe had been transformed.


  Europe and the revolt of Greece.

  Economic progress; rise of the middle classes.

  Revolutions of 1830.

This in fact constitutes the main significance for Europe of the War of
Greek Independence, which lasted from the first rising of the Greeks in
the Morea in 1821 till the signature of the treaty of London on the 7th
of May 1832 (see GREEK INDEPENDENCE, WAR OF; TURKEY: _History_). Its
actual outcome, so far as the political structure of Europe was
concerned, was but to add an insignificant kingdom to the European
states system. But its moral effect was immense. The sacrosanctity of
the _status quo_ had been violated, and violated with the active aid of
three of the powers of the continental alliance: Russia, France and
Great Britain. Metternich was right when he said that, in principle,
there was no difference between the Greek insurgents and any other
"rebels against legitimate authority," and the Liberals of all Europe,
forced into inactivity by the Austrian police system, hailed in the
Greeks the champions of their own cause. Philhellenism, beyond its
proper enthusiasm, served as a convenient veil for agitations that had
little concern with Greece. Other forces making for political change
were simultaneously at work. The peace secured by the concert of the
powers had given free play to the mechanical and industrial innovations
that heralded the marvellous economic revolution of the coming age;
wealth increased rapidly, and with it the influence and the ambition of
the middle classes. The revolution of July 1830, which established the
_bourgeois_ monarchy in France, marked their first triumph. In
countries less economically advanced, e.g. Germany and Italy, the
attempt to follow French example ended in failure; but the revolt of the
Belgians, for reasons partly economic and partly national, against the
domination of the Dutch, resulted in the establishment of the
independent kingdom of Belgium--the first actual breach in the
territorial settlement of 1815. In Great Britain the agitation of the
disfranchised middle classes, which seemed to threaten a violent
revolution, ended in 1832 in the passing of the Reform Bill and their
admission to political power. (See FRANCE; GERMANY; ITALY; BELGIUM;
ENGLISH HISTORY.)

The easy success of the revolutions in the west of Europe had been due,
not to any reluctance of the reactionary powers to interfere on the
basis of the old agreements, but to their preoccupation with the
national revolt in Poland (q.v.). In view of this, and of the attitude
of Great Britain, they had to recognize the title of Louis Philippe as
king of the French, merely stipulating that he should guarantee to
maintain the treaties. In spite of the overthrow of the legitimate
dynasty in France, and of the partition of the kingdom of the
Netherlands, the territorial settlement of Vienna remained, after the
revolution of 1830, substantially intact. Outside the limits of the
treaties, however, fateful changes were in progress. These were
determined, broadly speaking, by the two main questions that dominated
international politics between the years 1831 and 1841: (1) the
antagonism between the western constitutional powers, France and Great
Britain, and the eastern autocratic powers, Russia, Austria and Prussia;
and (2) the crisis in the Eastern question resulting from the revolt of
Mehemet Ali, pasha of Egypt, against the Porte.


  Anglo-French "entente."

The strained relations between Great Britain and France, resulting from
the French policy of aggression in the Spanish peninsula, which had more
than once brought the two powers to the verge of war, had been eased
before the fall of the government of Charles X. The peril of a French
hegemony over the vast colonial empire of Spain had been forestalled by
Canning's recognition of the independence of the South American
republics; the intrigues of France in favour of the partisans of Dom
Miguel in Portugal had been checkmated by a politic breach, on behalf of
the Portuguese Liberals, of the British principle of non-intervention,
and finally the chief cause of offence had been removed, in 1827, by the
withdrawal of the French army of occupation from Spain. In the Greek
question the two powers had acted cordially in concert; and this good
understanding even the French conquest of Algiers in 1830, which laid
the foundations of the French empire in Africa, had not availed to
shatter; for the eyes of the Tory ministry were still fixed on France as
the potential focus of revolutionary propaganda, and any over-sea
possessions she might acquire were, in Wellington's opinion, so many
hostages for her good behaviour given to British sea-power. The results
of the July revolution in Paris were accepted by Great Britain so soon
as it became clear that Louis Philippe stood for peace and not for
revolutionary aggression; the armed intervention of France in favour of
the Belgians in August 1831 was stopped by the firm language of
Palmerston; the French occupation of Ancona, as a countermove to
Austrian aggressions in Italy, was accepted as "an incident of the
balance of power"; and the intention of the king of the French to abide
by the treaties, which became clearer with the consolidation of his
power at home, paved the way for that _entente_ between the two Liberal
powers which lasted until 1840.


  The constitutional v. the autocratic powers.

  The Eastern question, Mehemet Ali.

  Conventions of Münchengrätz and Berlin, 1833.

The cleavage between the fundamental principles of the two groups of
autocratic and constitutional powers was not only apparent in their
general attitude towards constitutional and national movements, but
affected also the position taken up by them during the crisis of the
Eastern question evoked by the revolt of Mehemet Ali, pasha of Egypt, a
crisis by which between 1839 and 1841 all other diplomatic issues were
overshadowed. (See MEHEMET ALI.) During the Greek revolt the efforts of
Austria had been directed to preventing a Russian attack upon Turkey;
these efforts had failed, and Metternich's worst fears seemed to be
realized when the Russo-Turkish campaigns of 1828-29 issued in the
treaty of Adrianople (September 14, 1829) and the apparently complete
vassalage of the sultan to the tsar. But when, in 1832, Sultan Mahmud
appealed in his despair to the emperor Nicholas to save him from ruin at
the hands of the Egyptian rebels, and, as the result, the treaty of
Unkiar Skelessi (July 8, 1833) seemed to place definitely in the hands
of Russia the keys of the Black Sea, it was left to France and Great
Britain to give voice to the protest of Europe. Austria, alarmed by the
revolutionary movements of 1830, accepted the fact of Russian
preponderance at Constantinople, rather than risk a breach with the
autocrat who was now the main pillar of the Holy Alliance. The emperor
Nicholas, for his part, was equally prepared to surrender some of his
ambitions in the East for the sake of the common cause, the more so
since to Russian statesmen the maintenance of Turkey in a condition of
weakness and dependence now seemed preferable to any attempt to break it
up. The result of these dispositions was the convention of Münchengrätz
(September 18, 1833) between Russia, Austria and Prussia, by which the
three powers undertook to guarantee the integrity of the Ottoman empire.
In the following month a secret convention was signed at Berlin between
the same powers (October 15), reaffirming the right of the powers to
intervene in the internal affairs of a friendly state at the request of
its legitimate sovereign, a right with which no third power would be
allowed to interfere, such interference to be regarded by the three
powers as an act of hostility directed against all of them.


  The Tsar Nicholas I. and Palmerston.

  Affairs of Spain and Portugal. Quadruple Alliance of 1834.

This reconstitution of the "Holy Alliance" on a narrower basis was the
work of the emperor Nicholas, whose masterful personality had by this
time quite overshadowed the influence of Metternich in the councils of
the autocratic powers. There was no formal breach of the Grand Alliance;
the "treaties" remained in force; but the French revolution of 1830 had
produced a practical disruption which was every day accentuated by the
attitude of the British government under the influence of Palmerston.
For Palmerston had now become "the firebrand of Europe," openly
proclaiming his contempt for international law and equally openly posing
as the protector of "oppressed nationalities." "If these two powers
(France and England)," wrote the tsar to King Frederick William of
Prussia, "have the courage to profess loudly rebellion and the overturn
of all stability, we ought to have the right and the courage to support
Divine right." This deep cleavage of principles was immediately
exhibited in the attitude of the powers towards the troubles in the
Spanish peninsula. In September 1833 Ferdinand VII. of Spain died, and,
under the Pragmatic Sanction, his daughter Isabella succeeded under the
regency of Queen Christina; in July, Dom Miguel, the absolutist
pretender to the throne of Portugal, had made himself master of Lisbon.
In Spain Don Carlos, Ferdinand's brother, claimed the crown as the
legitimate heir, and began the long agony of the Carlist wars; in
Portugal the constitutionalists upheld in arms the rights of Queen Maria
da Gloria (see SPAIN and PORTUGAL). Carlists and Miguelists, making
common cause, had the moral support of the allies of Münchengrätz; while
France and Great Britain took the side of the Liberals. A formal
alliance between the two western powers, proposed by Talleyrand, was
indeed refused by Palmerston, who had no wish to commit Great Britain to
an irrevocable breach with Austria and Russia, and was suspicious of the
ambitions of France in Spain; but ultimately a triple alliance between
Great Britain, Spain and Portugal---with the object of restoring order
in the peninsula--was converted, under pressure from the French
government, into the Quadruple Alliance of the 22nd of April 1834.


  Nicholas I. and Great Britain.

  Breach of Anglo-French "entente" 1840.

The _entente_ implied by this formal instrument was, however, more
apparent than real. When, in the spring of 1835, Queen Christina applied
to the Allies for help against a renewed Carlist rising, Palmerston's
suspicions were again aroused by the somewhat naïve suggestion of
Thiers that France should once more intervene as in 1823, a suggestion
that was firmly rejected. Palmerston's counter-proposal of an English
expedition met with as little favour in Paris. The Anglo-French
_entente_ was proving but a "cardboard alliance," as Wellington called
it; and the emperor Nicholas, to whom the existence of Louis Philippe as
king of the French was at once a sacrilege and a menace, began with a
good hope to work for its destruction. The fears roused by the Reform
Act of 1832 had been belied by its results; the conservative temper of
the British electorate had restored to Great Britain the prestige of a
legitimate power; and the pledge of the tsar's renewed confidence and
goodwill was the visit of the cesarevich (afterwards the emperor
Alexander II.) to the English court in 1839. This was not without its
effect on the public sentiment; but the triumph of the tsar's diplomacy
was due to fresh complications in the Eastern question, due to the
renewed effort of Sultan Mahmud to crush the hated viceroy of Egypt.
These events will be found outlined in the article MEHEMET ALI. Here it
will suffice to say that the convention of London of the 15th of July
1840, signed by Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia without
calling France into counsel, marked the definite breach of the
Anglo-French _entente_, a breach which was but imperfectly healed by the
Straits' Convention signed by all the powers on the 13th of July 1841.


  Great Britain and France.

The Straits' Convention was hailed by Count Nesselrode, the Russian
foreign secretary, as having re-established "the federative system of
the European states on its old basis." This was true, in so far as it
created yet another precedent for the concerted action of the European
powers, and once more consecrated the right of "Europe" to decide in
common on questions of first-rate international importance. But the
divergence of interests and principles within the concert were too great
to be healed by the settlement of a single issue, however important, and
this divergence increased as events moved towards the revolutionary
outbreaks of 1848. When, in 1846, the independent republic of Cracow was
suppressed by agreement of the three autocratic powers, on the ground
that it had become a dangerous centre of revolutionary agitation, it was
Great Britain and France that protested against an arbitrary infraction
of the treaties by the very governments which had laid the greatest
stress upon their sanctity. The _entente_ between the two Liberal powers
had been patched up after the closure of the Egyptian Question; it was
cemented by visits of Queen Victoria and the prince consort to the
Chateau d'Eu (1843 and 1845), and of King Louis Philippe to Windsor
(1844); and it survived, in spite of several causes of friction, notably
the crisis in Morocco (q.v.), until 1846, when the affair of the Spanish
Marriages brought it to a somewhat dramatic conclusion.


  The "Spanish Marriages."

  The "February Revolution," 1848.

The attempt to secure the succession to the Spanish throne for his
descendants by pressing on the marriage of the duke of Montpensier with
the infanta Luisa, before that of the young queen Isabella had been
proved to be fruitful in children, was on the part of Louis Philippe
more than a breach of faith with Great Britain (how deeply it was
resented may be learnt from Queen Victoria's letters); it was a breach
of faith with the revolution that had made him king. Since 1840, indeed,
the whole tendency of the king's policy had been to revert to the
traditional standpoint of the Bourbons; internally, "resistance" to the
growing claims of the democracy; externally, dynastic ambition. But in
endeavouring to win the goodwill of the reactionary powers he only
succeeded in losing that of the classes of his own people on which his
authority was based. In 1847 he joined with the three autocratic powers
in supporting the clerical and reactionary _Sonderbund_ in Switzerland,
in defiance of the protests of Great Britain and the attitude of the
majority of Frenchmen. When, in February 1848, the revolution broke out
in Paris, the _bourgeois_ monarchy, utterly discredited, fell without a
struggle (see FRANCE and LOUIS PHILIPPE).


  Revolution of 1848 outside France.

The revolution in Paris was not the cause of the political upheaval
which in the year 1848 convulsed Europe from Ireland to the banks of the
Danube; it had indeed been preceded by the triumph of Liberalism in
Switzerland, by successful revolutions in Naples and Palermo, and by the
grant of a constitution in Piedmont; but flaming up as it were in the
revolutionary centre of Europe, it acted as the beacon signal for the
simultaneous outbreak of movements which, though long prepared, might
but for this have been detached and spasmodic. It was this simultaneity
which gave to the revolutions of 1848 their European character and their
formidable force. They were the outcome of various, dissimilar and
sometimes contradictory impulses--political, social, racial. In France
the issue resolved itself into a struggle between the new working-class
ideal of Socialism and the _bourgeois_ ideal of the great Revolution; in
England the Chartist movement presented, in a less degree, the same
character; in Germany, in the Austrian empire, in Italy, on the other
hand, the dominant motives were constitutional and nationalist, and of
these two the latter became in the end the determining factor. The
events of the different revolutions are described elsewhere (see FRANCE;
AUSTRIA; GERMANY; HUNGARY; ITALY). From the point of view of Europe such
unity as they possessed was due to their being, so far as Central Europe
was concerned, directed against the system of "stability" associated
with the name Metternich. In hatred of this system German, Czech,
Magyar, and Italian were united; Kossuth's great speech of the 3rd of
March echoed far beyond the frontiers of Hungary; the fall of Metternich
(March 13) was a victory, not only for the populace of Vienna, but for
all the peoples and races which had worn the Austrian fetters. It was
the signal for revolutions in Hungary (the passing of the "March Laws"),
in Bohemia, in Prussia (March 15), in Milan; on the 23rd of March,
Charles Albert of Sardinia, placing himself at the head of the Italian
national movement, declared war against Austria. Against a movement so
widespread and apparently inspired by a common purpose the governments
were powerless. The collapse of the Austrian administration, of which
the inherent rottenness was now revealed, involved that of those
reactionary powers which had leaned upon it. One by one they accepted
what seemed to be the inevitable; even Pope Pius IX. sent troops to
fight under the banner of St Peter for the Italian cause; while in
Berlin Frederick William IV., wrapped in the gold and black colours of
imperial Germany, posed as the leader of "the glorious German
revolution." When, on the 18th of May, the parliament of United Germany
was opened at Frankfort, it seemed as though pan-German dreams were on
the threshold of realization; while in Italy, early in the same month,
Lombardy, Modena, Parma and Piacenza declared by plebiscites for
incorporation in the north Italian kingdom, Venice following suit on the
4th of June. A profound modification of the European states system
seemed inevitable.


  Causes of the failure of the revolutionary movements.

That, in the event, the revolutions of 1848 left the territorial
settlement of Vienna intact, was due in the main to the marvellous
resisting power of the Habsburg monarchy, the strength of which lay in
the traditional loyalty of the army and the traditional policy of
balancing race against race within the empire. The triumph of democracy
in Germany was made possible only by the temporary collapse of the
Habsburg power, a collapse due to the universality and apparent
unanimity of the onslaught upon it. But it was soon clear that the
unanimity was more apparent than real. The victory of the democratic
forces had been too easy, too seemingly overwhelming; the establishment
of the constitutional principle in the main centres of autocracy seemed
to make common action against the powers of reaction of secondary
importance, and free play was allowed to the racial and national
antagonisms that had been present from the first. The battle of German,
as well as of Italian, liberty was being fought out on the plains of
Lombardy; yet the German democrats, whether in Vienna or Frankfort,
hailed the victories of the veteran Radetzky as triumphs of Germanism.
In Bohemia the revolution was wrecked on the rivalry of German and
Czech; and when the Hungarians drew the sword against Austria, the
imperial government was reinforced by the hatred of the southern Slavs
for their Magyar task-masters.


  Victory of the conservative forces.

Thus, from the chaos of warring races, the old order began slowly to
reappear. So early as the 15th of June 1848 Prince Windischgrätz had
restored order in Prague and received the thanks of the Frankfort
parliament; on the 25th of July Radetzky's victory at Custozza set free
the imperialist army in Italy; on the 4th of September Jellachich, ban
of Croatia, invaded Hungary in the name of the united empire; on the 1st
of November Windischgrätz entered democratic Vienna. The alliance of the
army and the Slav races had won the victory over German democracy. The
combating of Hungarian nationalism proved a longer and a harder task;
but the Austrian victory of Kapolna (February 26-27, 1849) encouraged
Schwarzenberg to dissolve the rump of the _Reichsrath_ at Kremsier and
proclaim a new constitution for the whole empire, including Hungary. The
Magyar victories that followed issued in the proclamation, on the 14th
of April, of the independence of Hungary. But though the Austrian arms
had not been strong enough to crush the Hungarian revolt, they had
proved at least the vitality of the conservative principle. The emperor
Nicholas I. of Russia had watched in disgusted silence the weak spirit
of concession with which the revolutions had been everywhere met; so
long as the sovereigns seemed to forget their divine mission he had held
rigorously aloof, and had only broken silence to congratulate
Windischgrätz on his capture of Vienna and Schwarzenberg on his
reassertion of vigorous principles. Now, however, that Divine Right was
in arms against the forces of disorder, he was prepared to listen to the
prayer of the emperor Francis Joseph for assistance against the
Hungarian rebels. The engagements of 1833 were remembered; and in the
brotherly spirit of the Holy Alliance, Hungary was subdued by Russian
armies and handed over, without _quid pro quo_, to her legitimate king.


  Prussia and Austria. Convention of Olmütz, 1850.

Görgei's capitulation of Világos (August 14, 1849) cleared the ground
for the complete restoration of the system destroyed by the March
revolutions of the year before. The refusal of Frederick William IV. of
Prussia to accept the imperial crown (April 21,1849) had already
advertised the failure of the constitutional and unionist movement in
Germany; and Prussia, her military prestige restored, stood once more
face to face with Austria in rivalry for the hegemony of Germany. In the
diplomatic contest that followed Prussia was worsted, her claims to an
independent supremacy in the north were defeated, and the convention of
Olmütz (November 29, 1850) restored the _status quo_ of the
Confederation as established in 1815.


  Napoleon III. and Europe.

  Rise of socialism.

  "The Napoleonic Idea."

Within three years of the great upheaval of 1848 the forces of
revolution seemed everywhere to have been subdued, the states system of
Europe to have been re-established on the basis of the treaties of
Vienna. In reality, however, this restoration was only on the surface;
the cracks in the structure of the European system had--to use
Bismarck's phrase applied to another occasion--only been "papered over";
and soon ominous rents revealed the fact that the forces that had
threatened it with sudden ruin were still at work. One fateful breach in
the treaties had, indeed, been accepted as beyond repair; when the dust
of the revolutionary turmoil was at length laid a Bonaparte was once
more firmly seated on the throne of France. The emperor Nicholas,
watching from the calm of Russia, had realized all that the recognition
of this fact would involve; he had proposed to set in motion the
somewhat rusty machinery of the Grand Alliance, but the other autocratic
powers were in no case to support a legitimist crusade, and when
Napoleon in 1852 assumed the title of emperor, all Europe recognized his
right to do so, even Nicholas being fain to content himself with
refusing to treat the _parvenu_ monarch as his "brother," and to admit
his style of "third" Napoleon, which seemed to imply a dynastic claim.
Napoleon, indeed, was accepted by the powers, as he was welcomed by the
French people, as the "saviour of society" from the newly revealed
perils of the social revolution. For new and ominous forces had made
their appearance since the revolution of 1830 had established the middle
classes in power. The industrial development had proceeded in the west
of Europe with astonishing rapidity, with its resulting concentration of
vast populations in factories and factory cities; and this
"proletariat," excluded from any voice in the government, and exposed in
accordance with the prevailing economic theories of doctrinaire
Liberalism to the horrors of unrestricted competition, had begun to
organize itself in a movement, of which the catchword was "the right to
work" and the banner the red flag of the socialist commune. The reign of
Charles X. had been the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the principle of
legitimacy; that of Louis Philippe had discredited for ever government
based solely on the _bourgeoisie_; the socialistic experiments of 1848
in Paris had collapsed amid the anarchy and bloodshed of the June days.
At this opportune moment Louis Napoleon Bonaparte proclaimed to the
French people the "Napoleonic Idea" as conceived by himself. The great
Napoleon had been the incarnation of the Revolution, had "sprung armed
from the Revolution, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter"; he had
ruled because to him the people, by whom the Revolution had been made,
had delegated the duty of representing, protecting and guiding it. Of
this idea Louis Napoleon conceived himself to be the heir; and when by a
double plebiscite the French nation had established him in supreme
power, first as president for life (1851), then as emperor (1852), he
was able to claim that he represented the people in a far more immediate
sense than could be asserted of the chance majority of any
representative assembly.


  Economic revolution in Europe.

It was clear that, sooner or later, Napoleon III. would prove a
disturbing force in Europe. His title to rule was that he represented
France; it followed therefore that he must be hostile to "the treaties,"
by which the traditional aspirations of France, e.g. for her "natural
boundaries" of Rhine, Alps and Pyrenees, were restrained. He reigned as
"emperor of the French"; it followed that he represented that principle
of nationality which the treaties ignored. He could not afford--as
Metternich had said of Ferdinand of Naples--"to treat his throne as an
arm-chair"; and any activity he might display would be almost certainly
at the expense of the established order. At the outset, indeed, it was
his policy to pose as its custodian. To conciliate the French clericals
he supported the pope against the Italian Liberals; but otherwise he
proclaimed aloud his devotion to the arts of peace. A period of rapid
material expansion succeeded the unrest of the revolutionary years;
engineers and men of science were quickly producing a change in all the
material conditions of life, greater than could have been effected by
any political revolution; especially the face of Europe was gradually
being covered with a network of railways, which it was hoped would draw
the European nations not only materially but morally closer together.
The first universal exhibition, opened under the auspices of the prince
consort at London in 1851, was intended to advertise and consecrate the
dawn of a new era of international peace and goodwill. The Crystal
Palace at Sydenham, once hailed as the "bright Koh-i-nur of the West,"
remains the dismal monument of a hope so soon to be belied by the hard
logic of events. For no period since 1815 has been so occupied with wars
and the rumours of war as the twenty years that followed the opening of
this great temple of peace.


  The Crimean War.

  Congress of Paris, 1856.

One question, that of the ultimate destination of the duchies of
Schleswig and Holstein, which threatened the tranquillity of the West,
was temporarily settled by the conference of London in 1852 (see
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION). But about the same time anxious watchers
noticed on the political horizon in the East a cloud, no bigger than a
man's hand, that threatened a serious storm. At first this was no more
than a quarrel between Greek and Latin monks about the custody of
certain holy places and things in Palestine. It soon, however, became
clear that behind these insignificant combatants loomed the figures of
the emperors of Russia and France. The motives that induced Napoleon to
take up the cause of the rights of the Latin church in this matter were
partly political, partly personal. He resented the tsar's attitude
towards himself; he wished to gain the firm support of the clergy for
his throne; he desired to win prestige for himself and his dynasty by
reasserting the traditional influence of France in the Ottoman empire.
The events that led up to the Crimean War, and those of the war itself,
are told elsewhere (see CRIMEAN WAR). Great Britain had been drawn into
the war by her traditional policy of preserving the Ottoman empire as a
barrier against the advance of Russia to the Mediterranean and the
consequent danger to the British empire in India. It is now generally
conceded that, so far as these objects were concerned, the war was a
tragic mistake. The hopes that were built on the capacity of Turkey to
reform itself were disappointed; the restrictions imposed upon Russia
were repudiated at the first opportunity, during the Franco-German War
in 1870; and the results of the Russo-Turkish War of 1876 have shown
that a far more effective barrier against Russia than the weakened
Ottoman empire has been furnished by the young and vigorous national
states of the Balkan Peninsula. None the less, the treaty of Paris
(1856), by which the war was closed, marks an important epoch in the
diplomatic history of Europe; and it is impossible to say that the blood
spilled in the Crimea was wholly wasted. At the time the main success of
the allied powers seemed to be in the thrusting back of Russia from the
Danube by the cession of Bessarabia, the extinction of Russian sea-power
in the Black Sea, the formal repudiation of the tsar's claim to a
special right of interference in Turkey. But the true significance of
the work of the congress of Paris lies in the impetus given by it to the
development of an effective international law. The concert of Europe was
consecrated anew by the solemn admission of the Ottoman empire to an
equality of _status_ with the European powers and the declaration of the
collective obligations of Europe towards it. The congress, moreover,
acted in some sort as the legislative body of Europe; it established the
principle of the free navigation of the Danube and of the right of all
nations to carry their commerce into the Black Sea; by a declaration,
signed by all the powers present, it abolished the practice of granting
letters of marque to privateers in war time. The question was even
discussed of establishing some sanction by which the rules of
international law agreed upon should be enforced upon recalcitrant
states; and, though nothing was settled, a _voeu_ to this effect was
entered upon the protocol. The congress of Paris thus set a precedent
more hopeful than those of the congresses held earlier in the century,
because the issues were not confused by the supposed necessity for
upholding "legitimacy" at all costs; it was a stage in the progress from
the ideals of the Grand Alliance to those of the Hague Conference.


  Preponderance of France.

  Napoleon and Italy. War of 1859.

  Napoleon and Germany

The conclusion of the Crimean War left the emperor Napoleon the most
influential personage in Europe; and Paris, the seat of the congress,
became also the centre of the diplomatic world. Russia had been bled
almost to death by the war; Austria was discredited and isolated owing
to the dubious part she had played in it; Prussia had not recovered from
the humiliation of Olmütz; Great Britain was soon plunged into the
critical struggle of the Indian Mutiny. The time was obviously opportune
for the realization of some of the aspirations implied in the Napoleonic
idea. The opportunity came from the side of Italy. By sending Sardinian
troops to fight in a quarrel not their own, alongside the Allies in the
Crimea, Cavour had purchased for Piedmont the right to be heard in the
councils of the powers--a right of which he had made use at the Paris
congress to denounce before all Europe the Austrian misrule in Italy.
The Italian unionists were at one with Napoleon in desiring to overset
"the treaties"; and the Franco-Italian alliance which, in 1859, drove
the Austrians out of Lombardy and established the nucleus of the Italian
kingdom was the beginning of a process which, within twelve years, was
to change the balance of Europe. It was ominous of the future that it
was largely the menace of Prussian intervention that persuaded Napoleon
to conclude the armistice of Villafranca (July 11, 1859), which,
contrary to his agreement with Victor Emmanuel, left Venice to the
Austrians. In spite of the peace of Zürich (November 10), indeed, the
union of Italy continued during the succeeding years, and Savoy and Nice
were the reward of the French emperor's connivance (see ITALY). France
thus once more gained her "natural frontier" of the Alps; the question
was whether she would be able to regain her other natural frontier on
the Rhine. The times were not unpropitious for an enterprise which was
undoubtedly one of the main objects of Napoleon's policy. The European
concert had ceased to exist as an effective force; the treaties had been
violated with impunity; in Germany, where the tension between the two
great powers had not been eased by Prussia's dubious attitude during the
war, there was little prospect of a united opposition to French
aggression, and the conditions seemed highly favourable for reviving the
traditional policy of exploiting German disunion for the aggrandizement
of France. Prussia was arming, but her armaments were directed not
against Napoleon but against Austria, and the beginning of the reign of
William I., who had become regent in 1858 and king in 1861, pointed to
the development of a situation in which the French emperor would once
again become the arbiter of Germany. On the 29th of March 1862 Prussia
signed a commercial treaty with France on a basis that involved the
exclusion of Austria from the Zollverein, and replied to the protests of
the court of Vienna by recognizing the new kingdom of Italy. In
September of the same year King William placed the supreme direction of
Prussian policy in the hands of Otto von Bismarck, whose views on the
exclusion of Austria from Germany were known to all the world.


  Decline of Napoleon's influence.

The outcome of the Polish insurrection of 1863, however, again altered
the aspect of things, and in a direction unfavourable to France (see
POLAND: _History_). Napoleon had been forced by French public opinion to
come forward as the protector of the Poles; but the spectacle of a
Bonaparte posing as the champion of "the treaties" was not impressive;
his brave words were not translated into action; and he only succeeded
in offending Russia by his protests and alienating Great Britain by his
tergiversations. The proffered intervention of Austria, France and Great
Britain was rejected in a note of Prince Gorchakov to Baron Brunnow, the
Russian ambassador in London (July 1, 1863); no action followed; and the
last effort to put forward the treaties of Vienna as the common law of
Europe ended in a fiasco. British ministers, who had been made to look
somewhat ridiculous, henceforth began to be chary of active intervention
in continental affairs; Austria and France were alike discredited and
isolated. Prussia which, under Bismarck's auspices, had aided Russia in
suppressing the Poles (convention of February 8, 1863) alone emerged
from the crisis with increased prestige. Bismarck, indeed, was too wary
to accept the tsar's suggestion of an offensive alliance and an
immediate combined attack on Austria and France; but in the coming
struggle for the hegemony of Germany he was assured at least of Russia's
neutrality.


  Rivalry of Prussia and Austria. Schleswig-Holstein question.

  Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Prussia supreme in Germany.

The final act in this long rivalry began with the opening up of the
Schleswig-Holstein question on the death of Frederick VII. of Denmark
and the accession of the "protocol-king" Christian IX. (November 15,
1863). The German claim to the Elbe duchies, the Danish claim to at
least Schleswig as an integral part of the northern kingdom, were but
subordinate issues of questions far more fateful, the developments of
which once more illustrated the hopeless enfeeblement of the idea of the
European concert. In the struggle for the possession of the duchies the
general sentiment of Germany was on one side, that of Europe on the
other. By the protocol of 1852 the duchies had been treated as an
integral part of Denmark, and France and Great Britain, as signatory
powers, alike protested against the action of Austria and Prussia in
asserting the German claim by force of arms. But, as in the case of
Poland, protests were not followed by action; Napoleon in the end
contented himself with proposing his favourite "Napoleonic idea" of a
plebiscite, to discover the wishes of the populations concerned;
Palmerston, who realized some of the important issues involved, allowed
his warlike attitude, under exalted influences, to evaporate in words.
Thus Great Britain earned the lasting resentment of Germans, without
succeeding in preventing the establishment of German sea-power in the
Baltic. For the Prussian war-harbour of Kiel and the Kiel Canal were in
Bismarck's mind from the outset. Throughout he intended to make the
duchies a part of Prussia and to use the whole question as a means for
the solution of that of Germany. The Austro-Prussian War of 1866 grew
inevitably out of the Dano-German War of 1864; and the treaty of Prague
(Aug. 23, 1866), which excluded Austria from Germany and established the
North German Confederation under the headship of Prussia, not only
absorbed into Prussia the North German states which had sided with
Austria, but by the annexation to her of Schleswig and Holstein laid the
foundations of German power in the North Sea, and of German rivalry with
England in the future.


  Napoleon and Prussia.

More immediate were the effects of the campaign of Königgrätz on France.
The rapid and overwhelming victory of Prussia overthrew all the
calculations of Napoleon, who had looked to intervening as arbiter
between exhausted combatants. The sudden menace of the new German power
alarmed him, and he sought to secure the Rhine frontier for France, by
negotiations with Prussia, in the form of "compensations" at the expense
of the South German states. He succeeded only in placing a fresh weapon
in Bismarck's hands. The communication of the French overtures to the
South German courts was enough to throw them into the arms of Prussia;
and treaties of offensive and defensive alliance were signed in August
1866 between Prussia and Württemberg (3rd), Baden (17th), and Bavaria
(22nd), by which the king of Prussia was to receive the supreme command
of the allied armies in time of war. In vain Napoleon tried to retrieve
his damaged prestige by securing compensation elsewhere. His proposal
that the grand-duchy of Luxemburg, which had not been included in the
new German Confederation, should fall to France by agreement with
Prussia was no more successful than his other demands for
"compensation." Luxemburg was declared a neutral state by the convention
of London in 1867 (see LUXEMBURG), and the French proposal, published by
Bismarck in _The Times_ at the outset of the war of 1870, only damaged
the French emperor's cause in the eyes of Europe.

Meanwhile public feeling in France had become seriously excited by this
sudden menace of a hostile power on her eastern frontier, and this
excitement was raised to fever heat when it became known that the vacant
throne of Spain had been offered to and accepted by a prince of the
house of Hohenzollern. Napoleon's policy had become hopelessly
discredited by the successive fiascos in Poland, Mexico and Germany, and
even the establishment of a liberal constitution in 1869 could not avail
to restore confidence in him. He knew the risk he ran in challenging a
conflict with a power whose military efficiency had been so strikingly
displayed; but by refusing to do so, in the excited state of public
feeling, he would have risked his throne. He reckoned on the traditional
jealously of the South German states for Prussia and their traditional
friendship with France; he was assured, too, of the support of Austria,
in the event of a victorious opening of the campaign. On the other hand
Bismarck was bent on war, which, in accordance with his policy of "blood
and iron," he believed to be the sole effective means of binding the
heterogeneous elements of Germany into a coherent whole. The device of
the "Ems telegrams" (see BISMARCK) was sufficient to end the hesitations
of Napoleon by giving an irresistible volume to the cry of the war party
in France; and on the 19th of July the French emperor's declaration of
war was handed in at Berlin.


  The Franco-German War, 1870-1871.

  The new German Empire.

The story of the struggle that followed is told elsewhere (see
FRANCO-GERMAN WAR). The hopes that Napoleon had based on the action of
the South German courts was belied; and the first crushing German
victories (Weissenburg, August 4, and Wörth, August 6) not only removed
all chance of Austrian co-operation but brought down with a crash the
imposing facade of the Second Empire. On the 2nd of September Napoleon
surrendered, with his army, at Sedan; and two days later the Empire was
overthrown and a provisional republican government set up at Paris. On
the 19th Paris itself was invested and, after a heroic defence,
capitulated on the 28th of January 1871. On the 18th of January, at the
palace of Versailles, William I., king of Prussia, was proclaimed German
emperor. On the 26th of February were signed the preliminaries of peace,
by which France agreed to cede to the German empire Alsace (except
Belfort and its territory) and German Lorraine, with Metz and Thionville
(Diedenhofen), and to pay a war indemnity of five milliards of francs
(£200,000,000) in three years, to be secured by the occupation of French
territory. The definitive treaty was signed at Frankfort-on-Main on the
10th of May 1871.


  Dual system in Austria-Hungary.

  Union of Italy.

The most important outcome of the events which culminated in the
Franco-German War and its result was the establishment of a powerful
German empire, which was destined to dominate the continent for years to
come, and the expansive ambitions of which remain pregnant with menace
for the future. So great an overturn, however, involved other changes in
the territorial system, which may be briefly summarized. The most
notable of these was the reconstruction of the Austrian monarchy as a
result of the war of 1866. By the treaty of Vienna (October 3, 1866)
between Austria and Italy, Austria recognized the Italian kingdom and
ceded to it the city and territory of Venice, thus surrendering the
traditional claim of the Habsburgs to domination in Italy. This was
followed in 1867 by the establishment of the Dual Monarchy in the
Habsburg dominions under the auspices of Bismarck's rival, Count
Beust,--Francis Joseph being crowned king of Hungary, and a separate
constitution being established for Hungary and the _Cis-Leithan_
dominions of the Austrian emperor (see AUSTRIA: _History_). In Italy,
meanwhile, the unification of the kingdom had continued after the
conclusion of the war of 1859 by the treaty of Zürich. In 1860 Tuscany,
Parma and Modena were united to the monarchy of Victor Emmanuel, at the
cost of the cession of Nice and Savoy to Napoleon. In May of the same
year Garibaldi and his "Thousand" landed in Sicily, which he reduced by
the end of June; in August he crossed to the mainland, and the
capitulation of Francis II. of the Two Sicilies at Gaeta on the 13th of
February 1861 ended the Bourbon kingdom in southern Italy. On the 17th
of March Victor Emmanuel II. was proclaimed king of United Italy. This
title, as mentioned above, was recognized by Austria in 1866, when Italy
was increased by the cession of Venice. Finally, Rome, which had been
preserved to the papacy by Napoleon's troops, was on their withdrawal
occupied by the Italians on the 20th of September 1870. Thus the
temporal power of the popes came to an end; and the unification of Italy
was completed (see ITALY: History).

Another significant outcome of the collapse of France was the
denunciation by Russia of the "Black Sea" clauses of the treaty of Paris
of 1856, an action rendered possible by the _entente_ between the
governments of Berlin and St Petersburg. In the note addressed to the
signatory powers announcing that Russia no longer felt herself bound by
the clauses of the treaty limiting her sovereign rights in the Black
Sea, Prince Gorchakov wrote: "It would be difficult to affirm that the
written law founded on the respect for treaties, as the basis of public
right and rule of the relations of states, has preserved the same moral
sanction as in former times." The action of Russia was, in fact, a
practical illustration of Bismarck's _dicta_ that "_rebus sic stantibus_
is involved in all treaties that require performance" (_Mem_. ii. 280),
and that "_ultro posse nemo obligatur_ holds good in spite of all treaty
obligations whatsoever, nor can any treaty guarantee the discharge of
obligations when the private interest of those who lie under them no
longer reinforces the text" (ib. ii. 270). Great Britain did her best to
counteract a doctrine so subversive of international confidence. For a
moment at least a diplomatic breach with Russia seemed inevitable. At
Bismarck's suggestion, however, a conference was held at London to
arrange the affair. There was, in the circumstances, no chance of
forcing Russia to recede from her position; but in order "to reconcile
facts with principles" the conference on the 17th of January 1871 agreed
on a formula announcing that "contracting powers can only rid themselves
of their treaty engagements by an understanding with their
co-signatories." Thus the principle of the European concert was saved.
But, for the time at least, it seemed that the triumph of Bismarck's
diplomacy had re-established

        ... the simple plan
  That they should take who have the power
      And they should keep who can.

Beust was not far wrong when he exclaimed, "Je ne vois plus de
l'Europe!"     (W. A. P.)

By the Franco-German War of 1870-71 and the creation of the German
empire the political condition of Europe was profoundly changed. Germany
became for a time the leading power on the continent of Europe, and
German statesmanship had to devise means for preventing, until the new
edifice was thoroughly consolidated, the formation of a hostile
coalition of jealous rivals. The first thing to be done in this
direction was to secure the support of Russia and Austria to the new
order of things.


  Russian policy towards Germany.

With regard to Russia there was little cause for apprehension. She had
aided Bismarck to carry out his audacious schemes in the past, and there
was no reason to suppose that she would change her policy in the
immediate future. The _rapprochement_ dated from the Polish insurrection
of 1863, when the governments of France and England, yielding to popular
excitement, made strong diplomatic representations to Russia in favour
of the Poles, whereas Bismarck not only refused to join in the
diplomatic campaign, but made a convention with the cabinet of St
Petersburg by which the Russian and German military authorities on the
frontiers should aid each other in suppressing the disturbances. From
that time the friendship ripened steadily. The relations between the two
powers were not, it is true, always without a cloud. More than once the
bold designs of Bismarck caused uneasiness and dissatisfaction in St
Petersburg, especially during the Schleswig-Holstein complications of
1864 and the Austro-Prussian conflict of 1866; but the wily statesman of
Berlin, partly by argument and partly by dexterously manipulating the
mutual trust and affection between the two sovereigns, always succeeded
in having his own way without producing a rupture, so that during the
Franco-German War of 1870-71 Russia maintained an extremely benevolent
neutrality, and prevented Austria and Italy from taking part in the
struggle. So benevolent was the neutrality that the emperor William at
the end of the campaign felt constrained to write to the tsar that he
owed to His Majesty the happy issue of the campaign and would never
forget the fact. Having thus helped to create the German empire,
Alexander II. was not likely to take an active part in destroying it,
and Bismarck could look forward confidently to a long continuance of the
cordial relations between the two courts.


  Austrian relations with Germany.

The second part of the German chancellor's programme, the permanent
conciliation of Austria, was not so easily carried out. Austria had been
the great sufferer, more perhaps even than France, from Bismarck's
aggressive policy. For generations she had resisted strenuously and
successfully the efforts of the Hohenzollerns to play the leading part
in Germany, and she had always considered her own influence in Germany
as essential to the maintenance of her position as a first-class power.
By the disastrous campaign of 1866 and the consequent treaty of Prague,
Austria had been formally excluded from all direct influence in German
affairs. With these events still fresh in his recollection, the emperor
Francis Joseph could hardly be expected to support the new empire
created by his rival at Austria's expense, and it was known that on the
eve of the Franco-German War he had been negotiating with the French
government for a combined attack on Prussia. To an ordinary statesman
the task of permanently conciliating such a power might well have seemed
hopeless, but Bismarck did not shrink from it, and even before the
signature of the treaty of Prague he had prepared the way for attaining
his object. "With regard to Austria," he himself explained on one
occasion, "I had two courses open to me after her defeat, either to
destroy her entirely or to respect her integrity and prepare for our
future reconciliation when the fire of revenge had died out. I chose the
latter course, because the former would have been the greatest possible
act of folly. Supposing that Austria had disappeared, consider the
consequences." He then described very graphically those probable
consequences, and drew the conclusion: "for the sake of our own life
Austria must live. I had no hesitation, therefore, and ever since 1866
my constant effort has been to stitch up the great torn texture and to
re-establish amicable relations with our ancient associate of the
Confederation." For this purpose he tried to soothe Austrian
susceptibilities, and suggested confidentially that compensation for the
losses of territory, influence and prestige in Italy and Germany might
be found in south-eastern Europe, especially by the acquisition of
Bosnia and Herzegovina; but so long as his rival Count Beust was
minister for foreign affairs in Vienna, and Austria had the prospect of
being able to recover her lost position by the assistance of Russia and
France, these efforts had no success. It was only when Prince Gorchakov
had declined Count Beust's advances, which took the form of suggesting
the abolition of the Black Sea clauses of the treaty of Paris, and when
France had been paralysed for some years by her war with Germany, that a
_rapprochement_ between the cabinets of Vienna and Berlin became
possible. Bismarck lost no time in making advances. From the German
headquarters at Versailles he sent a despatch to Vienna suggesting the
establishing of more cordial relations between the two countries, and
Count Beust replied in an equally amicable tone. The emperor Francis
Joseph, finding himself isolated, had evidently accepted the inevitable
with his customary resignation, and abandoned his dreams of again
playing the leading part in Germany. As a further proof of the change in
his disposition and aims he replaced Count Beust by Count Andrássy, who
was a personal friend of Bismarck, and who wished, as a Hungarian, to
see Austria liberated from her German entanglement, and he consented to
pay a visit to Berlin for the purpose of drawing still closer the
relations between the two governments.


  The Dreikaiserbund.

Bismarck was delighted at this turn of affairs, but he advanced with his
usual caution. He gave it to be clearly understood that improvement in
his relations with Vienna must not disturb the long-established
friendship with St Petersburg. The tsar, on hearing privately of the
intended meeting, gave a hint to Prince Reuss, the German ambassador,
that he expected an invitation, and was invited accordingly. The meeting
of the three sovereigns took place at Berlin at the end of August 1872.
The three ministers, Prince Bismarck, Prince Gorchakov and Count
Andrássy, held daily conferences, on the basis that the chief aim in
view should be the maintenance of peace in Europe, and that in all
important international affairs the three powers should consult with
each other and act in concert. As a result of three days' consultation
the Three Emperor's League was founded, without any formal treaty being
signed. In this way the danger of a powerful coalition being formed
against the young German empire was averted, for in the event of a
conflict with France, Germany could count on at least the benevolent
neutrality of Russia and Austria, and from the other powers she had
nothing to fear. What ulterior designs Bismarck may have had in forming
the league, or "Alliance" as it is often called, must be to some extent
a matter of conjecture, but we shall probably not be far wrong in
adopting the view of a competent Russian authority, who defines the
policy of the German chancellor thus: "To make Austria accept
definitively her deposition as a Germanic power, to put her in
perpetual conflict with Russia in the Balkan Peninsula, and to found on
that irreconcilable rivalry the hegemony of Germany."

For more than two years there was an outward appearance of extreme
cordiality between the three powers. They acted together diplomatically,
and on all suitable occasions the three allied monarchs exchanged visits
and sent each other congratulations and good wishes. There was, however,
from the beginning very little genuine confidence between them. Before
the breaking up of the conferences at Berlin, Alexander II. and his
chancellor had conversations with the French ambassador, in which they
not only showed that they had suspicions of future aggressive designs on
the part of Germany, but also gave an assurance that so long as France
fulfilled her engagements to Germany she had nothing to fear. A few
months later, when the emperor William paid his return visit to the tsar
in St Petersburg, a defensive convention was concluded by the two
monarchs behind the back of their Austrian ally. Without knowing
anything about the existence of this convention, the Austrian ally did
not feel comfortable in his new position. In Vienna the old
anti-Prussian feeling was still strong. The so-called party of the
archdukes and the military resisted the policy of Andrássy, and sought
to establish closer relations with Russia, so that German support might
be unnecessary, but as Bismarck has himself testified, "Russia did not
yet respond. The wound caused by the conduct of Austria during the
Crimean War was not yet healed. Andrássy made himself very popular in
the court society of St Petersburg during his visit there with his
imperial master, but the traditional suspicion of Austrian policy
remained." Altogether, the new league was not a happy family. So long as
all the members of it were content to accept the _status quo_, the
latent germs of dissension remained hidden from the outside world, but
as soon as the temporary state of political quietude was replaced by a
certain amount of activity and initiative, they forced their way to the
surface. No one of the three powers regarded the _status quo_ as a
satisfactory permanent arrangement. In Berlin much anxiety was caused by
the rapid financial and military recovery of France, and voices were
heard suggesting that a new campaign and a bigger war indemnity might be
necessary before the recuperation was complete. In St Petersburg there
was a determination to take advantage of any good opportunity for
recovering the portion of Bessarabia ceded by the treaty of Paris, and
thereby removing the last tangible results of the Crimean War. In Vienna
there was a desire to obtain in the Balkan Peninsula, in accordance with
the suggestion of Bismarck, compensation for the losses in Italy and
Germany. Thus each of the members of the league was hatching secretly a
little aggressive scheme for its own benefit, and the danger for the
rest of Europe lay in the possibility of their reconciling their schemes
so far as to admit of an agreement for action in common. Fortunately for
the onlookers there were important conflicting interests, and the task
of reconciling them was extremely difficult, as the subsequent course of
events proved.


  The storm-cloud of 1875.

  Russia and Germany divided.

The first of the three powers to move was Germany. In February 1875 M.
de Radowitz was despatched to St Petersburg on a secret mission in order
to discover whether, in the event of hostilities between Germany and
France, Russia would undertake to maintain a neutral attitude as she had
done in 1870-1871; in that case Germany might be relied on to co-operate
with her in her great designs in the East. Prince Gorchakov did not take
the bait with the alacrity that was expected. Having overcome in some
measure his hatred of Austria, which had distorted for so many years his
political vision, he had come to understand that it was not for the
interests of his own country to have as neighbour a powerful united
Germany instead of a weak confederation of small states, and he now
perceived that it would be a grave error of policy to allow Germany to
destroy still more to her own advantage the balance of power in Europe
by permanently weakening France. No doubt he desired to recover the lost
portion of Bessarabia and to raise Russian prestige in the East, but he
did not wish to run the risk of exciting a great European war, and he
believed that what he desired might be effected without war by the
diplomatic skill which had warded off European intervention during the
Polish troubles of 1863, and had recovered for Russia her freedom of
action in the Black Sea during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. In
reply, therefore, to M. de Radowitz's inquiries and suggestions, he
declared that the Russian court fostered no ambitious designs in the
East or in the West, and desired only peace and the maintenance of the
_status quo_, with possibly an amelioration in the miserable condition
of the Christian subjects of the sultan. This rebuff did not suffice to
dispel the gathering storm. The warlike agitation in the German inspired
press continued, and the French government became thoroughly alarmed.
General Leflô, the French ambassador in St Petersburg, was instructed to
sound the Russian government on the subject. Prince Gorchakov willingly
assured him that Russia would do all in her power to incline the Berlin
cabinet to moderation and peace, and that the emperor would take
advantage of his forthcoming visit to Berlin to influence the emperor
William in this sense. A few days later General Leflô received similar
assurances from the emperor himself, and about the same time the British
government volunteered to work likewise in the cause of peace.
Representations were accordingly made by both governments during the
tsar's visit to Berlin, and both the emperor William and his chancellor
declared that there was no intention of attacking France. The danger of
war, which the well-informed German press believed to be "in sight," was
thus averted, but the incident sowed the seeds of future troubles, by
awakening in Bismarck a bitter personal resentment against his Russian
colleague. By certain incautious remarks to those around him, and still
more by a circular to the representatives of Russia abroad, dated Berlin
and beginning with the words _maintenant la paix est assurée_, Gorchakov
seemed to take to himself the credit of having checkmated Bismarck and
saved Europe from a great war. Bismarck resented bitterly this conduct
on the part of his old friend, and told him frankly that he would have
reason to regret it. In the Russian official world it is generally
believed that he took his revenge in the Russo-Turkish War and the
congress of Berlin. However this may be, he has himself explained that
"the first cause of coldness" was the above incident, "when Gorchakov,
aided by Decazes, wanted to play at my expense the part of a saviour of
France, to represent me as the enemy of European peace, and to procure
for himself a triumphant _quos ego_ to arrest by a word and shatter my
dark designs!" In any case the incident marks the beginning of a new
phase in the relations of the three powers; henceforth Bismarck can no
longer count on the unqualified support of Russia, and in controlling
the Russo-Austrian rivalry in south-eastern Europe, while professing to
be impartial, he will lean to the side of Count Andrássy rather than to
that of Prince Gorchakov. He is careful, however, not to carry this
tendency so far as to produce a _rapprochement_ between Russia and
France. The danger of a Franco-Russian alliance hostile to Germany is
already appearing on the political horizon, but it is only a little
cloud no bigger than a man's hand.


  Austro-Russian agreement, 1876.

The next move in the aggressive game was made by Austria, with the
connivance of Russia. During the summer of 1875 an insurrection of the
Christian Slavs in Herzegovina, which received support from the
neighbouring principalities of Montenegro and Servia, was fostered by
the Austrian authorities and encouraged by the Russian consuls on the
Adriatic coast. A European concert was formed for the purpose of
settling the disturbance by means of local administrative reforms, but
the efforts of the powers failed, because the insurgents hoped to obtain
complete liberation from Turkish rule; and in the beginning of July,
with a view to promoting this solution, Servia and Montenegro declared
war against the Porte. Thereupon Russia began to show her hand more
openly. The government allowed volunteers to be recruited in Moscow and
St Petersburg, and the Russian general Chernayev, who had distinguished
himself in Central Asia, was appointed to the command of the Servian
army. When the ball had thus been set rolling, the two powers chiefly
concerned considered that the time had come for embodying the result of
their informal confidential pourparlers in a secret agreement, which is
known as the convention of Reichstadt, because it was signed at a
meeting of the two emperors in the little Bohemian town of that name. It
bore the date of the 8th of July 1876--exactly a week after Servia and
Montenegro had declared war--and it contained the following
stipulations: (1) That so long as the struggle which had just begun
remained undecided, the two sovereigns should refrain from interference,
and that in the event of the principalities being defeated, any
modification of the territorial or political _status quo ante_ to their
detriment should be prevented; (2) that in the event of the
principalities proving victorious, and territorial changes taking place,
Austria should claim compensation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia
should demand the restitution of the portion of Bessarabia which she had
lost by the Crimean War; (3) that in the event of the collapse of the
Ottoman empire, the two powers should act together to create autonomous
principalities in European Turkey, to unite Thessaly and Crete to
Greece, and to proclaim Constantinople a free town. The contracting
parties evidently expected that the two principalities would be
victorious in their struggle with the Porte, and that the compensations
mentioned would be secured without a great European war. Their
expectations were disappointed. Montenegro made a brave stand against
superior forces, but before five months had passed Servia was at the
mercy of the Turkish army, and Russia had to come to the assistance of
her protégé. A Russian ultimatum stopped the advance of the Turks on
Belgrade, and an armistice, subsequently transformed into a peace, was
signed.


  Bulgarian Question.

Russia and Austria had now to choose between abandoning their schemes
and adopting some other course of action, and unforeseen incidents
contributed towards making them select the latter alternative. In June
1876 an attempt at insurrection in Bulgaria had been repressed with
savage brutality by the Turks, and the details, as they became known
some weeks later, produced much indignation all over Europe. In England
the excitement, fanned by the eloquence of Gladstone, became intense,
and compelled the Disraeli cabinet to take part, very reluctantly, in a
diplomatic campaign, with the object of imposing radical reforms on
Turkey. In Russia the excitement and indignation were equally great, and
the tsar gradually formed the resolution that if the powers would not
act collectively and energetically, so as to compel the Porte to yield,
he would undertake the work single-handed. This resolution he announced
publicly in a speech delivered at Moscow on the 10th of November 1876.
The powers did not like the idea of separate Russian action, and in
order to prevent it they agreed to hold a conference in Constantinople
for the purpose of inducing the Porte to introduce the requisite
reforms. The Porte was at that moment under the influence of popular
patriotic excitement which made it indisposed to accept orders, or even
well-meant advice, from governments more or less hostile to it, and the
inconsiderate mode of procedure suggested by General Ignatiev, and
adopted by the other delegates, made it still more unconciliatory. At
the first plenary sitting of the conference the proceedings were
disturbed by the sound of artillery, and the Turkish representative
explained that the salvo was in honour of the new Ottoman constitution,
which was being promulgated by the sultan. The inference suggested was
that as Turkey had spontaneously entered on the path of liberal and
constitutional reform for all Ottoman subjects, it became superfluous
and absurd to talk of small reforms for particular provinces, such as
the conference was about to propose. The deliberations continued, but
finally the Porte refused to accept what the plenipotentiaries
considered an irreducible minimum, and the conference broke up without
obtaining any practical result. The tsar's Moscow declaration about
employing single-handed the requisite coercive measures now came to be
fulfilled.


  San Stefano.

In order to make a successful aggressive move on Turkey, Russia had
first of all to secure her rear and flank by an arrangement with her two
allies. In Berlin she encountered no difficulties. Bismarck had no
objection to seeing Russia weaken herself in a struggle with Turkey,
provided she did not upset the balance of power in south-eastern Europe,
and he felt confident that he could prevent by diplomatic means any such
catastrophe. He was inclined, therefore, to encourage rather than
restrain the bellicose tendencies of St Petersburg. In Vienna the task
of coming to a definite arrangement was much more difficult, and it was
only after protracted and laborious negotiations that a convention was
concluded on the 15th of January 1877, and formally signed three months
later. It was a development of the agreement of Reichstadt, modified
according to the changes in the situation, but retaining the essential
principle that in the event of the territorial status quo being altered,
Russia should recover the lost portion of Bessarabia, and Austria should
get Bosnia and a part of Herzegovina. Having made these preliminary
arrangements, Russia began the campaign simultaneously in Europe and
Asia Minor, and after many reverses and enormous sacrifices of blood and
treasure, she succeeded in imposing on the Turks the "preliminary peace"
of San Stefano (3rd March 1878). That peace was negotiated with very
little consideration for the interests of the other powers, and as soon
as the terms of it became known in Vienna and London there was an
outburst of indignation. In negotiating the treaty General Ignatiev had
ignored the wishes of Austria, and had even, according to the contention
of Andrássy, infringed the convention signed at the beginning of the
war. However this may be, the peace of San Stefano brought to the
surface the latent conflict of interests between the two empires.
Russia's aim was to create a big Bulgaria under the influence of St
Petersburg, and to emancipate Servia and Montenegro as far as possible
from Austrian influence, whereas Austria objected to the creation of any
large Slav state in the Balkan Peninsula, and insisted on maintaining
her influence at Belgrade and Tsetigne (Cetinje). In vain Prince
Gorchakov endeavoured to conciliate Austria and to extract from Count
Andrássy a clear statement of the terms he would accept. Count Andrássy
was in no hurry to extricate Russia from her difficulties, and suggested
that the whole question should be submitted to a European congress. The
suggestion was endorsed by Great Britain, which likewise objected to the
San Stefano arrangements, and Bismarck declined to bring any pressure to
bear on the cabinet of Vienna.


  Berlin Congress.

  Cyprus Convention.

Deceived in her expectations of active support from her two allies,
Russia found herself in an awkward position. From a military point of
view it was absolutely necessary for her to come to an arrangement
either with Austria or with England, because the communications of her
army before Constantinople with its base could be cut by these two
powers acting in concert--the land route being dominated by Austria, and
the Black Sea route by the British fleet, which was at that time
anchored in the Sea of Marmora. As soon, therefore, as the efforts to
obtain the support of her two allies against the demands of England had
failed, negotiations were opened in London, and on the 30th of May a
secret convention was signed by Lord Salisbury and Count Schuvalov. By
that agreement the obstacles to the assembling of the congress were
removed. The congress met in Berlin on the 13th of June, and after many
prolonged sittings and much secret negotiation the treaty of Berlin was
signed on the 13th of July. By that treaty the preliminary peace of San
Stefano was considerably modified. The big Bulgaria defined by General
Ignatiev was divided into three portions, the part between the Danube
and the Balkans being transformed into a vassal principality, the part
between the Balkans and the Rhodope being made into an autonomous
province, called Eastern Rumelia, under a Christian governor named by
the sultan with the assent of the powers, and the remainder being placed
again under the direct rule of the Porte. The independence of
Montenegro, Servia and Rumania was formally recognized, and each of
these principalities received a considerable accession of territory.
Rumania, however. in return for the Dobrudja, which it professed not to
desire, was obliged to give back to Russia the portion of Bessarabia
ceded after the Crimean War. In Asia Minor Russia agreed to confine her
annexations to the districts of Kars, Ardahan and Batum, and to restore
to Turkey the remainder of the occupied territory. As a set-off against
the large acquisitions of the Slav races, the powers recommended that
the sultan should cede to the kingdom of Greece the greater part of
Thessaly and Epirus, under the form of a rectification of frontiers. At
first the sultan refused to act on this recommendation, but in March
1881 a compromise was effected by which Greece obtained Thessaly without
Epirus. Bosnia and Herzegovina were to be occupied and administered by
Austria-Hungary, and the Austrian authorities were to have the right of
making roads and keeping garrisons in the district of Novi-Bazar, which
lies between Servia and Montenegro. In all the provinces of European
Turkey for which special arrangements were not made in the treaty, the
Porte undertook (Art. 23) to introduce organic statutes similar to that
of Crete, adapted to the local conditions. This article, like many of
the subordinate stipulations of the treaty, remained a dead letter. We
may mention specially Art. 61, in which the Sublime Porte undertook to
realize without delay the ameliorations and reforms required in the
provinces inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their safety against
the Circassians and Kurds. Equally unreliable proved the scheme of Lord
Beaconsfield to secure good administration throughout the whole of Asia
Minor by the introduction of reforms under British control, and to
prevent the further expansion of Russia in that direction by a defensive
alliance with the Porte. A convention to that effect was duly signed at
Constantinople a few days before the meeting of the congress (4th June
1878), but the only part of it which was actually realized was the
occupation and administration of Cyprus by the British government. The
new frontiers stipulated in the treaty of San Stefano, and subsequently
rectified by the treaty of Berlin, are shown in the accompanying
sketch-map.


  Russian resentment against Bismarck.

The secret schemes of Russia and Austria, in so far as they were defined
in the agreement of Reichstadt and the subsequent Austro-Russian treaty
of Vienna, had thus been realized. Russia had recovered the lost portion
of Bessarabia, and Austria had practically annexed Bosnia and
Herzegovina, though the nominal suzerainty of the sultan over the two
provinces was maintained. But Russia was far from satisfied with the
results, which seemed to her not at all commensurate with the sacrifices
imposed on her by the war, and her dissatisfaction led to a new grouping
of the powers. Before the opening of the Berlin congress Bismarck had
announced publicly that he would refrain from taking sides with any of
the contending parties, and would confine himself to playing the part of
an honest broker. The announcement was received by the Russians with
astonishment and indignation. What they expected was not an impartial
arbiter, but a cordial and useful friend in need. In 1871 the emperor
William, as we have seen, had spontaneously declared to the tsar that
Germany owed to His Majesty the happy issue of the war, and that she
would never forget it, and we may add that on that occasion he signed
himself "Your ever grateful Friend." Now, in 1878, when the moment had
come for paying at least an instalment of this debt, and when Russia was
being compelled to make concessions which she described as incompatible
with her dignity, Bismarck had nothing better to offer than honest
brokerage. The indignation in all classes was intense, and the views
commonly held regarding Bismarck's "duplicity" and "treachery" were
supposed to receive ample confirmation during the sittings of the
congress and the following six months. On the 4th of February 1879
Prince Gorchakov wrote to the ambassador in Vienna: "Needless to say,
that in our eyes the Three Emperors' Alliance is practically torn in
pieces by the conduct of our two allies. At present it remains for us
merely to terminate the liquidation of the past, and to seek henceforth
support in ourselves alone." The same view of the situation was taken in
Berlin and Vienna, though the result was attributed, of course, to
different causes, and the danger of serious complications became so
great that Bismarck concluded with Andrássy in the following October
(1879) a formal defensive alliance, which was avowedly directed against
Russia, and which subsequently developed into the Triple Alliance,
directed against Russia and France.

[Illustration: Map to illustrate the Treaty of Berlin (1878).]

The causes of the rupture are variously described by the different
parties interested. According to Bismarck the Russian government began a
venomous campaign against Germany in the press, and collected, with
apparently hostile intentions, enormous masses of troops near the German
and Austrian frontiers, whilst the tsar adopted in his correspondence
with the emperor William an arrogant and menacing tone which could not
be tolerated. On the other hand, the Russians declare that the so-called
Press-Campaign was merely the spontaneous public expression of the
prevailing disappointment among all classes in Russia, that the military
preparations had a purely defensive character, and that the tsar's
remarks, which roused Bismarck's ire, did not transgress the limits of
friendly expostulation such as sovereigns in close friendly relations
might naturally employ. Subsequent revelations tend rather to confirm
the Russian view. After an exhausting war and without a single powerful
ally, Russia was not likely to provoke wantonly a great war with Germany
and Austria. The press attacks were not more violent than those which
frequently appear in newspapers which draw their inspiration from the
German foreign office, and the accusations about the arrogant attitude
and menacing tone of Alexander II. are not at all in harmony with his
known character, and are refuted by the documents since published by Dr
Busch. The truth seems to be that the self-willed chancellor was
actuated by nervous irritation and personal feeling more than by
considerations of statecraft. His imperial master was not convinced by
his arguments, and showed great reluctance to permit the conclusion of a
separate treaty with Austria. Finally, with much searching of heart, he
yielded to the importunity of his minister; but in thus committing an
unfriendly act towards his old ally, he so softened the blow that the
personal good relations between the two sovereigns suffered merely a
momentary interruption. Bismarck himself soon recognized that the
permanent estrangement of Russia would be a grave mistake of policy, and
the very next year (1880), negotiations for a treaty of defensive
alliance between the two cabinets were begun. Nor did the accession to
the throne of Russia of Alexander III., who had long enjoyed the
reputation of being systematically hostile to Germans, produce a
rupture, as was expected. Six months after his father's death, the young
tsar met the old kaiser at Danzig (September 1881), and some progress
was made towards a complete renewal of the traditional friendship.
Immediately afterwards a further step was taken towards re-establishing
the old state of things with regard also to Austria. On his return to St
Petersburg, Alexander III. remembered that he had received some time
previously a telegram of congratulation from the emperor Francis Joseph,
and he now replied to it very cordially, referring to the meeting at
Danzig, and describing the emperor William as "that venerable friend
with whom we are united in the common bonds of a profound affection."
The words foreshadowed a revival of the Three Emperors' League, which
actually took place three years later.


  Growth of the Triple Alliance.

The removal of all immediate danger of a Franco-Russian alliance did not
prevent Bismarck from strengthening in other ways the diplomatic
position of Germany, and the result of his efforts soon became apparent
in the alliance of Italy with the two central powers. Ever since the
Franco-German War of 1870-71, and more especially since the congress of
Berlin in 1878, the Italian government had shown itself restless and
undecided in its foreign policy. As it was to France that Italy owed her
emancipation from Austrian rule, it seemed natural that the two
countries should remain allies, but anything like cordial co-operation
was prevented by conflicting interests and hostile feeling. The French
did not consider the acquisition of Savoy and Nice a sufficient
compensation for the assistance they had given to the cause of Italian
unity, and they did not know, or did not care to remember, that their
own government was greatly to blame for the passive attitude of Italy in
the hour of their great national misfortunes. On the other hand, a
considerable amount of bitterness against France had been gradually
accumulating in the hearts of the Italians. As far back as the end of
the war of 1859, popular opinion had been freely expressed against
Napoleon III., because he had failed to keep his promise of liberating
Italy "from the Alps to the Adriatic." The feeling was revived and
intensified when it became known that he was opposing the annexation of
central and southern Italy, and that he obtained Savoy and Nice as the
price of partly withdrawing his opposition. Subsequently, in the war of
1866, he was supposed to have insulted Italy by making her conclude
peace with Austria, on the basis of the cession of Venetia, before she
could wipe out the humiliation of her defeats at Custozza and Lissa.
Then came the French protection of the pope's temporal power as a
constant source of irritation, producing occasional explosions of
violent hostility, as when the new Chassepot rifles were announced to
have "worked wonders" among the Garibaldians at Mentana. When the Second
Empire was replaced by the Republic, the relations did not improve.
French statesmen of the Thiers school had always condemned the imperial
policy of permitting and even encouraging the creation of large,
powerful states on the French frontiers, and Thiers himself publicly
attributed to this policy the misfortunes of his country. With regard to
Italy, he said openly that he regretted what had been done, though he
had no intention of undoing it. The first part of this statement was
carefully noted in Italy, and the latter part was accepted with
scepticism. In any case his hand might perhaps be forced, for in the
first republican chamber the monarchical and clerical element was very
strong, and it persistently attempted to get something done in favour of
the temporal power. Even when the party of the Left undertook the
direction of affairs in 1876, the government did not become
anti-clerical in its foreign policy, and Italian statesmen resigned
themselves to a position of political isolation. The position had its
advantages. Events in the Balkan Peninsula foreshadowed a great European
war, and it seemed that in the event of Europe's being divided into two
hostile camps, Italy might have the honour and the advantage of
regulating the balance of power. By maintaining good relations with all
her neighbours and carefully avoiding all inconvenient entanglements,
she might come forward at the critical moment and dictate her own terms
to either of the contending parties, or offer her services to the
highest bidder. This Machiavellian policy did not give the expected
results. Being friends with everybody in a general way may be the best
course for an old, conservative country which desires merely the
maintenance of the _status quo_, but it does not secure the energetic
diplomatic support required by a young enterprising state which wishes
to increase its territory and influence. At the congress of Berlin, when
several of the powers got territorial acquisitions, Italy got nothing.
The Italians, who were in the habit of assuming, almost as a matter of
principle, that from all European complications they had a right to
obtain some tangible advantage, were naturally disappointed, and they
attributed their misfortune to their political isolation. The policy of
the free hand consequently fell into disrepute, and the desire for a
close, efficient alliance revived. But with what power or powers should
an alliance be made? The remnants of the old party of action, who still
carried the _Italia Irredenta_ banner, had an answer ready. They
recommended that alliances should be concluded with a view to wresting
from Austria the Trentino and Trieste, with Dalmatia, perhaps, into the
bargain. On the other hand, the Conservatives and the Moderates
considered that the question of the Trentino and Trieste was much less
important than that of political influence in the Mediterranean. A
strong Austria was required, it was said, to bar the way of Russia to
the Adriatic, and France must not be allowed to pursue unchecked her
policy of transforming the Mediterranean into a French lake.
Considerations of this kind led naturally to the conclusion that Italy
should draw closer to the powers of central Europe. So the question
appeared from the standpoint of "la haute politique." From the less
elevated standpoint of immediate political interests, it presented
conflicting considerations. A _rapprochement_ with the central powers
might prevent the conclusion of a commercial treaty with France, and
thereby increase the financial and economic difficulties with which the
young kingdom was struggling, whereas a _rapprochement_ with France
would certainly excite the hostility of Bismarck, who was retiring from
the _Kulturkampf_ and journeying towards Canossa, and who might possibly
conciliate the pope by helping him to recover his temporal sovereignty
at the expense of Italy. Altogether the problem was a very complicated
one. The conflicting currents so nearly balanced each other, that the
question as to which way the ship would drift might be decided by a
little squall of popular sentiment. A very big squall was brewing.


  France and Tunis.

During the congress of Berlin the French government was very indignant
when it discovered that Lord Beaconsfield had recently made a secret
convention with the sultan for the British occupation of Cyprus, and in
order to calm its resentment Lord Salisbury gave M. Waddington to
understand that, so far as England was concerned, France would be
allowed a free hand in the Regency of Tunis, which she had long coveted.
Though the conversations on the subject and a subsequent exchange of
notes were kept strictly secret, the Italian government soon got wind of
the affair, and it was at first much alarmed. It considered, in common
with Italians generally, that Tunis, on the ground of historic right and
of national interests, should be reserved for Italy, and that an
extension of French territory in that direction would destroy, to the
detriment of Italy, the balance of power in the Mediterranean. These
apprehensions were calmed for a time by assurances given to the Italian
ambassador in Paris. M. Gambetta assured General Cialdini that he had no
intention of making Italy an irreconcilable enemy of France, and M.
Waddington declared, on his word of honour, that so long as he remained
minister of foreign affairs nothing of the sort would be done by France
without a previous understanding with the cabinet of Rome. M. Waddington
honourably kept his word, but his successor did not consider himself
bound by the assurance; and when it was found that the Italians were
trying systematically to establish their influence in the Regency at the
expense of France, the French authorities, on the ground that a Tunisian
tribe called the Kroumirs had committed depredations in Algeria, sent an
armed force into the Regency, and imposed on the bey the Bardo treaty,
which transformed Tunis into a French protectorate.


  Triple Alliance signed 1882.

The establishment of a French protectorate over a country which the
Italians had marked out for themselves as necessary for the defence and
colonial expansion of the kingdom had the effect which Gambetta had
foreseen--it made Italy, for a time at least, the irreconcilable enemy
of France. Whilst the French were giving free expression to their
patriotic exultation, and even Gambetta himself, in defiance of what he
had said to Cialdini, was congratulating Jules Ferry on having restored
France to her place among the nations, the Italians were trying to
smother their indignation and to discover some means of retrieving what
they had lost. The only remedy seemed to be to secure foreign alliances,
and there was now no hesitation as to where they should be sought.
Simple people in Italy imagined that if an alliance had been concluded
sooner with Germany and Austria, these powers would have prevented
France from trampling on the sacred interests of Italy. This idea was
entirely erroneous, because Austria had little or no interest in the
Tunisian Question, and Bismarck was not at all sorry to see France
embark on an enterprise which distracted her attention from
Alsace-Lorraine and removed all danger of a Franco-Italian alliance. The
illusion, however, had a powerful influence on Italian public opinion.
The government was now urged to conclude without further delay an
alliance with the central powers, and the recommendation was not
unwelcome to the king, because most of the Italian Gallophils had
anti-dynastic and republican tendencies, and he was naturally disposed
to draw nearer to governments which proclaimed themselves the defenders
of monarchical institutions and the opponents of revolutionary
agitation. After protracted negotiations, in which Italy tried in vain
to secure protection for her own separate interests in the
Mediterranean, defensive treaties of alliance were concluded with the
cabinets of Vienna and Berlin in May 1882. Though the Italian statesmen
did not secure by these treaties all they wanted, they felt that the
kingdom was protected against any aggressive designs which might be
entertained by France or the Vatican, and when the treaties were renewed
in 1887 they succeeded in getting somewhat more favourable conditions.


  Dreikaiserbund revived 1884.

By the creation of this Triple Alliance, which still subsists, the
diplomatic position of Germany was greatly strengthened, but Bismarck
was still haunted by the apprehension of a Franco-Russian alliance, and
he made repeated attempts to renew the old cordial relations with the
court of St Petersburg. He was bold enough to hope that, notwithstanding
the Austro-German treaty of October 1879, avowedly directed against
Russia, and the new Triple Alliance, by which the Austro-German Alliance
was strengthened, he might resuscitate the Three Emperors' League in
such a form as to ensure, even more effectually than he had done on the
former occasion, the preponderance of Germany in the arrangement. With
this object he threw out a hint to the Russian ambassador, M. Sabourof,
in the summer of 1883, that the evil results of the congress of Berlin
might be counteracted by a formal agreement between the three emperors.
The suggestion was transmitted privately by M. Sabourof to the tsar, and
was favourably received. Alexander III. was disquieted by the
continuance of the Nihilist agitation, and was not averse from drawing
closer to the conservative powers; and as he desired tranquillity for
some time in the Balkan Peninsula, he was glad to have security that his
rival would do nothing in that part of the world without a previous
understanding. M. de Giers, who had now succeeded Prince Gorchakov in
the direction of foreign affairs, was accordingly despatched to
Friedrichsruh to discuss the subject with Bismarck. The practical result
of the meeting was that negotiations between the two governments were
begun, and on the 21st of March 1884 a formal document was signed in
Berlin. About six months later, in the month of September, the three
emperors met at Skiernevice and ratified the agreement. Thus, without
any modification of the Triple Alliance, which was directed against
Russia, the old Three Emperors' League, which included Russia, was
revived. Germany and Austria, being members of both, were doubly
protected, for in the event of being attacked they could count on at
least the benevolent neutrality of both Russia and Italy. France was
thereby completely isolated.

In drawing up the secret treaty of Skiernevice, which may be regarded as
the _chef-d'oeuvre_ of Bismarckian diplomacy, the German chancellor's
chief aims evidently were to paralyse Russia by yoking her to Germany
and Austria, to isolate France, and to realize his old scheme of holding
the balance between Russia and Austria in the Balkan Peninsula. With a
view to attaining the first two objects it was stipulated that if any
one of the three powers were forced to make war on a fourth power, the
two other contracting parties should observe a benevolent neutrality
towards their ally. If we may believe a well-informed Russian authority,
Bismarck wished it to be understood that in the event of _two_ of the
powers being at war with a fourth, the stipulation about benevolent
neutrality should still hold good, but Alexander III. objected, on the
ground that he could not remain a passive spectator of a duel in which
France would be confronted by two antagonists. In his third object
Bismarck was successful, for it was expressly laid down that in all
cases of a disagreement between two of the parties in the affairs of the
Balkan Peninsula, the third power should decide between them. This
meant, of course, that in all discussions between Russia and Austria,
the two great rivals in the Eastern Question, Bismarck should always
have a casting vote. In return for all this, Russia obtained two small
concessions: firstly, that Germany and Austria should seek to restrain
the sultan from permitting the passage of the Dardanelles to an English
fleet, as he had done in 1878, when the Russian army was before
Constantinople; and, secondly, that they should not oppose the union of
Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, if it was accomplished by the force of
things and within the limits traced by the congress of Berlin.


  Bulgarian crisis.

This new form of the Three Emperors' League had all the organic defects
of its predecessor, and was destined to be still more short-lived. The
claims of Russia and Austria might be reconcilable in theory, but in
practice they were sure to conflict; and however much Bismarck might try
to play the part of an honest broker, he was certain to be suspected of
opposing Russia and favouring Austria. It was therefore only during a
period of political stagnation in south-eastern Europe that the
arrangement could work smoothly. The political stagnation did not last
long. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria had for some time been fretting under
the high-handed interference of the Russian agents in the principality,
and had begun to oppose systematically what the Russians considered
their legitimate influence. Relations between Sofia and St Petersburg
had consequently become strained, when a crisis was suddenly brought
about by the revolution of Philippopolis in September 1885. The
conspirators arrested and expelled the governor-general, who had been
appointed by the sultan with the assent of the powers, and at the same
time proclaimed the union of the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia
with the principality of Bulgaria, in defiance of the stipulations of
the treaty of Berlin. The revolution had been effected with the
connivance and approval of the regularly accredited Russian agents in
Philippopolis, but it had not received the sanction of the Russian
government, and was resented as a new act of insubordination on the part
of Prince Alexander. When he arrived in Philippopolis and accepted the
declaration of union, the cabinet of St Petersburg protested against any
such infraction of the Berlin treaty, and the Porte prepared to send an
army into the province. It was restrained from taking this step by the
ambassadors in Constantinople, so that an armed conflict between Turks
and Bulgarians was prevented; but no sooner had the Bulgarians been
relieved from this danger on their eastern frontier, than they were
attacked from the west by the Servians, who were determined to get ample
compensation for any advantage which the Bulgarians might obtain. The
Bulgarian army defeated the Servians at Slivnitza (November 19-20,
1885), and was marching on Belgrade when its advance was stopped and an
armistice arranged by the energetic intervention of the Austrian
government. Following the example of the Servians, the Greeks were
preparing to exact territorial compensation likewise; but as their
mobilization was a slow process, the powers had time to restrain them
from entering on active hostilities, first by an ultimatum (April 26,
1886), and afterwards by a blockade of their ports (May 1886). By that
time, thanks to the intervention of the powers, a peace between Bulgaria
and Servia had been signed at Bucharest (March 3); and with regard to
Eastern Rumelia a compromise had been effected by which the formal union
with the principality was rejected, and the prince was appointed
governor-general of the province for a term of five years. This was in
reality union in disguise.

The diplomatic solution of the problem averted the danger of a European
war, but it left a great deal of dissatisfaction, which soon produced
new troubles. Not only had Prince Alexander escaped punishment for his
insubordination to Russia, but he and the anti-Russian party among the
Bulgarians had obtained a decided success. This could not well be
tolerated. Before six months had passed (August 21, 1886) Prince
Alexander was kidnapped by conspirators in his palace at Sofia and
conveyed secretly to Russian Bessarabia. As soon as the incident was
reported to the tsar, the prince was released, and he at once returned
to Sofia, where a counter-revolution had been effected in his favour;
but he considered his position untenable, and formally abdicated. A
fortnight after his departure General Kaulbars arrived from St
Petersburg with instructions from the tsar to restore order in
accordance with Russian interests. In St Petersburg it was supposed that
the Bulgarian people were still devoted to Russia, and that they were
ready to rise against and expel the politicians of the Nationalist party
led by Stambolof. General Kaulbars accordingly made a tour in the
country and delivered speeches to the assembled multitudes, but
Stambolof's political organization counteracted all his efforts, and on
the 20th of November he left Bulgaria and took the Russian consuls with
him. Stambolof maintained his position, suppressed energetically several
insurrectionary movements, and succeeded in getting Prince Ferdinand of
Coburg elected prince (July 7, 1887), in spite of the opposition of
Russia, who put forward as candidate a Russian subject, Prince Nicholas
of Mingrelia. Prince Ferdinand was not officially recognized by the
sultan and the powers, but he continued to reign under the direction of
Stambolof, and the Russian government, passively accepting the
accomplished facts, awaited patiently a more convenient moment for
action.


  Russian hostility to Germany.

These events in the Balkan Peninsula necessarily affected the mutual
relations of the powers composing the Three Emperors' League. Austria
could not remain a passive and disinterested spectator of the action of
Russia in Bulgaria. Her agents had given a certain amount of support to
Prince Alexander in his efforts to emancipate himself from Russian
domination; and when the prince was kidnapped and induced to abdicate,
Count Kalnoky had not concealed his intention of opposing further
aggression. Bismarck resisted the pressure brought to bear on him from
several quarters in favour of the anti-Russian party in Bulgaria, but he
was suspected by the Russians of siding with Austria and secretly
encouraging the opposition to Russian influence. This revived the hatred
against him which had been created by his pro-Austrian leanings after
the Russo-Turkish War. The feeling was assiduously fomented by the
Russian press, especially by M. Katkoff, the editor of the _Moscow
Gazette_, who exercised great influence on public opinion and had
personal relations with Alexander III. On the 31st of July 1886, three
weeks before the kidnapping of Prince Alexander, he had begun a regular
journalistic campaign against Germany, and advocated strongly a new
orientation of Russian policy. M. de Giers, minister of foreign affairs,
was openly attacked as a partisan of the German alliance, and his
"pilgrimages to Friedrichsruh and Berlin" were compared to the
humiliating journeys of the old Russian grand-princes to the Golden
Horde in the time of the Tatar domination. The moment had come, it was
said, for Russia to emancipate herself from German diplomatic thraldom,
and for this purpose a _rapprochement_ with France was suggested. The
idea was well received by the public, and it seemed to be not
unpalatable to the tsar, for the _Moscow Gazette_ was allowed to
continue its attacks on M. de Giers's policy of maintaining the German
alliance. In Berlin such significant facts could not fail to produce
uneasiness, because one of the chief aims of Bismarck's policy had
always been to prevent a Russo-French _entente cordiale_. The German
press were instructed to refute the arguments of their Russian
colleagues, and to prove that if Russia had really lost her influence in
the Balkan Peninsula, the fact was due to the blunders of her own
diplomacy. The controversy did not produce at once a serious
estrangement between the two cabinets, but it marked the beginning of a
period of vacillation on the part of Alexander III. When the treaty of
Skiernevice was about to expire in 1887, he positively refused to renew
the Three Emperors' League, but he consented to make, without the
cognizance of Austria, a secret treaty of alliance with Germany for
three years. Not satisfied with this guarantee against the danger of a
Franco-Russian alliance, Bismarck caused attacks to be made in the press
on Russian credit, which was rapidly gaining a footing on the Paris
bourse, and he imprudently showed his hand by prohibiting the Reichsbank
from accepting Russian securities as guarantees. From that moment the
tsar's attitude changed. All his dormant suspicions of German policy
revived. When he passed through Berlin in November 1887, Bismarck had a
long audience, in which he defended himself with his customary ability,
but Alexander remained unmoved in his conviction that the German
government had systematically opposed Russian interests, and had
paralysed Russian action in the Balkan Peninsula for the benefit of
Austria; and he failed to understand the ingenious theory put forward by
the German chancellor, that two powers might have a severe economic
struggle without affecting their political relations. Bismarck had to
recognize that, for the moment at least, the Three Emperors' League,
which had served his purposes so well, could not be resuscitated, but he
had still a certain security against the hostility of Russia in the
secret treaty. Soon, however, this link was also to be broken. When the
treaty expired in 1890 it was not renewed. By that time Bismarck had
been dismissed, and he subsequently reproached his successor, Count
Caprivi, with not having renewed it, but in reality Count Caprivi was
not to blame. Alexander III. was determined not to renew the alliance,
and was already gravitating slowly towards an understanding with France.


  Franco-Russian entente.

No treaty or formal defensive engagement of any kind existed between
Russia and France, but it was already tolerably certain that in the
event of a great war the two nations would be found fighting on the same
side, and the military authorities in both countries felt that if no
arrangements were made beforehand for concerted action,--such
arrangements having been long ago completed by the powers composing the
Triple Alliance--they would begin the campaign at a great disadvantage.
This was perfectly understood by both governments; and after some
hesitation on both sides. Generals Vannovski and Obruchev, on the one
side, and Generals Saussier, Miribel and Boisdeffre on the other, were
permitted to discuss plans of co-operation. At the same time a large
quantity of Lebel rifles were manufactured in France for the Russian
army, and the secret of making smokeless powder was communicated to the
Russian military authorities. The French government wished to go further
and conclude a defensive alliance, but the tsar was reluctant to bind
himself with a government which had so little stability, and which might
be induced to provoke a war with Germany by the prospect of Russian
support. Even the military convention was not formally ratified until
1894. The enthusiastic partisans of the alliance flattered themselves
that the tsar's reluctance had been overcome, when he received very
graciously Admiral Gervais and his officers during the visit of the
French fleet to Cronstadt in the summer of 1891, but their joy was
premature. The formal _rapprochement_ between the two governments was
much slower than the unofficial _rapprochement_ between the two nations.
More than two years passed before the Cronstadt visit was returned by
the Russian fleet, under Admiral Avelan. The enthusiastic ovations
which the admiral and his subordinates received in Toulon and Paris
(October 1893) showed how eager and anxious the French people were for
an alliance with Russia, but the Russian government was in no hurry to
gratify their wishes. Of the official action all we know with certainty
is, that immediately after the Cronstadt visit in 1891 a diplomatic
protocol about a defensive alliance was signed; that during the special
mission of General Boisdeffre to St Petersburg in 1892 negotiations took
place about a military convention; that in 1894 the military convention
was ratified; that in the summer of 1895 M. Ribot, when prime minister,
first spoke publicly of an alliance; and that during the visit of the
president of the French Republic to St Petersburg, in August 1897,
France and Russia were referred to as allies in the complimentary
speeches of the tsar and of M. Félix Faure. Though we are still in the
dark as to the precise terms of the arrangement, there is no doubt that
close friendly relations were established between the two powers, and
that in all important international affairs they sought to act in accord
with each other. It is equally certain that for some years Russia was
the predominant partner, and that, in accordance with the pacific
tendencies of the tsar, she systematically exercised a restraining
influence on France.


  The Triple entente and the Triple Alliance.

The great expectations excited among the French people by the _entente
cordiale_ were consequently not realized, and there appeared gradually
premonitory symptoms of a reaction in public opinion, but the alliance
between the two governments was maintained, and though the Triple
Alliance was weakened by the internal troubles of Austria-Hungary and by
a tendency on the part of Italy to gravitate towards France, the
grouping of the great powers was not radically changed till the
Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. By that war the balance of power in Europe
was seriously disturbed. Russia inadvertently provoked a struggle with
Japan which made such a drain on her energies and material resources
that her political influence in Europe necessarily suffered a partial
eclipse. Thus the Triple Alliance outweighed its rival, and there was a
danger of the German emperor's taking advantage of the situation to
secure for himself a diplomatic predominance in Europe. France at once
perceived that there was a grave danger for herself, and naturally
looked about for some diplomatic support to replace that of Russia,
which had lost much of its value. From her uncomfortable isolation there
were only two possible exits--a _rapprochement_ with Germany or a
_rapprochement_ with England. Both of these demanded sacrifices. The
former required a formal abandonment of all ideas of recovering Alsace
and Lorraine; the latter a formal recognition of British predominance in
Egypt. Under the influence of M. Delcassé the French government chose
what seemed the lesser of two evils, and concluded with the English
foreign office in April 1904 a general agreement, of which the most
important stipulation was that France should leave England a free hand
in Egypt, and that England in return should allow France, within certain
limits, a free hand in Morocco. On that basis was effected a
_rapprochement_ between the two governments which soon developed into an
_entente cordiale_ between the two nations. The efforts of the German
emperor to undermine the _entente_ by insisting on the convocation of a
conference to consider the Morocco question caused M. Delcassé to
resign, and produced considerable anxiety throughout Europe, but the
desired result was not attained. On the contrary, the conference in
question, which met at Algeciras in January 1906, ended in strengthening
the _entente_ and in accentuating the partial isolation of Germany.

The grouping of the great continental states into two opposite but not
necessarily hostile camps helped to preserve the balance of power and
the peace of Europe. The result was that the causes of conflict which
arose from time to time up to the end of the 19th century were
localized. Some of the principal questions involved may be more
particularly mentioned.


  Armenia.

The Armenian Question was brought prominently before Europe by the
Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. In the treaties of San Stefano and Berlin
the Sublime Porte undertook "to carry out without delay the
ameliorations and reforms required by local needs in the provinces
inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the
Circassians and the Kurds." This stipulation remained a dead letter, and
the relations between the Armenians and the Mussulmans became worse than
before, because the protection of the powers encouraged in the oppressed
nationality far-reaching political aspirations, and the sultan regarded
the political aspirations and the intervention of the powers as
dangerous for the integrity and independence of his empire. For some
fifteen years the Armenians continued to hope for the efficacious
intervention of their protectors, but when their patience became
exhausted and the question seemed in danger of being forgotten, they
determined to bring it again to the front. Some of them confined
themselves to agitating abroad, especially in England, in favour of the
cause, whilst others made preparations for exciting an insurrectionary
movement in Constantinople and Asia Minor. These latter knew very well
that an insurrection could be suppressed by the Turkish government
without much difficulty, but they hoped that the savage measures of
repression which the Turks were sure to employ might lead to the active
intervention of Europe and ensure their liberation from Turkish rule, as
the famous "atrocities" of 1876 had led to the political emancipation of
Bulgaria. In due course--1895-1896--the expected atrocities took place,
in the form of wholesale massacres in Constantinople and various towns
of Asia Minor. The sultan was subjected to diplomatic pressure and
threatened with more efficient means of coercion. In the diplomatic
campaign England took the lead, and was warmly supported by Italy, but
Germany, Austria and France showed themselves lukewarm, not to say
indifferent, and Russia, departing from her traditional policy of
protecting the Christians of Turkey, vetoed the employment of force for
extracting concessions from the sultan. In these circumstances the Porte
naturally confined itself to making a few reforms on paper, which were
never carried out. Thus the last state of the Armenians was worse than
the first, but the so-called European concert was maintained, and the
danger of a great European war was averted.


  Crete.

The next attempt to raise the Eastern Question was made by the Greeks.
In 1896 a semi-secret society called the Ethniké Hetairia began a
Panhellenic agitation, and took advantage of one of the periodical
insurrections in Crete to further its projects. In February 1897 the
Cretan revolutionary committee proclaimed the annexation of the island
to the Hellenic kingdom, and a contingent of Greek regular troops landed
near Canea under the command of Colonel Vassos to take possession of the
island in the name of King George. The powers, objecting to this
arbitrary proceeding, immediately occupied Canea with a mixed force from
the ships of war which were there at the time, and summoned the Greek
government to withdraw its troops. The summons was disregarded, and the
whole of the Greek army was mobilized on the frontier of Thessaly and
Epirus. In consequence of a raid into Turkish territory the Porte
declared war on the 17th of April, and the short campaign ended in the
defeat of the Greeks. The powers intervened to put an end to the
hostilities, and after prolonged negotiations a peace was concluded by
which Greece had to consent to a strategical rectification of frontier
and to pay a war indemnity of £4,000,000. Thus a second time the
European concert acted effectually in the interests of peace, but it did
not stand the strain of the subsequent efforts to solve the Cretan
Question. Finding the Turks less conciliatory after their military
success, and being anxious to remain in cordial relations with the
Porte, Germany withdrew from further co-operation with the powers, and
Austria followed her example. They did not, however, offer any active
opposition, and the question received a temporary solution by the
appointment of Prince George, second son of the king of Greece, as high
commissioner and governor-general of the island. (See CRETE.)


  Africa.

The conflicting desires of several of the powers to obtain colonial
possessions in various parts of the world, and to forestall their
competitors in the act of taking possession, were bound to introduce
complications in which England, as the greatest of colonial powers,
would generally be involved; and as the unappropriated portions of the
earth's surface at the beginning of the period under discussion were to
be found chiefly in Africa, it was in the Dark Continent that the
conflicts of interests mostly took place. England's chief competitors
were France and Germany. Her traditional policy, except in the south of
the continent, where the conditions of soil and climate were favourable
to European colonists, had been purely commercial. She had refrained
from annexation of territory, as involving too much expenditure and
responsibility, and confined her protection to the trading stations on
the coast. When France came into the field this policy had to be
abandoned. The policy of France was also commercial in a certain sense,
but the methods she adopted were very different. She endeavoured to
bring under her authority, by annexation or the establishment of
protectorates, the largest possible extent of territory, in order to
increase her trade by a system of differential tariffs; she encroached
on the hinterland of British settlements, and endeavoured to direct
artificially the native inland trade towards her own ports. A glance at
the map of the African West Coast will suffice to show the success with
which this policy was carried out. When the British government awoke to
the danger, all that could be done was to prevent further encroachments
by likewise annexing territory. The result is shown in the article
AFRICA: § 5. In her dealings with France about the partition of Africa,
England was generally conciliatory, but she was always inflexible in
guarding carefully the two entrances to the Mediterranean. There was,
therefore, a permanent danger of conflict in Egypt and Morocco. When
England in 1882 considered it necessary to suppress the Arabi
insurrection, she invited France to co-operate, but the French
government declined, and left the work to be done by England alone.
England had no intention of occupying the country permanently, but she
had to take precautions against the danger of French occupation after
her withdrawal, and these precautions were embodied in an Anglo-Turkish
convention signed at Constantinople in May 1887. France prevented the
ratification of the convention by the sultan, with the result that the
British occupation has been indefinitely prolonged. She still clung
persistently, however, to the hope of obtaining a predominant position
in the valley of the Nile, and she tried to effect her purpose by
gaining a firm foothold on the upper course of the river. The effort
which she made in 1898 to attain this end, by simultaneously despatching
the Marchand mission from her Congo possessions and inciting the emperor
Menelek of Abyssinia to send a force from the east to join hands with
Major Marchand at Fashoda, was defeated by the overthrow of the Khalifa
and the British occupation of Khartum. For a few days the two nations
seemed on the brink of war, but the French government, receiving no
encouragement from St Petersburg, consented to withdraw the Marchand
mission, and a convention was signed defining the respective spheres of
influence of the two countries.

In Morocco the rivalry between the two powers was less acute but not
less persistent and troublesome. France aspired to incorporate the
sultanate with her north African possessions, whilst England had
commercial interests to defend and was firmly resolved to prevent France
from getting unfettered possession of the southern coast of the Straits
of Gibraltar. As in Egypt, so in Morocco the dangers of conflict were
averted, in 1904, by a general agreement, which enabled France to carry
out in Morocco, as far as England was concerned, her policy of pacific
penetration, but debarred her from erecting fortifications in the
vicinity of the straits. Germany thereafter strongly opposed French
claims in Morocco, but after a period of great tension, and the holding
of an ineffectual conference at Algeciras in 1906, an understanding was
come to in 1909 (see MOROCCO: _History_).

With Germany likewise, from 1880 onwards, England had some diplomatic
difficulties regarding the partition of Africa, but they never reached a
very acute phase, and were ultimately settled by mutual concessions. By
the arrangement of 1890, in which several of the outstanding questions
were solved, Heligoland was ceded to Germany in return for concessions
in East Africa. A conflict of interests in the southern Pacific was
amicably arranged by the Anglo-German convention of April 1886, in which
a line of demarcation was drawn between the respective spheres of
influence in the islands to the north and east of the Australian
continent, and by the convention of 1899, in virtue of which Germany
gained possession of Samoa and renounced in favour of England all
pretensions to the Tonga Archipelago.


  Asia.

In Asia the tendencies of the European powers to territorial expansion,
and their desire to secure new markets for their trade and industry,
have affected from time to time their mutual relations. More than once
England and Russia have had disputes about the limits of their
respective spheres of influence in central Asia, but the causes of
friction have steadily diminished as the work of frontier delimitation
has advanced. The important agreement of 1872-1873 was supplemented by
the protocol of the 22nd of July 1887 and the Pamir delimitation of
1895, so that the Russo-Afghan frontier, which is the dividing line
between the Russian and British spheres of influence, has now been
carried right up to the frontier of the Chinese empire. The delimitation
of the English and French spheres of influence in Asia has also
progressed. In 1885 France endeavoured to get a footing on the Upper
Irrawaddy, the hinterland of British Burma, and England replied in the
following year by annexing the dominions of King Thebaw, including the
Shan States as far east as the Mekong. Thereupon France pushed her
Indo-Chinese frontier westwards, and in 1893 made an attack on the
kingdom of Siam, which very nearly brought about a conflict with
England. After prolonged negotiations an arrangement was reached and
embodied in a formal treaty (January 1896), which clearly foreshadows a
future partition between the two powers, but guarantees the independence
of the central portion of the kingdom, the Valley of the Menam, as a
buffer-state. Farther north, in eastern China, the aggressive tendencies
and mutual rivalries of the European powers have produced a problem of a
much more complicated kind. Firstly Germany, then Russia, next England,
and finally France took portions of Chinese territory, under the thin
disguise of long leases. They thereby excited in the Chinese population
and government an intense anti-foreign feeling, which produced the Boxer
movement and culminated in the attack on the foreign legations at Pekin
in the summer of 1900. (See CHINA: _History_.)

In 1899-1901 the relations of the European powers were disturbed by the
Boer War in South Africa. In nearly every country of Europe popular
feeling was much excited against England, and in certain influential
quarters the idea was entertained of utilizing this feeling for the
formation of a coalition against the British empire; but in view of the
decided attitude assumed by the British government, and the loyal
enthusiasm displayed by the colonies, no foreign government ventured to
take the initiative of intervention, and it came gradually to be
recognized that no European state had any tangible interest in
prolonging the independence and maladministration of the Boer republics.

One permanent factor in the history of Europe after the war of 1870-71
was the constant increase of armaments by all the great powers, and the
proportionate increase of taxation. The fact made such an impression on
the young emperor of Russia, Nicholas II., that he invited the powers to
consider whether the further increase of the burdens thereby imposed on
the nations might not be arrested by mutual agreement; and a conference
for this purpose was convened at the Hague (May 18-July 29, 1899), but
the desirable object in view was not attained. (See ARBITRATION,
INTERNATIONAL.)     (D. M. W.)


  Progress of the Peace movement.

Though neither the first Hague Conference nor the second, which met in
1907, did much to fulfil the expectations of those who hoped for the
establishment of a system which should guarantee the world against the
disasters of war, they undoubtedly tended to create a strong public
opinion in favour of peaceful methods in the solution of international
problems which has not been without its effect. Any attempt to organize
the concert of the powers must always fail, as it failed in the early
part of the 19th century, so long as the spirit of national and racial
rivalry is stronger than the consciousness of common interests; and the
early years of the 20th century showed no diminution, but rather an
accentuation of this rivalry. The court of arbitration established at
the Hague early in 1901 may deal effectively with questions as to which
both parties desire a _modus vivendi_, and the pacific efforts of King
Edward VII., which did so much to prevent misunderstandings likely to
lead to war, resulted from 1903 onwards in a series of arbitration
treaties between Great Britain and other powers which guaranteed the
Hague court an effective activity in such matters. But more perilous
issues, involving deep-seated antagonisms, have continued to be dealt
with by the methods of the old diplomacy backed by the armed force of
the powers. How far the final solution of such problems has been helped
or hindered by the general reluctance to draw the sword must for some
time to come remain an open question. Certainly, during the early years
of the 20th century, many causes of difference which a hundred years
earlier would assuredly have led to war, were settled, or at least
shelved, by diplomacy. Of these the questions of Crete, of Armenia, and
of contested claims in Africa have already been mentioned. Other
questions of general interest which might have led to war, but which
found a peaceful solution, were those of the separation of Norway and
Sweden, and the rivalry of the powers in the northern seas. In October
1905 Sweden formally recognized the separate existence of Norway (see
NORWAY: _History_ and SWEDEN: _History_). On the 23rd of April 1908 were
signed the "Declarations"; the one, signed by the four Baltic littoral
powers, recognized "in principle" the maintenance of the territorial
_status quo_ in that sea; the other--to which Great Britain, France,
Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Holland were the parties--sanctioned a
similar principle in regard to the North Sea. These were followed, in
June of the same year, by two agreements intended to apply the same
principles to the southern European waters, signed by France and Spain
and Great Britain and Spain respectively. Another agreement, that signed
between Russia and Great Britain in 1907 for the delimitation of their
spheres of influence in Persia and the northern borders of the Indian
empire, though having no direct relation to European affairs, exercised
considerable influence upon them by helping to restore the international
prestige of Russia, damaged by the disasters of the war with Japan and
the internal disturbances that followed. The new cordial understanding
between the British and Russian governments was cemented by the meeting
of King Edward VII. and the emperor Nicholas II. at Reval in June 1908.


  Revival of the Eastern Question.

More perilous to European peace, however, than any of these issues was
the perennial unrest in Macedonia, which threatened sooner or later to
open up the whole Eastern Question once more in its acutest form. The
situation was due to the internecine struggle of the rival Balkan
races--Greek, Bulgarian, Servian--to secure the right to the reversion
of territories not yet derelict. But behind these lesser issues loomed
the great secular rivalries of the powers, and beyond these again the
vast unknown forces of the Mahommedan world, ominously stirring. The
very vastness of the perils involved in any attempt at a definitive
settlement compelled the powers to accept a compromise which, it was
hoped, would restore tolerable conditions in the wretched country. But
the "Mürzsteg programme," concerted between the Austrian and Russian
emperors in 1903, and imposed upon the Porte by the diplomatic pressure
of the great powers, did not produce the effects hoped for. The hideous
tale of massacres of helpless villagers by organized Greek bands, and of
equally hideous, if less wholesale, reprisals by Bulgarian bands, grew
rather than diminished, and reached its climax in the early months of
1908. The usefulness of the new _gendarmerie_, under European officers,
which was to have co-operated with the Ottoman authorities in the
restoration of order, was from the outset crippled by the passive
obstruction of the Turkish government. The sultan, indeed, could hardly
be blamed for watching with a certain cynical indifference the mutual
slaughter of those "Christians" whose avowed ideal was the overthrow of
Mahommedan rule, nor could he be expected to desire the smooth working
of a system against which he had protested as a violation of his
sovereign rights. In 1908 the powers were still united in bringing
pressure to bear on the Porte to make the reforms effective; but the
proposal of Great Britain to follow the precedent of the Lebanon and
commit the administration of Macedonia to a Mussulman governor appointed
by the sultan, but removable only by consent of the powers, met with
little favour either at Constantinople or among the powers whose
ulterior aims might have been hampered by such an arrangement.


  Young Turkish revolution, 1908.

  European results.

  European crisis provoked by Austria.

Such was the condition of affairs when in October 1908 the revolution in
Turkey altered the whole situation. The easy and apparently complete
victory of the Young Turks, and the re-establishment without a struggle
of the constitution which had been in abeyance since 1876, took the
whole world by surprise, and not least those who believed themselves to
be most intimately acquainted with the conditions prevailing in the
Ottoman empire. The question of the Near East seemed in fair way of
settlement by the action of conflicting races themselves, who in the
enthusiasm of new-found freedom appeared ready to forget their ancient
internecine feuds and to fraternize on the common ground of
constitutional liberty (see TURKEY: _History_). By the European powers
the proclamation of the constitution was received, at least outwardly,
with unanimous approval, general admiration being expressed for the
singular moderation and self-restraint shown by the Turkish leaders and
people. Whatever views, however, may have been openly expressed, or
secretly held, as to the revolution so far as it affected the Ottoman
empire itself, there could be no doubt that its effects on the general
situation in Europe would be profound. These effects were not slow in
revealing themselves. On the 5th of October Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria
proclaimed himself king (_tsar_) of the Bulgarians; and two days later
the emperor Francis Joseph issued a rescript announcing the annexation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Habsburg monarchy (see BULGARIA:
_History_ and BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: _History_). Whatever cogent
reasons there may have been for altering the status of these countries
in view of the changed conditions in Turkey, there could be no doubt
that the method employed was a violation of the public law of Europe. By
the declaration of London of 1871, to which Austria-Hungary herself had
been a principal party, it had been laid down that "contracting powers
could only rid themselves of their treaty engagements by an
understanding with their co-signatories." This solemn reaffirmation of a
principle on which the whole imposing structure of international law
had, during the 19th century, been laboriously built up was now
cynically violated. The other powers, confronted with the _fait
accompli_, protested; but the astute statesman who had staked his
reputation as foreign minister of the Dual Monarchy on the success of
this _coup_ had well gauged the character and force of the opposition he
would have to meet. Baron von Aehrenthal, himself more Slav than German,
in spite of his name, had served a long apprenticeship in diplomacy at
Belgrade and St Petersburg; he knew how fully he could rely upon the
weakness of Russia, and that if Russian Pan-Slav sentiment could be
cowed, he need fear nothing from the resentment of the Servians. He was
strong, too, in the moral and--in case of need--the material support of
Germany. With Germany behind her, Austria-Hungary had little to fear
from the opposition of the powers of the triple _entente_, Great
Britain, France and Russia. This diagnosis of the situation was
justified by the event. For months, indeed, Europe seemed on the verge
of a general war. During the autumn the nationalist excitement in Servia
and Montenegro rose to fever-heat, and Austria responded by mobilizing
her forces on the frontiers and arming the Catholic Bosnians as a
precaution against a rising of their Orthodox countrymen. Only the
winter seemed to stand between Europe and a war bound to become general,
and men looked forward with apprehension to the melting of the snows. It
is too early as yet to write the history of the diplomatic activities by
which this disaster was avoided. Their general outline, however, is
clear enough. The protests of Turkey at a violation of treaty rights,
doubly resented as likely to damage the prestige of the new
constitutional régime, were sympathetically received by the powers of
the triple _entente_. An international conference was at once suggested
as the only proper authority for carrying out any modifications of the
treaty of Berlin necessitated by the new conditions in Turkey; the right
of Austria-Hungary to act on her own initiative was strenuously denied;
Bulgarian independence and Prince Ferdinand's title of king were
meantime refused recognition. In the assertion of these principles Great
Britain, Russia and France were united. Germany, on the other hand,
maintained an attitude of reserve, though diplomatically "correct"; she
accepted the principle of a conference, but made her consent to its
convocation conditional on that of her ally Austria-Hungary. But the
latter refused to agree to any conference in which the questions at
issue should be reopened; the most that she would accept was a
conference summoned merely to register the _fait accompli_ and to
arrange "compensations" not territorial but financial.


  The German-Austrian victory.

For a while it seemed as though Baron Aehrenthal's ambition had
o'erleaped itself. The reluctance of the Russian government, conscious
of its military and political weakness, to take extreme measures seemed
likely to be overborne by the Pan-Slav enthusiasm of the Russian people,
and the Austrian statesman's policy to have placed him in an _impasse_
from which it would be difficult to extricate himself, save at an
expense greater than that on which he had calculated. At this point
Germany, conscious throughout of holding the key to the situation,
intervened with effect. Towards the end of March 1909 the German
ambassador at St Petersburg, armed with an autograph letter from the
emperor William II., had an interview with the tsar. What were the
arguments he used is not known; but the most powerful are supposed to
have been the German forces which had been mobilized on the Polish
frontier. In any case, the result was immediate and startling. Russia,
without previous discussion with her allies, dissociated herself from
the views she had hitherto held in common with them, and accepted the
German-Austrian standpoint. All question of a conference was now at an
end; and all that the powers most friendly to Turkey could do was to
persuade her to make the best of a bad bargain. The Ottoman government,
preoccupied with the internal questions which were to issue in the
abortive attempt at counter-revolution in April, was in no condition to
resist friendly or unfriendly pressure. The principle of a money payment
in compensation for the shadowy rights of the sultan over the lost
provinces was accepted,[79] and Bulgarian independence under King
Ferdinand was recognized on the very eve of the new victory of the Young
Turks which led to the deposition of Abd-ul-Hamid II. and the
proclamation of Sultan Mahommed V. (see TURKEY: _History_).


  Its moral.

The change made by these events in the territorial system of Europe was
of little moment. A subject principality, long practically independent,
became a sovereign state; the _Almanach de Gotha_ was enriched with a
new royal title; the sentiment of the Bulgarian people was gratified by
the restoration of their historic tsardom. Two provinces long annexed to
the Habsburg monarchy _de facto_ became so _de jure_, and the vision of
a Serb empire with a free outlet to the sea, never very practicable, was
finally dissolved. Of vastly greater importance were the moral and
international issues involved. The whole conception of an effective
concert of Europe, or of the World, based on the supposed sacred
obligation of treaties and the validity of international law, was
revealed, suddenly and brutally, as the baseless fabric of a dream. The
most momentous outcome of the international debates caused by Austria's
high-handed action was the complete triumph of Bismarck's principle that
treaties cease to be valid "when the private interest of those who lie
under them no longer reinforces the text." Henceforth, it was felt, no
reaffirmation of a principle of international comity and law, so
successfully violated, could serve to disguise the brutal truth that in
questions between nations, in the long-run, might is right--that there
is no middle term between the naked submission preached by Tolstoy and
his disciples and Napoleon's _dictum_ that "Providence is with the big
battalions." In Great Britain, especially, public opinion was quick to
grasp this truth. It was realized that it was the immense armed power of
Germany that had made her the arbiter in a question vitally affecting
the interests of all Europe. Germany alone emerged from the crisis with
prestige enormously enhanced; for without her intervention Austria could
not have resisted the pressure of the powers. The cry for disarmament,
encouraged by the action of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's government,
suddenly died down in England; and the agitation in favour of an
increased ship-building programme, that followed the revelation by the
first lord of the admiralty (April 1909) of Germany's accelerated
activity in naval construction, showed that public opinion had been
thoroughly awakened to the necessity of maintaining for Great Britain
her maritime supremacy, on which not only her position in Europe but the
existence of her over-sea empire depended.

  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.--(1) _Bibliographies_.--Lists of the principal
  works on the history of the various European countries, and of their
  main sources, are given in the bibliographies attached to the separate
  articles (see also those appended to the articles PAPACY; CHURCH
  HISTORY; DIPLOMACY; CRUSADES; FEUDALISM, &c.). For the sources of the
  medieval history of Europe see Ulysse Chevalier's monumental
  _Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen âge; Bio-Bibliography_
  (Paris, 1877, &c.), which with certain limitations (notably as regards
  the Slav, Hungarian and Scandinavian countries) gives references to
  published documents for all names of people, however obscure,
  occurring in medieval history. In 1894 M. Chevalier began the
  publication of a second series of his _Répertoire_, under the somewhat
  misleading title of _Topo-Bibliographie_, intended as a compendious
  guide to the places, institutions, &c., of the middle ages; though
  very useful, this is by no means so complete as the
  _Bio-Bibliographie_. August Potthast's _Bibliotheca historica medii
  aevi_ (2nd ed., Berlin, 1895-1896) gives a complete catalogue of all
  the annals, chronicles and other historical works which appeared in
  Europe between the years 375 and 1500 and have since been printed,
  with short notes on their value and significance, and references to
  critical works upon them. See also the article RECORD. For authorities
  on the history of Europe from the end of the 15th to the 19th
  centuries inclusive the excellent bibliographies appended to the
  volumes of the _Cambridge Modern History_ are invaluable.

  (2) _Works_.--Of general works the most important are the _Histoire
  générale du IV^me siècle à nos jours_, published under the direction
  of E. Lavisse and A. Rambaud (Paris, 1894, &c.), in 12 vols., covering
  the period from the 4th to the end of the 19th century: Leopold von
  Ranke's _Weltgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1881, &c.), in 9 vols., covering
  (i.) the oldest group of nations and the Greeks; (ii.) the Roman
  Republic; (iii.) the ancient Roman Empire; (iv.) the East Roman empire
  and the origin of the Romano-German kingdoms; (v.) the Arab
  world-power and the empire of Charlemagne; (vi.) dissolution of the
  Carolingian and foundation of the German empire; (vii.) zenith and
  decay of the German empire; the hierarchy under Gregory VII.; (viii.)
  crusades and papal world-power (12th and 13th centuries); (ix.) period
  of transition to the modern world (14th and 15th centuries). To this
  may be added Ranke's works on special periods: e.g. _Die Fürsten und
  Völker von Süd-Europa im 16ten und 17ten Jahrhundert_ (2nd ed.,
  Leipzig, 1837-1839); _Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen
  Völker_, 1494-1514 (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1874, Eng. trans. 1887). In
  English the most important general work is the _Cambridge Modern
  History_ (1903, &c.), produced by the collaboration of English and
  foreign scholars, and covering the ground from the end of the 15th to
  the 19th century inclusive. The _Historians' History of the World_,
  edited by Dr H. Smith Williams (1908), is a compilation from the works
  of eminent historians of all ages, and the value of its various parts
  is therefore that of the historians responsible for them. Its chief
  merit is that it makes accessible to English readers many foreign or
  obscure sources which would otherwise have remained closed to the
  general reader. It also contains essays by notable modern scholars on
  the principal epochs and tendencies of the world's history, the texts
  of a certain number of treaties, &c., not included as yet in other
  collections, and comprehensive bibliographies. On a less ambitious
  scale are the volumes of the "Periods of European History" series
  (London, 1893, &c.): Per. I. _The Dark Ages, 476-918_, by C.W.C. Oman
  (1893); Per. II. _The Empire and the Papacy, 918-1273_, by T.F. Tout
  (1898); Per. III. _The Close of the Middle Ages, 1273-1494_, by R.
  Lodge (1901); _Europe in the 16th Century, 1494-1598_, by A.H. Johnson
  (1897); _The Ascendancy of France_, by H.O. Wakeman (1894); _The
  Balance of Power_, by A. Hassal (1896); _Revolutionary Europe_, by H.
  Morse Stephens (1893); _Modern Europe_, by W. Alison Phillips (1901,
  5th ed., 1908). See also T.H. Dyer, _History of Modern Europe from
  the fall of Constantinople_, revised and continued to the end of the
  19th century by A. Hassal (6 vols., London, 1901). Besides the above
  may be mentioned, for European history since the outbreak of the
  French Revolution, A. Sorel, _l'Europe et la Révolution Française_ (7
  vols., Paris, 1885, &c.), a work of first-class importance; A. Stern,
  _Geschichte Europas seit den Wiener Verträgen von 1815_ (Stuttgart and
  Berlin, 1894, &c.), based on the study of much new material, still in
  progress (1908); C. Seignobos, _Histoire politique de l'Europe
  contemporaine_ (Paris, 1897), a valuable text-book with copious
  bibliography (Eng. trans., London, 1901); C.M. Andrews, _Historical
  development of Europe_, 2 vols. (New York, 1896-1898).

  (3) _Published Documents_.--For the vast mass of published sources
  reference must be made to the bibliographies mentioned above. It must
  be borne in mind, however, that these represent but a fraction of the
  unpublished material, and that the great development of original
  research is constantly revealing fresh sources, throwing new light on
  old problems, and not seldom upsetting conclusions long established as
  final. For these latest developments of scholarship the numerous
  historical and archaeological reviews published in various countries
  should be consulted: e.g. _The English Historical Review_ (London);
  _The Scottish Hist. Rev._ (Glasgow); _The American Hist. Rev._ (London
  and New York); the _Revue historique_ (Paris); the _Historische
  Zeitschrift_ (Munich). The most notable collections of treaties are J.
  Dumont's _Corps diplomatique_, covering the period from A.D. 800 to
  1731 (Amsterdam and the Hague, 1726-1731); F.G. de Martens and his
  continuators, _Recueil des traités_, &c. (1791, &c.), covering with
  its supplements the period from 1494 to 1874; F. (T.T.) de Martens,
  _Recueil des traités conclus par la Russie_, &c. (14 vols., St
  Petersburg, 1874, &c.); A. and J. de Clercq, _Recueil des traités de
  la France_ (Paris, 1864; new ed., 1880, &c.); L. Neumann, _Recueil des
  traités conclus par l'Autriche_ (from 1763), (6 vols., Leipzig, 1855);
  new series, by. L. Neumann and A. de Plason (16 vols., Vienna,
  1877-1903); _Österreichische Staatsverträge_ (vol. i. _England_,
  1526-1748), published by the Commission for the modern history of
  Austria (Innsbruck, 1907), with valuable introductory notes; _British
  and Foreign State Papers_ (from the termination of the war in 1814),
  compiled at the Foreign Office by the Librarian and Keeper of the
  Papers (London, 1819, &c.); Sir E. Hertslet, _The Map of Europe by
  Treaty_ (from 1814), (4 vols., London, 1875-1891). See the article
  TREATIES.     (W. A. P.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] H. Wagner's edition of Guthe's _Lehrbuch der Geographie_ (5th
   ed., Hanover 1882).

  [2] At the summit of each of the Trans-Ural railways (Perm-Tyumen and
    Ufa-Chelyabinsk) and that of the road across the Caucasus from
    Vladikavkaz to Tiflis, sign-posts, with the name Europe on one side,
    Asia on the other, mark this boundary.

  [3] Fifth edition, vol. ii. pp. 24-25.

  [4] Pt. i. pp. 11-12.

  [5] Griesbach, on the strength of Middendorff's observations, remarks
    that, in addition to European fruit trees, oak, maples, elms, ashes
    and the black alder do not cross the Urals, while the lime tree is
    reduced to the size of a shrub (_La Végétation du globe_, translated
    by Tchihatchef, i. p. 181).

  [6] On the history of the boundary between Asia and Europe see F.G.
    Hahn in the _Mitteilungen des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Leipzig_
    (1881), pp. 83-104. Hahn, on the ground that true mountain systems
    must be regarded as forming geographical units, pronounces against
    the practice of making "natural boundaries" run along mountain
    crests, and assigns the whole of the Caucasus region to Europe as all
    belonging to such a system, but orographically quite different from
    the Armenian plateau (p. 103). But surely it is no less different
    from the European plain.

  [7] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1890), p. 91.

  [8] See Supan's _Physische Erdkunde_, 4th ed., pp. 376-377, and the
    authorities there quoted.

  [9] "Kustenveranderungen im Mittelmeergebiet," in _Ztschr. der Ges.
    für Erdkunde zu Berlin_ (1878).

  [10] See _Mitteil der Wiener Geog. Gesellschaft_ (1890), p. 333.

  [11] See R.T. Gunther, _Contributions to the Study of Earth-Movements
    in the Bay of Naples_ (Oxford, 1903), and "Earth-Movements in the Bay
    of Naples," in the _Geog. Journ._ vol. xxii. pp. 121-149, 269-285.

  [12] See _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1891), Pl. 8.

  [13] _Ib._ (1893), Pl. 12.

  [14] See Ed. Suess, _The Face of the Earth_, translated by H.B.C.
    Sollas, vol. i. (Oxford, 1904); J. Milne, _Seismology_ (London,
    1886); R. Hörnes, _Erdbebenkunde_ (Leipzig, 1893).

  [15] _Die mittlere Höhe Europas_ (Plauen, 1874).

  [16] _Traité de géologie_ (Paris, 1883).

  [17] _Scot. Geog. Mag._ (1888), p. 23.

  [18] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1889), p. 17.

  [19] _Trans. (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog. Soc._ (1889), p. 113.

  [20] _Die mittleren Erhebungsverhaltnisse der Erdoberfläche_, pt. i.,
    in Penck's _Geographische Abhandlungen_, vol. v. (Vienna, 1891).

  [21] _Morphologie der Erdoberfläche_, vol. i.

  [22] The equivalent of the figures given in _Superficie de l'Europe_.
    A later measurement by Strelbitsky yielded a result equal to 2215
    English miles.

  [23] General von Tillo, in _Transactions (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog.
    Soc._ vol. xix. (1883), pp. 160-161.

  [24] Dr Al. Bludau in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1898), pp. 185-187,
    has given new calculations of the areas of the basins of certain
    European rivers, namely, the Tagus, 31,250 sq. m.; Ebro, 32,810 sq.
    m.; Guadalquivir, 21,620 sq. m.; Po, 28,800 sq. m.; Guadiana, 25,810
    sq. m.; and Jucar, 8245 sq. m.

  [25] St Martin, _Dict. de géog. univ._

  [26] In other parts of this work areas of river-basins and lakes, and
    other measurements, may be observed to conflict in some degree with
    those given here. Various authorities naturally differ, both in
    methods of estimating and in standards of precision.

  [27] Penck's _Geographische Abhandlungen_, vol. v. pt. iv. (Vienna,
    1894); noticed in _Geog. Journ._ vol. vi. p. 264.

  [28] Including L. Pskov as well as the connecting arm known as
    Teploye.

  [29] _Sweden, its People and its Industry_ (Stockholm, 1904).

  [30] See Ascherson, "Die Austrocknung des Neusiedler Sees," in _Z.
    der Ges. für Erdkunde zu Berlin_ (1865).

  [31] See Suess, _The Face of the Earth_; M. Bertrand, "Sur la
    distribution géographique des roches éruptives en Europe," _Bull.
    Soc. Géol. France_, ser. 3, vol. xvi. (1887-1888), pp. 573-617. A
    translation of a lecture by Suess, giving a short summary of his
    views on the structure of Europe, will be found in the _Canadian
    Record of Science_, vol. vii. pp. 235-246.

  [32] Vesselovski, as quoted by Voeikov, _Die atmosphärische
    Circulation_.

  [33] Plate 1 in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1903).

  [34] See a paper on "Das regenreichste Gebiet Europas," by Prof.
    Kassner, Berlin, in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1904), p. 281.

  [35] London, 1901 (one of the publications of the Royal Geog.
    Society).

  [36] Plate 21 in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1900).

  [37] _Nova Acta Leop. Karol. d. deutschen Akad. d. Naturforscher_,
    vol. lxvii. No. 3 (Halle, 1896).

  [38] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1890), pl. 11 (text pp. 137-145).

  [39] _Ib._ (1887), pl. 10 (text pp. 165-172).

  [40] Berlin, 3 vols. (one made up of maps), 1898-1899.

  [41] By this term (_Getreidefläche_) Engelbrecht designates the area
    occupied by wheat and other varieties of triticum, rye, oats and
    barley.

  [42] Based on Scherzer, _Das wirtschaftliche Leben der Völker_, p.
    12.

  [43] From the _Fifth Report of the United States Department of
    Agriculture_, Division of Statistics, Miscellaneous Series, p. 13.

  [44] Based on the _Corn Trade Year-book_ (1904), p. 284.

  [45] Exclusive of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which the average
    production in 1894-1903 was about 2½ million bushels.

  [46] The estimates for Bulgaria, Rumania, Servia and Turkey in Europe
    for 1872-1876 are not comparable with those of the two later periods
    on account of the territorial changes since that date. Those for
    Bulgaria in the period 1881-1890 include Eastern Rumelia.

  [47] Including Poland.

  [48] Spanish statistics very imperfect.

  [49] Based on the same authorities as the wheat table. In the
    original, however, the figures for 1894-1903 are given in "quarters
    of 480 lb.," while the figures given above are calculated on an
    average quarter of 462 lb.

  [50] Including Poland, but not Finland, in which the average
    production of rye is estimated at about 11,000,000 bushels.

  [51] Mainly from or based on the Agricultural Returns for Great
    Britain, 1905.

  [52] Single years.

  [53] Period 1883-1887.

  [54] Based on _Mines and Quarries: General Report and Statistics for
    1906_, pt. iv. (Cd. 4145), 1908.

  [55] Production in the Ural districts only.

  [56] See note 11.

  [57] A considerable quantity of quicksilver is produced in the
    government of Ekaterinoslav.

  [58] Dressed.

  [59] Cupreous pyrites and cupreous iron pyrites, besides which a
    considerable quantity of copper precipitate is produced.

  [60] A small quantity of copper ore is produced in Finland, but the
    bulk of the Russian production is in the Asiatic provinces.

  [61] Mainly cupreous iron pyrites.

  [62] Argentiferous.

  [63] In 1906 Greece produced 12,308 m.t. of argentiferous pig lead.

  [64] Of which 158,424 m.t. argentiferous.

  [65] A considerable quantity of manganese ore is produced in the
    government of Ekaterinoslav, but the main seat of Russian production
    is the Caucasus.

  [66] Zinc and lead ore.

  [67] In addition to 28,891 m.t. of calcined zinc ore.

  [68] Probably the most complete synopsis of the evidence on this
    point is to be found in Prince Kropotkin's _Fields, Factories and
    Workshops_ (London, 1899).

  [69] The total horse-power used in mechanical industries is obtained
    by adding 650,000, the estimated total of horse-power in hydraulic
    installations given in an article in the _Annales de géographie_ for
    January 1904, to the total steam-power in fixed engines officially
    given for 1903, and accordingly excludes gas and other engines not
    driven by steam- or water-power.

  [70] The proportion estimated in the official publication entitled
    _Sweden: its People and its Industry_, edited by G. Sundbärg
    (Stockholm, 1904).

  [71] Including the installations returned in the Swiss industrial
    censuses as electric, most if not all of which are probably driven by
    water-power.

  [72] See bibliography at the end of the article.

  [73] See on the whole subject Hovelacque's _Science of Language_,
    Latham's _Nationalities of Europe_, and the same author's
    _Philology_.

  [74] Taken from a paper by Professor Voeikov on "Verteilung der
    Bevölkerung auf der Erde unter dem Einfluss der Naturverhältnisse und
    der menschlichen Tatigkeit," in _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1906), p. 249,
    where corresponding figures are given for other parts of the world.

  [75] Kaluga, Smolensk, Tver, Moscow, Yaroslav, Kostromer and
    Vladimir.

  [76] Kursk, Orel, Tula, Ryazan, Tambov, Voronezh and Penza.

  [77] Nizhniy Novgorod, Kazan, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov and
    Astrakhan.

  [78] Bessarabia, Kherson, Taurida, Ekaterinoslav and Don Province.

  [79] The Austro-Turkish protocol had been signed at Constantinople on
    the 5th of March; it was now ratified by the Turkish parliament on
    the 5th of April.




EUROPIUM, a metallic chemical element, symbol Eu, atomic weight 152.0 (O
= 16). The oxide Eu2O3 occurs in very small quantity in the minerals of
the rare earths, and was first obtained in 1896 by E, A. Demarçay from
Lecoq de Boisbaudran's samarium; G. Urbain and H. Lacombe in 1904
obtained the pure salts by fractional crystallization of the nitric acid
solution with magnesium nitrate in the presence of bismuth nitrate. The
salts have a faint pink colour, and show a faint absorption spectrum;
the spark spectrum is brilliant and well characterized.




EURYDICE ([Greek: Eurudikê]), in Greek mythology, the wife of Orpheus
(q.v.). She was the daughter of Nereus and Doris, and died from the bite
of a serpent when fleeing from Aristaeus, who wished to offer her
violence (Virgil, _Georgics_, iv. 454-527; Ovid, _Metam_. x. 1 ff.).




EURYMEDON, one of the Athenian generals during the Peloponnesian War. In
428 B.C. he was sent by the Athenians to intercept the Peloponnesian
fleet which was on the way to attack Corcyra. On his arrival, finding
that Nicostratus with a small squadron from Naupactus had already placed
the island in security, he took the command of the combined fleet,
which, owing to the absence of the enemy, had no chance of
distinguishing itself. In the following summer, in joint command of the
land forces, he ravaged the district of Tanagra; and in 425 he was
appointed, with Sophocles, the son of Sostratides, to the command of an
expedition destined for Sicily. Having touched at Corcyra on the way, in
order to assist the democratic party against the oligarchical exiles,
but without taking any steps to prevent the massacre of the latter,
Eurymedon proceeded to Sicily. Immediately after his arrival a
pacification was concluded by Hermocrates, to which Eurymedon and
Sophocles were induced to agree. The terms of the pacification did not,
however, satisfy the Athenians, who attributed its conclusion to
bribery; two of the chief agents in the negotiations were banished,
while Eurymedon was sentenced to pay a heavy fine. In 414 Eurymedon, who
had been sent with Demosthenes to reinforce the Athenians at the siege
of Syracuse, was defeated and slain before reaching land (Thucydides
iii., iv., vii.; Diod. Sic. xiii. 8, 11, 13).




EUSDEN, LAURENCE (1688-1730), English poet, son of the Rev. Laurence
Eusden, rector of Spofforth, Yorkshire, was baptized on the 6th of
September 1688. He was educated at St Peter's school, York, and at
Trinity College, Cambridge. He became a minor fellow of his college in
1711, and in the next year was admitted to a full fellowship. He was
made poet laureate in 1718 by the lord chancellor, the duke of
Newcastle, as a reward for a flattering poem on his marriage. He was
rector of Coningsby, Lincolnshire, where he died on the 27th of
September 1730. His name is less remembered by his translations and
gratulatory poems than by the numerous satirical allusions of Pope, e.g.

  "Know, Eusden thirsts no more for sack or praise;
   He sleeps among the dull of ancient days."

    _Dunciad_, bk. i. 11. 293-294.




EUSEBIUS (Gr. [Greek: Eusébios], from [Greek: eusebês], pious, cf. the
Latin name Pius), a name borne by a large number of bishops and others
in the early ages of the Christian Church. Of these the most important
are separately noticed below. No less than 25 saints of this name
(sometimes corrupted into Eusoge, Euruge, Usoge, Usuge, Uruge and St
Sebis) are venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, of whom 23 are
included in the Bollandist _Acta Sanctorum_; many are obscure martyrs,
monks or anchorites, but two deserve at least a passing notice.

EUSEBIUS, bishop of Vercelli (d. 371), is notable not only as a stout
opponent of Arianism, but also as having been, with St Augustine, the
first Western bishop to unite with his clergy in adopting a strict
monastic life after the Eastern model (see Ambrose, _Ep. 63 ad
Vercellenses_, § 66). The legend that he was stoned to death by the
Arians was probably invented for the edification of the Orthodox.

EUSEBIUS, bishop of Samosata (d. 380), played a considerable part in the
later stages of the Arian controversy in the East. He is first mentioned
among the Homoean and Homoeusian bishops who in 363 accepted the
Homousian formula at the synod of Antioch presided over by Meletius,
with whose views he seems to have identified himself (see MELETIUS OF
ANTIOCH). According to Theodoret (5, 4, 8) he was killed at Doliche in
Syria, where he had gone to consecrate a bishop, by a stone cast by an
Arian woman. He thus became a martyr, and found a place in the Catholic
calendar (see the article by Loofs in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencykl._, ed.
1898, v. p. 620).

EUSEBIUS OF LAODICEA, though not included among the saints, was noted
for his saintly life. He was an Alexandrian by birth, and gained so
great a reputation for his self-denial and charity that when in 262 the
city was besieged by the troops of the emperor Gallienus he obtained
permission, together with Anatolius, from their commander Theodotus, to
lead out the non-combatants, whom he tended "like a father and
physician." He went with Anatolius to Syria, and took part in the
controversy against Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch. He became
bishop of Laodicea, probably in the following year (263), and died some
time before 268. His friend Anatolius succeeded him as bishop in the
latter year (see the article by E. Hennecke in Herzog-Hauck, v. 619).




EUSEBIUS, bishop of Rome for four months under the emperor Maxentius, in
309 or 310. The Christians in Rome, divided on the question of the
reconciliation of apostates, on which Eusebius held the milder view,
brought forward a competitor, Heraclius. Both competitors were expelled
by the emperor, Eusebius dying in exile in Sicily. He was buried in the
cemetery of St Calixtus at Rome; and the extant epitaph, in eight
hexameter lines, set up here by his successor Damasus, contains all the
information there is about his life.




EUSEBIUS [OF CAESAREA] (c. 260-c. 340), ecclesiastical historian, who
called himself Eusebius Pamphili, because of his devotion to his friend
and teacher Pamphilus, was born probably in Palestine between A.D. 260
and 265, and died as bishop of Caesarea in the year 339 or 340. We know
little of his youth beyond the fact that he became associated at an
early day with Pamphilus, presbyter of the Church of Caesarea, and
founder of a theological school there (see _Hist. Eccl._ vii. 32).
Pamphilus gathered about him a circle of earnest students who devoted
themselves especially to the study of the Bible and the transcription of
Biblical codices, and also to the defence and spread of the writings of
Origen, whom they regarded as their master. Pamphilus had a magnificent
library, which Eusebius made diligent use of, and a catalogue of which
he published in his lost _Life_ of Pamphilus (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 32). In
the course of the Diocletian persecution, which broke out in 303,
Pamphilus was imprisoned for two years, and finally suffered martyrdom.
During the time of his imprisonment (307-309) Eusebius distinguished
himself by assiduous devotion to his friend, and assisted him in the
preparation of an apology for Origen's teaching (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 33),
the first book of which survives in the Latin of Rufinus (printed in
Routh's _Reliquiae sacrae_, iv. 339 sq., and in Lommatzsch's edition of
Origen's Works, xxiv. p. 293 sq.). After the death of Pamphilus Eusebius
withdrew to Tyre, and later, while the Diocletian persecution was still
raging, went to Egypt, where he seems to have been imprisoned, but soon
released. He became bishop of Caesarea between 313 and 315, and remained
such until his death. The patriarchate of Antioch was offered him in
331, but declined (_Vita Constantini_, iii. 59 sq.).

Eusebius was a very important figure in the church of his day. He was
not a great theologian nor a profound thinker, but he was the most
learned man of his age, and stood high in favour with the emperor
Constantine. At the council of Nicaea in 325 he took a prominent part,
occupying a seat at the emperor's right hand, and being appointed to
deliver the panegyrical oration in his honour. He was the leader of the
large middle party of Moderates at the council, and submitted the first
draft of the creed which was afterwards adopted with important changes
and additions. In the beginning he was the most influential man present,
but was finally forced to yield to the Alexandrian party, and to vote
for a creed which completely repudiated the position of the Arians, with
whom he had himself been hitherto more in sympathy than with the
Alexandrians. He was placed in a difficult predicament by the action of
the council, and his letter to the Caesarean church explaining his
conduct is exceedingly interesting and instructive (see Socrates, _Hist.
Eccl._ i. 8, and cf. McGiffert's translation of Eusebius' _Church
History_, p. 15 sq.). To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look
briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an
Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three
stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first
preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be
expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and
his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his
works written during this period (for instance, the _Praeparatio
evangelica_ and _Demonstratio evangelica_), as in the works of Origen
himself and other ante-Nicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the
direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The
second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and
continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side
of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what
he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he
supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was
natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of
Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in
general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who
seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son.
And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the
teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to
Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second
council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi's _Concilia_, xiii. 316
sq.; English translation in McGiffert, _op. cit._ p. 70). Meanwhile at
the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians
were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so
far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius
himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood
Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic
belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition,
and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians
were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene
orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf., e.g., his _Contra Marcellum, De
ecclesiastica theologia_, and _Theophania_). But he never felt in
sympathy with the extreme views of the Athanasian party, for they seemed
to him to savour of Sabellianism, which always remained his chief dread
(cf. his two works against Marcellus of Ancyra). His personal friends,
moreover, were principally among the Arians, and he was more closely
identified with them than with the supporters of Athanasius. But he was
always a man of peace, and while commonly counted one of the opponents
of Athanasius, he did not take a place of leadership among them as his
position and standing would have justified him in doing, and Athanasius
never spoke of him with bitterness as he did of other prominent men in
the party. (For a fuller description of the development of Eusebius'
Christology and of his attitude throughout the Arian controversy, see
McGiffert, _op. cit._ p. 11 sq.)

Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his
labours covered almost every field of theological learning. If we look
in his works for brilliancy and originality we shall be disappointed. He
was not a creative genius like Origen or Augustine. His claim to
greatness rests upon his vast erudition and his sound judgment. Nearly
all his works possess genuine and solid merits which raise them above
the commonplace, and many of them still remain valuable. His exegesis is
superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetic is
marked by fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and an
instinctive appreciation of the difference between important and
unimportant points. His style, it is true, is involved and obscure,
often rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in large part to the
desultory character of his thinking. He did not always clearly define
his theme before beginning to write, and he failed to subject what he
produced to a careful revision. Ideas of all sorts poured in upon him
while he was writing, and he was not always able to resist the
temptation to insert them whether pertinent or not. His great learning
is evident everywhere, but he is often its slave rather than its master.
It is as an historian that he is best known, and to his _History of the
Christian Church_ he owes his fame and his familiar title "The Father of
Church History." This work, which was published in its final form in ten
books in 324 or early in 325, is the most important ecclesiastical
history produced in ancient times. The reasons leading to the great
undertaking, in which Eusebius had no predecessors, were in part
historical, in part apologetic. He believed that he was living at the
beginning of a new age, and he felt that it was a fitting time, when the
old order of things was passing away, to put on record for the benefit
of posterity the great events which had occurred during the generations
that were past. He thus wrote, as any historian might, for the
information and instruction of his readers, and yet he had all the time
an apologetic purpose, to exhibit to the world the history of
Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. His plan is
stated at the very beginning of the work:--

  "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy
  Apostles as well as of the times which have elapsed from the day of
  our Saviour to our own; to relate how many and important events are
  said to have occurred in the history of the church; and to mention
  those who have governed and presided over the church in the most
  prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed
  the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to
  give the names and number and times of those who through love of
  innovation have run into the greatest errors, and proclaiming
  themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so called, have like
  fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ. It is my
  intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came
  on the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our
  Saviour, and to record the ways and times in which the divine word has
  been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those
  who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and
  tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own
  day, and the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour has
  accorded them all."

The value of the work does not lie in its literary merit, but in the
wealth of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early
church. Many prominent figures of the first three centuries are known to
us only from its pages. Many fragments, priceless on account of the
light which they shed upon movements of far-reaching consequence, have
been preserved in it alone. Eusebius often fails to appreciate the
significance of the events which he records; in many cases he draws
unwarranted conclusions from the given premises; he sometimes
misinterprets his documents and misunderstands men and movements; but
usually he presents us with the material upon which to form our own
judgment, and if we differ with him we must at the same time thank him
for the data that enable us independently to reach other results. But
the work is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in a true sense, and
it has an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its quotations from
other works. Eusebius possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer
accessible to us. The number of books referred to as read is enormous.
He also had access to the archives of state, and gathered from them
information beyond the reach of most. But the value of his work is due,
not simply to the sources employed, but also to the use made of them.
Upon this matter there has been, it is true, some diversity of opinion
among modern scholars, but it is now generally admitted, and can be
abundantly shown, that he was not only diligent in gathering material,
but also far more thorough-going than most writers of antiquity in
discriminating between trustworthy and untrustworthy reports, frank in
acknowledging his ignorance, scrupulous in indicating his authorities in
doubtful cases, less credulous than most of his contemporaries, and
unfailingly honest. His principal faults are his carelessness and
inaccuracy in matters of chronology, his lack of artistic skill in the
presentation of his material, his desultory method of treatment, and his
failure to look below the surface and grasp the real significance and
vital connexion of events. He commonly regards an occurrence as
sufficiently accounted for when it is ascribed to the activity of God or
of Satan. But in spite of its defects the _Church History_ is a
monumental work, which need only be compared with its continuations by
Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Rufinus and others, to be appreciated at
its true worth.

  In addition to the _Church History_ we have from Eusebius' pen a
  _Chronicle_ in two books (c. 303; later continued down to 325), the
  first containing an epitome of universal history, the second
  chronological tables exhibiting in parallel columns the royal
  succession in different nations, and accompanied by notes marking the
  dates of historical events. A revised edition of the second book with
  a continuation down to his own day was published in Latin by St
  Jerome, and this, together with some fragments of the original Greek,
  was our only source for a knowledge of the Chronicle until the
  discovery of an Armenian version of the whole work, which was
  published by Aucher in 1818 (Latin translation in Schoene's edition),
  and of two Syriac versions published in Latin translation respectively
  in 1866 (by Roediger in Schoene's edition) and in 1884 (by Siegfried
  and Gelzer). Other historical works still extant are the _Martyrs of
  Palestine_ and the _Life of Constantine_. The former is an account of
  martyrdoms occurring in Palestine during the years 303 to 310, of most
  of which Eusebius himself was an eye-witness. The work exists in a
  longer and a shorter recension, the former in a Syriac version
  (published with English translation by Cureton, 1861), the latter in
  the original Greek attached to the _Church History_ in most MSS.
  (printed with the History in the various editions). _The Life of
  Constantine_, in four books, published after the death of the emperor,
  which occurred in 337, is a panegyric rather than a sober history, but
  contains much valuable material. Of Eusebius' apologetic works we
  still have the _Contra Hieroclem_, _Praeparatio evangelica_,
  _Demonstratio evangelica_, and _Theophania_. The first is a reply to a
  lost work against the Christians written by Hierocles, a Roman
  governor and contemporary of Eusebius. The second and third, taken
  together, are the most elaborate and important apologetic work of the
  early church. The former, in fifteen books, aims to show that the
  Christians are justified in accepting the sacred writings of the
  Hebrews, and in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks.
  The latter, in twenty books, of which only the first ten and fragments
  of the fifteenth are extant, endeavours to prove from the Hebrew
  Scriptures themselves that the Christians are right in going beyond
  the Jews and adopting new principles and practices. The former is thus
  a preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a
  defence of Christianity against all the world, heathen as well as
  Jews. In grandeur of conception, comprehensiveness of treatment, and
  breadth of learning, this apology surpasses all other similar works of
  antiquity. The _Praeparatio_ is also valuable because of its large
  number of quotations from classical literature, many of them
  otherwise unknown to us. The _Theophania_, though we have many
  fragments of the original Greek, is extant as a whole only in a Syriac
  version first published by Lee in 1842. Its subject is the
  manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word, and it aims to
  give with an apologetic purpose a brief exposition of the divine
  authority and influence of Christianity. Of Eusebius' dogmatic and
  polemic writings, we still have two works against his contemporary,
  Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, the one known as _Contra Marcellum_, the
  other as _De theologia ecclesiastica_. The former and briefer aims
  simply to expose the errors of Marcellus, whom Eusebius accuses of
  Sabellianism, the latter to refute them. We also have parts of a
  General Introduction ([Greek: He katholon stoicheiôdês eisagôgê]),
  which consisted of ten-books (the sixth to the ninth books and a few
  other fragments still extant), under the title of _Prophetical
  Extracts_ ([Greek: Prophêtikai eklogai]). Although this formed part of
  a larger work it was complete in itself and circulated separately. It
  contains prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the
  person and work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. Of
  Biblical and exegetical works we have a considerable part of Eusebius'
  Commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah, which are monuments of
  learning, industry and critical acumen, though marred by the use of
  the allegorical method characteristic of the school of Origen; also a
  work on the names of places mentioned in Scripture, or the
  _Onomasticon_, the only one extant of a number of writings on Old
  Testament topography; and an epitome and some fragments of a work in
  two parts on Gospel Questions and Solutions, the first part dealing
  with the genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke, the second
  with the apparent discrepancies between the various gospel accounts of
  the resurrection. Other important works which have perished wholly or
  in large part, and some orations and minor writings still extant, it
  is not necessary to refer to more particularly. (See Preuschen's list
  in Harnack's _Alt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte_, i. 2, p. 55 sq.
  Preuschen gives thirty-eight titles, besides orations and letters, but
  it is doubtful whether all of the Commentaries mentioned really
  existed.)

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The only edition of Eusebius' extant works which can
  lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne (_Patrologia
  graeca_, tom, xix.-xxiv.). The publication of a new critical edition
  was begun in 1902 in the Berlin Academy's _Greek Fathers_ (_Die
  griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
  Jahrhunderte_, Leipzig). Many of Eusebius' works have been published
  separately. Thus the _Church History_, first by Stephanus (Paris,
  1554); by Valesius with copious notes, together with the _Life of
  Constantine_, the _Oration in Praise of Constantine_, and the
  Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, &c. (best edition that of
  Reading (Cambridge, 1720), in three volumes, folio); by Heinichen
  (1827, second edition 1868-1870 in three volumes, a very useful
  edition, containing also the _Life of Constantine_ and the _Oration in
  Praise of Constantine_, with elaborate notes); by Burton (1838; a
  handy reprint in a single volume by Bright, 1881), and by many others.
  The most recent and best edition is that of Schwartz in the Berlin
  Academy's _Greek Fathers_, of which the first half has appeared,
  accompanied by the Latin version of Rufinus edited by Mommsen. The
  history was early put into Syriac (edited by Bedjan, Leipzig, 1897;
  also by Wright, McLean and Merx, London, 1898), Armenian (edited by
  Djarian, Venice, 1877), and Latin, and has been translated into many
  modern languages, the latest English version being that of McGiffert,
  in the _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, second series, volume i. (New
  York, 1890). Of the _Chronicle_, the best edition is by Schoene in two
  volumes (Berlin, 1866-1875). The _Life of Constantine_ and the
  _Oration in Praise of Constantine_ are published by Valesius,
  Heinichen and others in their editions of the _Church History_, also
  in the first volume of the Berlin Academy's edition (ed. by Heikel),
  and an English translation by Richardson in the volume containing
  McGiffert's translation of the _Church History_. Gaisford published
  the _Prophetical Extracts_ (Oxford, 1842), the _Praeparatio
  evangelica_ (1843), the _Demonstratio evangelica_ (1852), and the
  works against Hierocles and Marcellus (1852); and the works against
  Marcellus have appeared in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol.
  iv.). The _Onomasticon_ has been published frequently, among others by
  Lagarde (Göttingen, 1870; 2nd ed., 1887), and is contained in the
  edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iii.). The _Theophania_ was first
  published by Lee (Syriac version, 1842; English translation, 1843). A
  German translation of the Syriac version, with the extant fragments of
  the original Greek, is given in the edition of the Berlin Academy
  (vol. iii.).

  Acacius, the pupil of Eusebius and his successor in the see of
  Caesarea, wrote a life of him which is unfortunately lost. His own
  writings contain little biographical material, but we get information
  from Athanasius, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Jerome's
  _De vir. ill._, and Photius. Among the many modern accounts in church
  histories, histories of Christian literature, encyclopaedias, &c., may
  be mentioned a monograph by Stein, _Eusebius Bischof von Caesarea_
  (Würzburg, 1859), meagre but useful as far as it goes; the magnificent
  article by Lightfoot in the _Dictionary of Christian Biography_; the
  account by McGiffert in his translation of the _Church History_; Erwin
  Preuschen's article in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklop_. (3rd ed., 1898);
  the treatment of the Chronology of Eusebius writings in Harnack's
  _Alt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte_, ii. 2, p. 106 sq.; and
  Bardenhewer's _Patrologie_, p. 2260 f. The many special discussions
  of Eusebius' separate works, particularly of his _Church History_, and
  of his character as an historian, cannot be referred to here.
  Elaborate bibliographies will be found in McGiffert's translation, and
  in Preuschen's article in Herzog-Hauck.     (A. C. McG.)




EUSEBIUS [OF EMESA] (d. c. 360), a learned ecclesiastic of the Greek
church, was born at Edessa about the beginning of the 4th century. After
receiving his early education in his native town, he studied theology at
Caesarea and Antioch and philosophy and science at Alexandria. Among his
teachers were Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. The
reputation he acquired for learning and eloquence led to his being
offered the see of Alexandria in succession to the deposed Athanasius at
the beginning of 339, but he declined, and the council (of Antioch)
chose Gregory of Cappadocia, "a fitter agent for the rough work to be
done." Eusebius accepted the small bishopric of Emesa (the modern Horns)
in Phoenicia, but his powers as mathematician and astronomer led his
flock to accuse him of practising sorcery, and he had to flee to
Laodicea. A reconciliation was effected by the patriarch of Antioch, but
tradition says that Eusebius finally resigned his charge and lived a
studious life in Antioch. His fame as an astrologer commended him to the
notice of the emperor Constantius II., with whom he became a great
favourite, accompanying him on many of his expeditions. The theological
sympathies of Eusebius were with the semi-Arian party, but his interest
in the controversy was not strong. His life was written by his friend
George of Laodicea. He was a man of extraordinary learning, great
eloquence and considerable intellectual power, but of his numerous
writings only a few fragments are now in existence.

  See Migne, _Patrol. Graec._ vol. lxxxvi.




EUSEBIUS [OF MYNDUS], Greek philosopher, a distinguished Neoplatonist
and pupil of Aedesius who lived in the time of Julian, and who is
described by Eunapius as one of the "Golden Chain" of Neoplatonism. He
ventured to criticize the magical and theurgic side of the doctrine, and
exasperated the emperor, who preferred the mysticism of Maximus and
Chrysanthius. He devoted himself principally to logic. Stobaeus in the
_Sermones_ collected a number of ethical dicta of one Eusebius, who may
perhaps be identical with the Neoplatonist.

  The fragments have been collected by Mullach in his Fragmenta _Phil.
  Graec._, and by Orelli, in _Opuscula veter. graec. sentent. et moral_.




EUSEBIUS [OF NICOMEDIA] (d. 341?), Greek bishop and theologian, was the
defender of Arius in a still more avowed manner than his namesake of
Caesarea, and from him the Eusebian or middle party specially derived
its name, giving him in return the epithet of Great. He was a
contemporary of the bishop of Caesarea, and united with him in the
enjoyment of the friendship and favour of the imperial family. He is
said to have been connected by his mother with the emperor Julian, whose
early tutor he was. His first bishopric was Berytus (Beirut) in
Phoenicia, but his name is especially identified with the see of
Nicomedia, which, from the time of Diocletian till Constantine
established his court at Byzantium, was regarded as the capital of the
eastern part of the empire. He warmly espoused the cause of Arius in his
quarrel with his bishop Alexander, and wrote a letter in his defence to
Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, which is preserved in the _Church History_ of
Theodoret. Trained in the school of Lucian of Antioch, his views appear
to have been identical with those of Eusebius of Caesarea in placing
Christ above all created beings, the only begotten of the Father, but in
refusing to recognize him to be "of the same substance" with the Father,
who is alone in essence and absolute being.

At the council of Nicaea Eusebius of Nicomedia earnestly opposed, along
with his namesake of Caesarea, the insertion of the Homousian clause,
but after being defeated in his object he also signed the creed in his
own sense of [Greek: omoios kat ouoian]. He refused, however, to sign
the anathema directed against the Arians, not, as he afterwards
explained, because of his variance from the Athanasian theology, but
"because he doubted whether Arius really held what the anathema imputed
to him" (Sozom. ii. 15). After the council he continued vigorously to
espouse the Arian cause, and was so far carried away in his zeal against
the Athanasians that he was temporarily banished from his see as a
disturber of the peace of the church. But his alienation from the court
was of short duration. He retained the confidence of the emperor's
sister Constantia, through whose influence he was promoted to the see of
Nicomedia, and by her favour he was restored to his position, and
speedily acquired an equal ascendancy over the emperor. He was selected
to administer baptism to him in his last illness. There seems no doubt
that Eusebius of Nicomedia was more of a politician than a theologian.
He was certainly a partisan in the great controversy of his time, and is
even credited (although on insufficient evidence) with having used
unworthy means to procure the deposition of Eustathius, the "orthodox"
bishop of Antioch (Theodoret i. 21). His restless ambition and love of
power are not to be denied. To the last he defended Arius, and at the
time of the latter's sudden death, 336, it was chiefly through his
menace, as representing the emperor, that the church of Constantinople
was thrown into anxiety as to whether the leader should be readmitted to
the bosom of the church. The death of Constantine followed hard upon
that of Arius; and Eusebius, who was promoted in 339 to the see of
Constantinople, became the leader of the anti-Nicene party till his own
death in (probably) 341. The real activity of Eusebius and his party
must be studied in connexion with the Arian controversy (see ARIUS).




EUSKIRCHEN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on a
plateau lying to the E. of the Eifel range, at the junction of railways
from Cologne and Bonn and 10 m. W. of the latter. Pop. (1905) 10,285. It
has an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, and its industries
include cloth, sugar and stocking manufactures, besides breweries and
tanneries.




EUSTACE, the name of four counts of Boulogne.

EUSTACE I., a son of Count Baldwin II., held the county from 1046 until
his death in 1049.

His son, EUSTACE II. (d. 1093), count of Boulogne, was the husband of
Goda, daughter of the English king Æthelred the Unready, and aunt of
Edward the Confessor. Eustace paid a visit to England in 1051, and was
honourably received at the Confessor's court. A brawl in which he and
his servants became involved with the citizens of Dover led to a serious
quarrel between the king and Earl Godwine. The latter, to whose
jurisdiction the men of Dover were subject, refused to punish them. His
contumacy was made the excuse for the outlawry of himself and his
family. In 1066 Eustace came to England with Duke William, and fought at
the battle of Hastings. In the following year, probably because he was
dissatisfied with his share of the spoil, he assisted the Kentishmen in
an attempt to seize Dover Castle. The conspiracy failed, and Eustace was
sentenced to forfeit his English fiefs. Subsequently he was reconciled
to the Conqueror, who restored a portion of the confiscated lands.

Eustace died in 1093, and was succeeded by his son, EUSTACE III., who
went on crusade in 1096, and died about 1125. On his death the county of
Boulogne came to his daughter, Matilda, and her husband Stephen, count
of Blois, afterwards king of England, and in 1150 it was given to their
son, Eustace IV.

EUSTACE IV. (d. 1153) became the heir-apparent to his father's
possessions by the death of an elder brother before 1135. In 1137 he did
homage for Normandy to Louis VII. of France, whose sister, Constance, he
subsequently married. Eustace was knighted in 1147, at which date he was
probably from sixteen to eighteen years of age; and in 1151 he joined
Louis in an abortive raid upon Normandy, which had accepted the title of
the empress Matilda, and was now defended by her husband, Geoffrey of
Anjou. At a council held in London on the 6th of April 1152 Stephen
induced a small number of barons to do homage to Eustace as their future
king; but the primate, Theobald, and the other bishops declined to
perform the coronation ceremony on the ground that the Roman curia had
declared against the claim of Eustace. The death of Eustace, which
occurred during the next year, was hailed with general satisfaction as
opening the possibility of a peaceful settlement between Stephen and his
rival, the young Henry of Anjou. The _Peterborough Chronicle_, not
content with voicing this sentiment, gives Eustace a bad character. "He
was an evil man and did more harm than good wherever he went; he spoiled
the lands and laid thereon heavy taxes." He had used threats against the
recalcitrant bishops, and in the war against the Angevin party had
demanded contributions from religious houses; these facts perhaps
suffice to account for the verdict of the chronicler.

  See Sir James Ramsay, _Foundations of England_, vol. ii. (London,
  1898); J.M. Lappenberg, _History of England under the Norman Kings_
  (trans. B. Thorpe, Oxford, 1857); and E.A. Freeman, _History of the
  Norman Conquest_ (Oxford, 1867-1879).




EUSTATHIUS, of Antioch, sometimes styled "the Great" (fl. 325), was a
native of Side in Pamphylia. About 320 he was bishop of Beroea, and he
was patriarch of Antioch before the council of Nicaea in 325. In that
assembly he distinguished himself by his zeal against the Arians, though
the _Allocutio ad Imperatorem_ with which he has been credited is hardly
genuine. His anti-Arian polemic against Eusebius of Caesarea made him
unpopular among his fellow-bishops in the East, and a synod convened at
Antioch in 330 passed a sentence of deposition, which was confirmed by
the emperor. He was banished to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died,
probably about 337, though possibly not till 360.

  The only complete work by Eustathius now extant is the _De
  Engastrimytho contra Origenem_ (ed. by A. Jahn in _Texte und
  Untersuchungen_, ii. 4). Other fragments are enumerated by F. Loofs in
  Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopädie_.




EUSTATHIUS, or EUMATHIUS, surnamed Macrembolites ("living near the long
bazaar"), the last of the Greek romance writers, flourished in the
second half of the 12th century A.D. His title _Protonobilissimus_ shows
him to have been a person of distinction, and if he is also correctly
described in the MSS. as [Greek: megas chartophulax] (chief keeper of
the ecclesiastical archives), he must have been a Christian. He was the
author of _The Story of Hysmine and Hysminias_, in eleven books, a
tedious and inferior imitation of the _Cleitophon and Leucippe_ of
Achilles Tatius. There is nothing original in the plot, and the work is
tasteless and often coarse. Although the author borrowed from Homer and
other Attic poets, the chief source of his phraseology was the
rhetorician Choricius of Gaza. The style is remarkable for the absence
of hiatus and an extremely laboured use of antithesis. The digressions
on works of art, apparently the result of personal observation, are the
best part of the work. A collection of eleven _Riddles_, of which
solutions were written by the grammarian Manuel Holobolos, is also
attributed to Eustathius.

  The best edition of both romance and riddles is by I. Hilberg (1876,
  who fixes the date of Eustathius between 850 and 988), with critical
  apparatus and prolegomena, including the solutions; of the _Riddles_
  alone by M. Treu (1893). On Eustathius generally, see J.C. Dunlop,
  _History of Fiction_ (1888, new ed. in Bohn's _Standard Library_); E.
  Rohde, _Der griechische Roman_ (1900); K. Krumbacher, _Geschichte der
  byzantinischen Litteratur_ (1897). There are many translations in
  modern languages, of which that by P. le Bas (1825) may be
  recommended; there is an English version from the French by L.H. le
  Moine (London and Paris, 1788).




EUSTATHIUS, archbishop of Thessalonica, Byzantine scholar and author
(probably a native of Constantinople), flourished during the second half
of the 12th century. He was at first a monk, and afterwards deacon of St
Sophia and teacher of rhetoric in his native city. In 1174 he was chosen
bishop of Myra in Lycia, but in 1175 was transferred to Thessalonica. He
was outspoken and independent, and did not hesitate to oppose the
emperor Manuel, when the latter desired an alteration in the formula of
abjuration necessary for converts from Mahommedanism. In 1185, when
Thessalonica was captured by the Normans under William II. of Sicily,
Eustathius secured religious toleration for the conquered. He died about
1193. His best known work is his _Commentary on the Iliad and Odyssey of
Homer_ ([Greek: parekbolai], critical compilations), valuable as
containing numerous extracts from the scholia of other critics, whose
works have now perished. He also wrote a commentary on the geographical
epic of Dionysius Periegetes, in which much of Stephanus of Byzantium
and the lost writings of Arrian is preserved. A commentary on Pindar has
been lost, with the exception of the preface, which contains an essay on
lyric poetry, a life of Pindar, and an account of the Olympic games. A
history of the conquest of Thessalonica by the Normans, a congratulatory
address to the emperor Manuel, a plea for an improved water-supply for
Constantinople, and an extensive correspondence with clerical and lay
dignitaries, are evidence of his versatility. He is also the author of
various religious works, chiefly directed against the prevailing abuses
of his time, which almost anticipate, though in a milder form, the
denunciations of Luther; the most important of these is _The Reform of
Monastic Life_. A commentary on the pentecostal hymn of John of Damascus
may also be mentioned.

  Editions: Homer Commentary, by G. Stallbaum (1825-1830); preface to
  Pindar Commentary, by F.W. Schneidewin (1837); Dionysius Commentary in
  C.W. Müller, _Geographici Graeci minores_, ii.; pentecostal hymn, in
  A. Mai. _Spicilegium Romanum_, v. 2 (1841). The smaller works have
  been edited (1832) and the _De Thessalonica_ (1839) by L.F. Tafel;
  many will be found in J.P. Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, cxxxv., cxxxvi.
  Five new speeches have been edited by W. Regel, _Fontes rerum
  Byzantinarum_, i. (1892).




EUSTYLE (from Gr. [Greek: eu,] well, and [Greek: stulos], column), the
architectural term for the intercolumniation defined by Vitruvius (iii.
3) as being of the best proportion, i.e. two and a half diameters (see
INTERCOLUMNIATION).




EUTAWVILLE, a town of Berkeley county, South Carolina, U.S.A., about 55
m. N.N.W. of Charleston. Pop. (1900) 305; (1910) 405. It is served by
the Atlantic Coast Line railway. The town lies on high ground near the
Santee river, in a region abounding in swamps, limestone cliffs and pine
forests. At present its chief interest is in lumber, but in colonial
days it was a settlement of aristocratic rice planters. The neighbouring
Eutaw Springs issue first from the foot of a hill and form a large
stream of clear, cool water, but this, only a few yards away, again
rushes underground to reappear about 1/8 m. farther on. At Eutaw
Springs, on the 8th of September 1781, was fought the last battle in the
field in the Southern States during the War of American Independence.
About 2300 Americans under General Nathanael Greene here attacked a
slightly inferior force under Colonel Alexander Stewart; at first the
Americans drove the British before them, but later in the day the latter
took a position in a brick house and behind palisades, and from this
position the Americans were unable to drive them. On the night of the
9th, however, Colonel Stewart retreated toward Charleston, abandoning
1000 stand of arms. The battle has been classed as a tactical victory
for the British and a strategical victory for the Americans, terminating
a campaign which left General Greene in virtual possession of the
Carolinas, the British thereafter confining themselves to Charleston.
The Americans lost in killed and wounded 408 men (including Colonel
William Washington, wounded and captured); the British, 693.




EUTHYDEMUS, a native of Magnesia, who overturned the dynasty of Diodotus
of Bactria, and became king of Bactria about 230 B.C. (Polyb. xi. 34;
Strabo xi. 515 wrongly makes him the first king). In 208 he was attacked
by Antiochus the Great, whom he tried in vain to resist on the shores of
the river Arius, the modern Herirud (Polyb. x. 49). The war lasted three
years, and was on the whole fortunate for Antiochus. But he saw that he
was not able to subdue Bactria and Sogdiana, and so in 206 concluded a
peace with Euthydemus, through the mediation of his son Demetrius, in
which he recognized him as king (Polyb. xi. 34). Soon afterwards
Demetrius (q.v.) began the conquest of India. There exist many coins of
Euthydemus; those on which he is called god are struck by the later king
Agathocles. Other coins with the name Euthydemus, which show a youthful
face, are presumably those of Euthydemus II., who cannot have ruled long
and was probably a son of Demetrius.     (Ed. M.)




EUTIN, a town of Germany, capital of the principality oi Lübeck, which
is an enclave in the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein and belongs
to the grand-duchy of Oldenburg, picturesquely situated on the Lake
Eutin, 20 m. N. from Lübeck by the railway to Kiel. Pop. (1905) 5204. It
possesses a Roman Catholic and two Protestant churches, a palace with a
fine park, and a monument to Weber, the composer, who was born here.
Towards the end of the 18th century Eutin acquired some fame as the
residence of a group of poets and writers, of whom the best-known were
Johann Heinrich Voss, the brothers Stolberg, and Friedrich Heinrich
Jacobi. In the neighbourhood is a beautiful tract of country, rich in
beech forests and fjords, known as "the Holstein Switzerland," largely
frequented in summer by the Hamburgers.

Eutin was, according to tradition, founded by Count Adolf II. of
Holstein. In 1155 it fell to the bishopric of Lübeck and was often the
residence of the prelates of that see. After some vicissitudes of
fortune during the middle ages and the Thirty Years' War, it came into
the possession of the house of Holstein, and hence to Prussia in 1866.




EUTROPIUS, Roman historian, flourished in the latter half of the 4th
century A.D. He held the office of secretary (_magister memoriae_) at
Constantinople, accompanied Julian on his expedition against the
Persians (363), and was alive during the reign of Valens (364-378), to
whom he dedicates his history. This work (_Breviarium historiae
Romanae_) is a complete compendium, in ten books, of Roman history from
the foundation of the city to the accession of Valens. It was compiled
with considerable care from the best accessible authorities, and is
written generally with impartiality, and in a clear and simple style.
Although the Latin in some instances differs from that of the purest
models, the work was for a long time a favourite elementary school-book.
Its independent value is small, but it sometimes fills a gap left by the
more authoritative records. The _Breviarium_ was enlarged and continued
down to the time of Justinian by Paulus Diaconus (q.v.); the work of the
latter was in turn enlarged by Landolfus Sagax (c. 1000), and taken down
to the time of the emperor Leo the Armenian (813-820) in the _Historia
Miscella_.

  Of the Greek translations by Capito Lycius and Paeanius, the version
  of the latter is extant in an almost complete state. The best edition
  of Eutropius is by H. Droysen (1879), containing the Greek version and
  the enlarged editions of Paulus Diaconus and Landolfus; smaller
  critical editions, C. Wagener (1884), F. Rühl (1887). J. Sorn's _Der
  Sprachgebrauch des Historikers Eutropius_ (1892) contains a systematic
  account of the grammar and style of the author. There are numerous
  English school editions and translations.




EUTYCHES (c. 380-c. 456), a presbyter and archimandrite at
Constantinople, first came into notice in A.D. 431 at the council of
Ephesus, where, as a zealous adherent of Cyril (q.v.) of Alexandria, he
vehemently opposed the doctrine of the Nestorians (q.v.). They were
accused of teaching that the divine nature was not incarnated in but
only attendant on Jesus, being superadded to his human nature after the
latter was completely formed. In opposition to this Eutyches went so far
as to affirm that after the union of the two natures, the human and the
divine, Christ had only _one nature_, that of the incarnate Word, and
that therefore His human body was essentially different from other human
bodies. In this he went beyond Cyril and the Alexandrine school
generally, who, although they expressed the unity of the two natures in
Christ so as almost to nullify their duality, yet took care verbally to
guard themselves against the accusation of in any way circumscribing or
modifying his real and true humanity. It would seem, however, that
Eutyches differed from the Alexandrine school chiefly from inability to
express his meaning with proper safeguards, for equally with them he
denied that Christ's human nature was either transmuted or absorbed into
his divine nature. The energy and imprudence of Eutyches in asserting
his opinions led to his being accused of heresy by Domnus of Antioch and
Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, at a synod presided over by Flavian at
Constantinople in 448. As his explanations were not considered
satisfactory, the council deposed him from his priestly office and
excommunicated him; but in 449, at a council held in Ephesus convened by
Dioscurus of Alexandria and overawed by the presence of a large number
of Egyptian monks, not only was Eutyches reinstated in his office, but
Eusebius, Domnus and Flavian, his chief opponents, were deposed, and the
Alexandrine doctrine of the "one nature" received the sanction of the
church. This judgment is the more interesting as being in distinct
conflict with the opinion of the bishop of Rome--Leo--who, departing
from the policy of his predecessor Celestine, had written very strongly
to Flavian in support of the doctrine of the two natures and one person.
Meanwhile the emperor Theodosius died, and Pulcheria and Marcian who
succeeded summoned, in October 451, a council (the fourth ecumenical)
which met at Chalcedon (q.v.). There the synod of Ephesus was declared
to have been a "robber synod," its proceedings were annulled, and, in
accordance with the rule of Leo as opposed to the doctrines of Eutyches,
it was declared that the two natures were united in Christ, but without
any alteration, absorption or confusion. Eutyches died in exile, but of
his later life nothing is known. After his death his doctrines obtained
the support of the Empress Eudocia and made considerable progress in
Syria. In the 6th century they received a new impulse from a monk of the
name of Jacob, who united the various divisions into which the
Eutychians, or Monophysites (q.v.), had separated into one church, which
exists at the present time under the name of the Jacobite Church, and
has numerous adherents in Armenia, Egypt and Ethiopia.

  See R.L. Ottley, _The Doctrine of the Incarnation_, ii. 97 ff.; A.
  Harnack, _History of Dogma_, iv. _passim_; F. Loofs,
  _Dogmengeschichte_ (4th ed., 1906), 297 f., and the art. in
  Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyk. für prot. Theol._, with a full bibliography.




EUTYCHIANUS, pope from 275 to 283. His original epitaph was discovered
in the catacombs (see Kraus, _Roma sotterranea_, p. 154 et seq.), but
nothing more is known of him.




EUTYCHIDES, of Sicyon in Achaea, Greek sculptor of the latter part of
the 4th century B.C., was a pupil of Lysippus. His most noted work was a
statue of Fortune, which he made for the city of Antioch, then newly
founded. The goddess, who embodied the idea of the city, was seated on a
rock, crowned with towers, and having the river Orontes at her feet.
There is a small copy of the statue in the Vatican (see GREEK ART). It
was imitated by a number of Asiatic cities; and indeed most statues of
cities since erected borrow something from the work of Eutychides.




EUYUK, or EYUK (the _eu_ pronounced as in French), a small village in
Asia Minor, in the Angora vilayet, 12 m. N.N.E. of Boghaz Keui
(_Pteria_), built on a mound which contains some remarkable ruins of a
large building--a palace or sanctuary--anterior to the Greek period and
belonging to the same civilization as the ruins and rock-reliefs at
Pteria. These ruins consist of a gateway and an approach enclosed by two
lateral walls, 15 ft. long, from the outer end of which two walls return
outwards at right angles, one to right and one to left. The gateway is
flanked by two huge blocks, each carved in front into the shape of a
sphinx, while on the inner face is a relief of a two-headed eagle with
wings displayed. Of the approach and its returning walls only the lower
courses remain: they consist of large blocks adorned with a series of
bas-reliefs similar in type to those carved on the rocks of Boghaz Keui.
Behind the gateway is another vestibule leading to another portal which
gives entrance to the building, the lateral walls and abutments of the
portal being also decorated with reliefs much worn. These reliefs belong
to that pre-Greek oriental art generally called Hittite, of which there
are numerous remains in the eastern half of the peninsula. It is now
generally agreed that the scenes represented are religious processions.
On the left returning wall is a train of priestly attendants headed by
the chief priest and priestess (the latter carrying a _lituus_), clad in
the dress of the deities they serve and facing an altar, behind which is
an image of a bull on a pedestal (representing the god); then comes an
attendant leading a goat and three rams for sacrifice, followed by more
priests with _litui_ or musical instruments, after whom comes a bull
bearing on his back the sacred _cista_ (?). On the lateral walls of the
approach we have a similar procession of attendants headed by the chief
priestess and priest, who pours a libation at the feet of the goddess
seated on her throne; while on the right returning wall are fragments of
a third procession approaching another draped figure of the goddess on
her throne (placed at the angle opposite the bull on the pedestal), the
train being again brought up by a bull.

These are all scenes in the ritual of the indigenous naturalistic
religion which was spread, in slightly varying forms, all over Asia
Minor, and consisted in the worship of the self-reproductive powers of
nature, personified in the great mother-goddess (called by various names
Cybele, Leto, Artemis, &c.) and the god her husband-and-son (Attis, Men,
Sabazios, &c), representing the two elements of the ultimate divine
nature (see GREAT MOTHER OF THE GODS). Here, as in the oriental
mysteries generally, the goddess is made more prominent. Where Greek
influence affects the native religion, emphasis tends to be laid on the
god, but the character of the religion remains everywhere ultimately the
same (see Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, ch. iii.).

  AUTHORITIES.--Perrot, _Explor. de la Galatie_ (1862) and _Hist. de
  l'art_ (Eng. trans., 1890); Humann and Puchstein, _Reisen in
  Kleinasien u. Nordsyrien_ (1890); Hogarth in Murray's _Handbook to
  Asia Minor_ (1895); Chantre, _Mission en Cappadoce_ (1898). See also
  HITTITES.     (J. G. C. A.)




EVAGORAS, son of Nicocles, king of Salamis in Cyprus 410-374 B.C. He
claimed descent from Teucer, half-brother of Ajax, son of Telamon, and
his family had long been rulers of Salamis until supplanted by a
Phoenician exile. When the usurper was in turn driven out by a Cyprian
noble, Evagoras, fearing that his life was in danger, fled to Cilicia.
Thence he returned secretly in 410, and with the aid of a small band of
adherents regained possession of the throne. According to Isocrates,
whose panegyric must however be read with caution, Evagoras was a model
ruler, whose aim was to promote the welfare of his state and of his
subjects by the cultivation of Greek refinement and civilization, which
had been almost obliterated in Salamis by a long period of barbarian
rule. He cultivated the friendship of the Athenians, and after the
defeat of Conon at Aegospotami he afforded him refuge and hospitality.
For a time he also maintained friendly relations with Persia, and
secured the aid of Artaxerxes II. for Athens against Sparta. He took
part in the battle of Cnidus (394), in which the Spartan fleet was
defeated, and for this service his statue was placed by the Athenians
side by side with that of Conon in the Ceramicus. But the energy and
enterprise of Evagoras soon roused the jealousy of the Great King, and
relations between them became strained. From 391 they were virtually at
war. Aided by the Athenians and the Egyptian Hakor (Acoris), Evagoras
extended his rule over the greater part of Cyprus, crossed over to Asia
Minor, took several cities in Phoenicia, and persuaded the Cilicians to
revolt. After the peace of Antalcidas (387), to which he refused to
agree, the Athenians withdrew their support, since by its terms they
recognized the lordship of Persia over Cyprus. For ten years Evagoras
carried on hostilities single-handed, except for occasional aid from
Egypt. At last he was totally defeated at Citium, and compelled to flee
to Salamis. Here, although closely blockaded, he managed to hold his
ground, and took advantage of a quarrel between the Persian generals to
conclude peace (376). Evagoras was allowed to remain nominally king of
Salamis, but in reality a vassal of Persia, to which he was to pay a
yearly tribute. The chronology of the last part of his reign is
uncertain. In 374 he was assassinated by a eunuch from motives of
private revenge.

  The chief authority for the life of Evagoras is the panegyric of
  Isocrates addressed to his son Nicocles; see also Diod. Sic. xiv. 115,
  xv. 2-9; Xenophon, _Hellenica_, iv. 8; W. Judeich, _Kleinasiatische
  Studien_ (Marburg, 1892), and art. HELLENISM.




EVAGRIUS (c. 536-600), surnamed SCHOLASTICUS, Church historian, was born
at Epiphania in Coele-Syria. His surname shows him to have been an
advocate, and it is supposed that he practised at Antioch. He was the
legal adviser of Gregory, patriarch of that city, whom he successfully
defended at Constantinople against certain serious charges. Through this
connexion he was brought under the notice of the emperor Tiberius
Constantine, who honoured him with the rank of quaestorian; Maurice
Tiberius made him master of the rolls. His influence and reputation were
so considerable that on the occasion of his second marriage a public
festival was celebrated in his honour, which was interrupted by a
terrible earthquake. Evagrius's name has been preserved by his
_Ecclesiastical History_ in six books, extending over the period from
the third general council (that of Ephesus, 431) to the year 593. It
thus continues the work of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret.
Though not wholly trustworthy, and often very credulous, this work is on
the whole impartial, and appears to have been compiled from original
documents, from which many valuable excerpts are given. It is
particularly helpful to the student of the history of dogma during the
5th and 6th centuries, while the political history of the time is by no
means neglected. Evagrius made use of the writings of Eustathius, John
of Epiphania, John Malalas, Procopius, and (possibly) Menander
Protector.

  The best edition of the History is that of L. Parmentier and J. Bidez
  (London, 1898), which contains the Scholia; it is also included in
  Migne's _Patrologia Graeca_, lxxxvi. There is an English translation
  in Bohn's _Ecclesiastical Library_. See Krumbacher, _Geschichte der
  byzantinischen Litteratur_ (1897); F.C. Baur, _Die Epochen der
  kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung_ (1852); L. Jeep,
  _Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern_ (1884).




EVANDER (Gr. [Greek: Euandros], "good man"), in Roman legend, son of
Mercury and Carmenta, or of Echemus, king of Arcadia. According to the
story, Evander left the Arcadian town of Pallantion about sixty years
before the Trojan War and founded Pallanteum or Palatium on the hill
afterwards called the Palatine. This is only one of the many Greek
legends adopted by the Romans for the purpose of connecting places in
Italy with others of like-sounding name in Greece. To Evander was
attributed the introduction of Greek rites and customs into his new
country; of writing, music and other arts; of the worship of Pan (called
Faunus by the Italians) and the festival of Lupercalia. In Virgil he
receives Aeneas hospitably, and assists him against Turnus. Probably
Evander was identical with the god Faunus (the "favourer"), and the tale
of his Arcadian origin was due to the desire to establish connexion with
Greece; the name of his reputed mother (or wife) Carmenta is genuinely
Italian.

  See Livy i. 6. 7; Ovid, _Fasti_, i. 471, v. 99; Dion. Halic. i. 31-33;
  Virgil, _Aeneid_, viii. 335.




EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE, an association of individual Christians of
different denominations formed in London in August 1846, at a conference
of over 900 clergymen and laymen from all parts of the world, and
representing upwards of fifty sections of the Protestant church. The
idea originated in Scotland in the preceding year, and was intended "to
associate and concentrate the strength of an enlightened Protestantism
against the encroachments of popery and Puseyism, and to promote the
interests of a scriptural Christianity," as well as to combat religious
indifference. A preliminary meeting was held at Liverpool in October
1845. The movement obtained wide support in other countries, more
especially in America, and organizations in connexion with it now exist
in the different capitals throughout the world. The object of the
alliance, according to a resolution of the first conference, is "to
enable Christians to realize in themselves and to exhibit to others that
a living and everlasting union binds all true believers together in the
fellowship of the church." At the same conference the following nine
points were adopted as the basis of the alliance: "Evangelical views in
regard to the divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the Holy
Scriptures; the right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation
of the Holy Scriptures; the unity of the Godhead and the Trinity of
persons therein; the utter depravity of human nature in consequence of
the fall; the incarnation of the Son of God, His work of atonement for
sinners of mankind, and His mediatorial intercession and reign; the
justification of the sinner by faith alone; the work of the Holy Spirit
in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner; the immortality of
the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by our
Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the
eternal punishment of the wicked; the divine institution of the
Christian ministry, and the obligations and perpetuity of the ordinances
of Baptism and the Lord's Supper," it being understood, however, (1)
that such a summary "is not to be regarded in any formal or
ecclesiastical sense as a creed or confession," and (2) that "the
selection of certain tenets, with the omission of others, is not to be
held as implying that the former constitute the whole body of important
truth, or that the latter are unimportant."

Annual conferences of branches of the alliance are held in England,
America and several continental countries; and it is provided that a
general conference, including representatives of the whole alliance, be
held every seventh year, or oftener if it be deemed necessary. Such
conferences have been held in London in 1851; Paris, 1855; Berlin, 1857;
Geneva, 1861; Amsterdam, 1867; New York, 1873; Basel, 1879; Copenhagen,
1885; Florence, 1891; London, 1896 and 1907. They are occupied with the
discussion of the "best methods of counteracting infidelity, Romanism
and ritualism, and the desecration of the Lord's Day," and of furthering
the positive objects of the alliance. The latter are sometimes stated as
follows: (a) "The world girdled by prayer"; a world-wide week of prayer
is held annually, beginning on the first Sunday in the year, (b) "The
maintenance of religious liberty throughout the world." (c) "The relief
of persecuted Christians in all parts"; the alliance has agents in many
countries to help the persecuted by distributing relief, &c., and in
Russia there is a travelling agent who endeavours to help the Stundists.
(d) "The manifestation of the unity of all believers and the upholding
of the evangelical faith."

  The following publications may be mentioned:--_The Evangelical
  Alliance Monthly Intelligencer_, _The Evangelical Alliance Quarterly_,
  both published in London; A.J. Arnold, _History of the Evangelical
  Alliance_ (London, 1897); and the reports of the proceedings of the
  different conferences.





EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION of North America, a religious denomination,
founded about the beginning of the 19th century by Jacob Albright
(1759-1808), a German Lutheran of Pennsylvania. About 1790 he began an
itinerant mission among his fellow-countrymen, chiefly in Pennsylvania;
and meeting with considerable success, he was, at an assembly composed
of adherents from the different places he had visited, elected in 1800
presiding elder or chief pastor, and shortly afterwards rules of
government were adopted somewhat similar to those of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. The theological standards of the two bodies are also
in close agreement. In 1807 Albright was appointed bishop of the
community, which adopted its present name in 1818. In 1816 the first
annual conference was held, and in 1843 there was instituted a general
conference, composed of delegates chosen by the annual conferences and
constituting the highest legislative and judicial authority in the
church. The members of the general conference hold office for four
years. In 1891 a long internal controversy resulted in a division. A
law-suit awarded the property to the branch making its headquarters at
Indianapolis, whereon the other party, numbering 40,000, that met at
Philadelphia, constituted themselves the United Evangelical Church. The
Association in 1906 had about 105,000 members, besides some 10,000 in
Germany and Switzerland, and has nearly 2000 churches and 1200 itinerant
and other preachers. There are four bishops. It distributes much
evangelical literature, and supports a mission in Japan.